Since Lewisham Council’s Director of Planning, Emma Talbot refused the application for the Bell Green Neighbourhood Area on 24th August 2022, this has sparked a debate about the ward boundaries and their construction. Interestingly, Lewisham Council has been re-warded by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England as recently as November 2020 and these new boundaries were used in the local council elections held in May 2022. These changes reduced the number of Bellingham Councillors from 3 elected members to 2 elected members and reduced the size of the ward to reflect this change. Consequentially, there was an increase to the size of neighbouring Rushey Green ward to include a small part of Catford Hill. Also, there was the necessity to place a small number of roads into Perry Vale ward. These changes have caused much of the disputed boundary issues.
Lewisham Council’s website did not contain the detailed ward maps with polling stations however, they supplied these maps reproduced below to help with a common understanding of the ‘new’ ward boundaries that were used in the last local elections held on 5th May 2022.
Bellingham Ward
Bellingham Ward is a two councillor area since 2022 and reduced in size
Perry Vale Ward
Perry Vale ward remains a three councillor area but increased in size extending to the Pool River
Rushey Green Ward
Rushey Green Ward remains a three councillor area with a consequential addition of Catford Hill
Bell Green as a local area over the years has been moved into and out of administrative electoral boundaries
After Royal Mail announced that it could cut as many as 10,000 jobs by next August, blaming current strike action among staff and increasing losses across the business a petition has been circulating on social media calling on Simon Thompson to be removed from the role of Chief Executive Officer at the company.
The gloomy announcement says that Royal Mail says it expects to post a £350m loss for the full-year, though the company warned this could reach as much as £450m.
Over 22,000 people have put their name to the petition saying:
“Simon Thompson has a history of damaging businesses and the workforce for his own gratification. He was also managing director of Track and Trace which failed. According to the business Royal Mail have allegedly suffered losses as a result of the recent industrial action. They are now threatening job losses as a result! Remove the annual bonuses and get rid of the source problem instead of penalising the frontline workers who keep the business going. Simon Thompson is a self indulgent man and has no empathy or apathy for the workers.”
The General Secretary of the Communication Workers Union, Dave Ward hit back saying:
PLEASE RT this thread.
Today Royal Mail Group have called together every postal worker in the UK and announced they want to make 10,000 redundancies.
This is nothing but an intimidation tactic aimed at crushing the spirit of our members #StandByYourPost
“The announcement is the result of gross mismanagement and a failed business agenda of ending daily deliveries, a wholesale levelling-down of the terms, pay and conditions of postal workers, and turning Royal Mail into a gig economy style courier. What the company should be doing is abandoning its asset-stripping strategy and building the future based on utilising the competitive edge it already has in its deliveries to 32 million addresses across the country.”
He added:
“This announcement is holding postal workers to ransom for taking legal industrial action against a business approach that is not in the interests of workers, customers or the future of Royal Mail. This is no way to build a company.”
However, the Royal Mail trading statement contained some good news for shareholders by revealing: “Notwithstanding challenging trading conditions across its markets, the performance of GLS remains on track to meet full year expectations of an adjusted operating profit between €370 – €410 million.”
A letter from the London Wildlife Trust’s Director of Conservation, Mathew Frith has revealed concerns about the controversial Mais House planning application on Sydenham Hill.
The expert biodiversity and environment charity says that there was no evidence to support the statement of ‘no residual effects’ to the ancient woodland on Sydenham Hill ‘nor are the measures sufficient to safeguard Dulwich & Sydenham Hill Woods’ in the plans.
The letter specifically states that the London Wildlife Trust requests that a detailed lighting strategy is undertaken as soon as possible so that the impact of the proposed development on the woodland and its wildlife – especially bats, protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) – bats are known to roost in the area. Other protected species like stag beetles are known to this site.
Questions of the exact height have been raised and the London Wildlife Trust makes the point: “If the wooded skyline of the Sydenham Ridge is to be preserved, as set out in Lewisham’s development framework, then the height of the building requires further reduction so that it no longer forms a visual marker competing with the wooded skyline. It seems paradoxical that the Heritage Statement boasts that it will ignore Lewisham policy in respect of the Sydenham Ridge.”
The Friends of Mais House, who launched two Judicial Reviews into the planning process, said that they had not been aware of the existence of this letter from the London Wildlife Trust which expressed “serious concerns about the applications” at the time of the controversial planning decisions.
They said: “Although the London Wildlife Trust had recorded on Lewisham’s online comments system that they had emailed Lewisham Planning a letter of objection, that email was not read by Lewisham Council’s Planning and therefore not taken into account or its existence made known to the Planning Committees.”
Lewisham Council has 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.
yes, here in Forest Hill we are grateful for a temporary reprieve. London City has had 4 years so far to voluntarily review its concentrated flight path low over SE London homes. They say they are committed to change. We are waiting. #FHSoc#SE23https://t.co/k87shSKeOBpic.twitter.com/n0ylulqoUh
London City Airport is owned by a consortium, made up of AIMCo, OMERS, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan and Wren House Infrastructure Management and is one of the largest private sector employment sites in Newham.
The letter drafted by local experts including Tim Walker of the Forest Hill Society, says: “The London Borough of Lewisham considers that there is no justification for ending the 24 hour ban. The welfare of Lewisham residents remains our paramount concern and they should expect to be able to have a necessary break from noise, and air pollution during their weekends especially during the busy summer leisure flight periods when they will need to go outside.”
In a detailed briefing, Tim Walker explains that there is no evidence to date that new generation planes are noticeably quieter over SE London than the models they replace.
He says: “London City Airport has provided no evidence that new generation aircraft are noticeably quieter as they fly a near-level concentrated path over the same homes every time some 2000 feet over SE London from some 32km/20 miles from landing. Doubling the number of flights simply doubles the disturbance. These new planes only help reduce noise noticeably for communities close to the airport runway, inside a very small geographical area – the ‘noise contour’ area – where London City measures and reports on its noise impact.”
The full text of the letter and the expert briefing can be read below.
The publication followed a formal public and a supplementary question at one of Lewisham Council’s shortest ever full council meetings on 28th September, this can be viewed here at 17.59
Formal Council Question on aircraft noise over Lewisham
Lowick Group, the public relations firm for the controversial Plassy Road development in Catford have released details of further plans for the site on the south circular road in London. They have dubbed the site ‘Catford Island’ in their leaflet. They say that the area has been identified by both Lewisham Council and the GLA as appropriate for tall buildings proposing an increase in the height of the tallest building from twenty to twenty three floors to create a ‘memorable’ skyline.
Local residents have been invited to an exhibition and event on Saturday September 24th at the Corbett Community Library Torridon Rd, London SE6 1RQ from 10AM-2PM.
Lewisham Council’s Catford Town Centre Framework states that schemes will need to demonstrate how building height, massing, form and detailed design of proposals has mitigated development impacts. The maximum height in the document is twenty storeys.
Lewisham Homes – Lewisham Council’s Arms Length Management Organisation – faces the axe as consultations were agreed at a Mayor and Cabinet meeting held on Wednesday, 6th July 2022.
At that meeting Councillors made the case for bringing Lewisham Homes back in house as there is a break clause in the Management Agreement between the Council and the ALMO imminently. The ALMO is wholly owned by Lewisham Council and manages 20,000 homes.
Former cabinet member for customer service and current Lewisham Homes Board member, Cllr Susan Wise explained the long history of fragmentation of Lewisham Council’s housing stock. She explained how council homes were transferred to a PFI in Brockley and thousands of council owned homes were transferred to L&Q Housing Trust in Forest Hill, Rushey Green and Sydenham.
Cllr Susan Wise said: “I am one of the very few members and officers in this council that can recall how poor this Council’s housing management was. Because Lewisham [Council] knew its housing management was so poor, in 1998 the Council set up the Lewisham Housing Commission to look at options for the future of housing in our borough. This independent commission presented a number of recommendations….”
This prompted a Freedom of Information request for the release of the Lewisham Housing Commission’s report and appendices. The LHC was chaired by Labour peer, Lord Filkin with professionals and representatives of policy areas outside housing.
Interestingly, in a Guradian article, 9th November 2000, Jean Kysow, chair of the Federation of Lewisham Tenants’ and Residents’ Associations (Feltra) said: “We had to argue and fight before the commission would take evidence from us and from the private tenants. There were no tenants on the panel, except for one from the citizens’ panel. The housing commission has not come up with any new thinking – except that the council should talk with its tenants.”
In a statement, Lewisham Council says: “Following the Grenfell fire tragedy, new regulations will also come into force later this year, which will give landlords extra responsibilities which must be carried out by the Council.”
If the Grenfell fire and best practice in housing management has taught us anything, it is that tenants and leaseholders must have a real voice in decisions that affect them and their homes.
The full report of the Lewisham Housing Commission can be read below:
Lewisham Council’s Director of Planning, Emma Talbot has refused the application for the Bell Green Neighbourhood Area after a statutory consultation on the creation of a local Bell Green planning neighbourhood held between 26th May and 7th July 2022.
— Bell Green Neighbourhood Forum (@BGNF_Lewisham) June 21, 2022
Consultation in the local area
A Neighbourhood Forum is an organisation or group empowered by the local authority to lead the neighbourhood planning process in a neighbourhood area. The Bell Green Neighbourhood Forum submitted its application to Lewisham Council in a document on the 7th April 2022.
The BGNF submitted a map defining the neighbourhood area that they cover. This is an area defined by the forum that they wish to create a neighbourhood development plan for. The process for establishing a local neighbourhood forum are set out in legislation. At the time, the Government said thatthe Localism Act 2011 introduced new powers for people to make neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood planning orders, with reduced interference from central government. These new powers are in addition to existing opportunities for community involvement, which are already part of the planning system.
The members of the Bell Green Neighbourhood Forum have been told that Lewisham Council has rejected their proposals following the statutory consultation and that the Director of Planning has drafted a new reduced forum boundary.
This has shocked and surprised local volunteers and they have asked local residents and organisations to write to Lewisham Council to express concerns. They say that the larger area has been extensively consulted upon for the past few years, and this has been supported widely. They maintain that the Council’s actions are unlawful and referred the matter to the Council’s Monitoring Officer, Jeremy Chambers who has a legal duty to ensure that Lewisham Council obeys the law.
The two Bell Green Neighbourhood planning boundaries are shown
Lewisham Council’s website says: “Neighbourhood planning is a method of planning led by the local community rather than by us or the Government.”
Full text of a letter send by former Bellingham Councillor Alan Hall:
Monitoring Officer Lewisham Council
Dear Jeremy Chambers,
I am writing to request that you intervene following Lewisham Council’s totally unexpected rejection of the Bell Green Neighbourhood Area. I have attached a map of the two areas. The larger area has been extensively consulted upon for the past few years, and this has been supported in the recent formal public consultation, which closed on the 7th July. The second is a counter proposal from Lewisham Council.
Like many other residents, local workers and businesses, I participated in the formal process, and was looking forward to getting involved in the neighbourhood’s future development.
The Bell Green Neighbourhood Forum has been advised by expert opinion at Locality, (the government-funded body that oversees Neighbourhood Planning) that this decision exceeds Lewisham’s legal power, is unlawful and therefore cannot stand. This opinion concurs with my understanding of the current law.
I would welcome your support to help us overturn this decision, giving us the right to develop a Neighbourhood Plan which will guide the redevelopment of Bell Green for a better future.
Like all local authorities, the London Borough of Lewisham accounts must be audited. Parliament has decided that there should be an opportunity for any one interested to inspect and make copies of the accounts and all relevant documents, as stipulated in Section 25 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.
Lewisham Council’s draft accounts for 2021/22 will be available between 10am and 4pm weekdays from Monday 1st August 2022 to Friday 9th September 2022.
The Council have published an draft online and this is below.
It is only during this period, any local government elector, or their representative, may question the auditor about the accounts, or make an objection to the accounts as set out in sections 26 and 27 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. Any objection, and the grounds on which it is made, must be sent to the auditor in writing at the address below, with a copy to the London Borough of Lewisham. Any objection must state the grounds on which the objection is being made and particulars of:
i) any item of account which is alleged to be contrary to law
and
ii) any matter in respect of which it is proposed that the auditor could make a public interest report under section 24 of, and paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 to, the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.
The audit is being carried out by:
Paul Grady, Director, Grant Thornton UK LLP, 30 Finsbury Square, London, EC2A 1RR
The National Audit Office has published a helpful guide. This explains your rights information and it has further details on how to make formal Objections on page 13.
This is an important democratic right but it is a very short window of opportunity to ask detailed questions on how effective the local council spends public money on capital projects like the regeneration of Catford, Deptford and Lewisham, on council housing revenue accounts and day to day expenditure on everything from emptying the bins, parks, schools and social care.
The latest performance statistics for answering Freedom of Information requests has been released by Lewisham Council. Less than half of the requests were completed on time. The Council received 1,506 FOI requests and completed 701 on time and this equates to 47%.
Lewisham Council hit the headlines when a report by the Campaign for Freedom of Information found that responses to Freedom of Information requests fell to “only 61 per cent of freedom of information requests on time – the second worst rate in London.”
Reports at the time noted that Lewisham has been struggling to meet the limit for several years, with only 73 per cent of requests answered on time in 2016/17.
As a key part of his 2018 election campaign, Lewisham’s Mayor Damien Egan promised to launch a review that will make Lewisham ‘even more democratic, open and transparent’. The review has been completed however not all the recommendations have been implemented.
At the height of the Covid-19 pandemic Lewisham Council clarified that timescales had been extended for replying to complaints and enquiries, however FOI response times remained at 20 days.
Local councils including Lewisham are expected to respond to FOI requests within the statutory timescales and if they do not complaints can be made to the Information Commissioners Office directly. Further details are here.
Following the handing down of a High Court Judgment by Mr Justice Fordham on Monday, 11th June, in the long running, planning application by the City of London Corporation to Lewisham Council concerning a site on Sydenham Hill, London, Mais House, the Friends of Mais House have issued a statement. They say:
“The Friends of Mais House are naturally disappointed in the latest Judgment from the High Court. The Judgment is a complex and lengthy document that required careful consideration.”
“The Friends can now announce that the claimant has taken further legal advice and her lawyers are proceeding to Appeal this decision via the Court of Appeal.”
They go on to say:
“It recently came to our attention that the London Wildlife Trust had serious concerns about the application. These had been expressed not only in pre application correspondence with the Applicant’s agents but also in a formal letter of objection emailed by London Wildlife Trust to Lewisham Council’s Planning Department. Friends of Mais House were not aware of the existence of this correspondence.”
During the course of the second judicial review it was revealed that Lewisham Council admitted that it does not read any emails that have been carbon copied, cc’d, to its planning department’s advertised email address.
The Friends of Mais House call this “a staggering development” and that they will test the lawfulness of this in the Court of Appeal now.
It is the second judicial review into the scheme that will head to the Court of Appeal now. The first was successful where Mrs Justice Lang in R (Kinsey) v London Borough of Lewisham [2021] EWHC 1286 (Admin) quashed the Council’s decision declaring it was unlawful after a conservation officer’s advice was withheld from the planning committee when it approved the redevelopment.
A meeting lasting 2 hours 18 minutes of the strategic planning committee meeting at Lewisham Council subsequently granted permission for a second time on 29th June 2021, by five votes to one. The full papers, many released shortly before the meeting was held can be read here and the webcast is here
Lewisham Council describe the scheme as part of their own Building for Lewisham programme.
