,
59 tweets,
9 min read
Read on Twitter
Welcome!
I’m tweeting from the first part of the Southwark Council Planning Committee hearing into the Canada Water Masterplan.
I’m with the local residents objectors group.
Now that the housekeeping is out the way, we’re on to the real business...
I’m tweeting from the first part of the Southwark Council Planning Committee hearing into the Canada Water Masterplan.
I’m with the local residents objectors group.
Now that the housekeeping is out the way, we’re on to the real business...
We’ve had very little time to digest the 244 page planning report, which (unsurprisingly) recommends approval.
The report is here:
moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s846…
The report is here:
moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s846…
The Canada Water Masterplan’s own website is here:
canadawatermasterplan.com
canadawatermasterplan.com
I believe there are many reasons to object to this application
❌impact on transport and other infrastructure
❌impact on green space
❌lack of social housing
❌overshadowing of existing residences
❌minimal reduction in carbon emissions (no sign of the #ClimateEmergency here!)
❌impact on transport and other infrastructure
❌impact on green space
❌lack of social housing
❌overshadowing of existing residences
❌minimal reduction in carbon emissions (no sign of the #ClimateEmergency here!)
The @SouthwarkGP planning application response sets out these concerns in detail.
southwarkgreenparty.org.uk/canada_water_m…
southwarkgreenparty.org.uk/canada_water_m…
As you might imagine, it is taking a while to summarise this very complicated and extensive (yet ironically also very undefined) “hybrid” planning application, whereby only a small proportion of the site is actually fully defined up front - the rest is just in outline.
The discussion of social and affordable housing should be short...
Some local residents’ concerns.
We’re still working through it.
Basically, there’s no surprises in the results of the planning report - everything’s fine (or at least acceptable).
We’ve been “discussing”
these points for the last 4 years, and have seen fundamentally no changes in that time.
Basically, there’s no surprises in the results of the planning report - everything’s fine (or at least acceptable).
We’ve been “discussing”
these points for the last 4 years, and have seen fundamentally no changes in that time.
The council is also live-streaming the committee.
So into one of my key concerns - carbon emissions.
So the council and the applicant looked at multiple energy generation methods, and are hoping that the wider decarbonisation of electricity generation gets them off the hook.
So the council and the applicant looked at multiple energy generation methods, and are hoping that the wider decarbonisation of electricity generation gets them off the hook.
There was no consideration of options to reduce consumption (e.g. by improving the insulation of the buildings).
Pathetic in my view.
Pathetic in my view.
And that’s the end of the summary.
As mentioned, the recommendation is to approve, subject to some conditions.
On to Committee members’ questions.
As mentioned, the recommendation is to approve, subject to some conditions.
On to Committee members’ questions.
Question on social housing viability, and the rationale for the broad range of possible numbers (700-1400).
Response is that this depends on the proportion of the development that ends up as residential.
I wonder whether this incentivises the developer to minimise residential?
Response is that this depends on the proportion of the development that ends up as residential.
I wonder whether this incentivises the developer to minimise residential?
Our own Kath Whittam picks up on this as well. Identifies that the excluded value of the non-residential space has a big impact.
Officers note that significant basement space (for servicing) impacts the apparent space.
Officers note that significant basement space (for servicing) impacts the apparent space.
Also wants clarity that there will always be enough space left for community uses - there is no minimum given.
Officers respond that the S106 agreement will specify minimums.
Officers respond that the S106 agreement will specify minimums.
Adele Morris picks up on volume of retail given that shops are shutting across the country. What’s the safeguards if retail becomes less viable?
Officers basically point to British Land’s general knowledge of retall development, plus that this covers restaurants, leisure etc.
Officers basically point to British Land’s general knowledge of retall development, plus that this covers restaurants, leisure etc.
Another officer adds that it is flexibly designed.
We now move to the objectors.
Brian Hodge steps up to make a statement.
We’ve been given a whole 5 minutes (up from the usual 3) to make our points on something that will transform our area (aren’t we lucky).
Brian Hodge steps up to make a statement.
We’ve been given a whole 5 minutes (up from the usual 3) to make our points on something that will transform our area (aren’t we lucky).
The focus is on people’s well-being and on our green space.
The Jubilee line is at capacity. The idea that Elisabeth Line opening will not be enough seems hard to believe. Canada Water station is already regularly closed due to overcrowding and is not safe.
The Jubilee line is at capacity. The idea that Elisabeth Line opening will not be enough seems hard to believe. Canada Water station is already regularly closed due to overcrowding and is not safe.
Broader development will overwhelm the minimal and undefined improvements to public transport, and roads will be more congested. Air pollution will also get worse.
Densities are much higher than in the area currently.
K1 specifically is inappropriate to be solely social housing, and is to dense (5-6 storeys) and should be reduced in line with gradient from Quebec Quarter.
It is also inappropriate given its proximity to local schools.
K1 specifically is inappropriate to be solely social housing, and is to dense (5-6 storeys) and should be reduced in line with gradient from Quebec Quarter.
It is also inappropriate given its proximity to local schools.
A1 is too big and obscures the dock offices. It is not exemplary design. It produces appalling overshadowing.
Leisure Centre brief has never kept pace with the increasing scale of the development.
Community benefits are minimal relative to the impacts of the development.
Leisure Centre brief has never kept pace with the increasing scale of the development.
Community benefits are minimal relative to the impacts of the development.
The hybrid approach means that most of the application will be decided without proper consultation.
Question on whether the move to make the Rotherhithe Tunnel the most easterly free road crossing.
I expect this can only make things worse!
I expect this can only make things worse!
Canary Wharf Group objecting to this development.
- It will overload the Jubilee Line which is already at or over capacity (pg 101)
- Assumes 32 trains per hour when TfL cannot even meet current lower target
- Similar large schemes have resulted in huge (£250-£700m) investment.
- It will overload the Jubilee Line which is already at or over capacity (pg 101)
- Assumes 32 trains per hour when TfL cannot even meet current lower target
- Similar large schemes have resulted in huge (£250-£700m) investment.
So this is c. £100-£200m of investment by the developer is missing
- Also key transport modelling documents are missing.
- Also key transport modelling documents are missing.
Councillor question on Elisabeth Line impact to Canary Wharf Group representative.
Representative highlights that it provides some relief (5-10 years) but doesn’t actually address commuters coming into London Bridge and Waterloo.
Representative highlights that it provides some relief (5-10 years) but doesn’t actually address commuters coming into London Bridge and Waterloo.
Councillor asks about missing Strategic Transport Study.
Has not been provided. So hard to assess but surely cannot approve without it. Highlights that Overground might also be overwhelmed.
Has not been provided. So hard to assess but surely cannot approve without it. Highlights that Overground might also be overwhelmed.
Councillor asks about bus routes.
Brian responds that there is little detail provided so cannot assess.
Councillor asks about missing investment and impact.
Canary Wharf representative highlights that purchase of change could have happened to solve the problem.
Brian responds that there is little detail provided so cannot assess.
Councillor asks about missing investment and impact.
Canary Wharf representative highlights that purchase of change could have happened to solve the problem.
Councillor asks if additional trains would be enough.
Says it is needed.
Doesn’t clarify if it is enough.
Councillor asks if another bus route around the peninsula will help.
Brian thinks it would.
Says it is needed.
Doesn’t clarify if it is enough.
Councillor asks if another bus route around the peninsula will help.
Brian thinks it would.
On to Green Spaces.
Councillor asks how damage might occur.
Rebekah Clark (Stave Hill Manager) and Steve Cornish (Friends of Russia Dock Wood) step up to answer.
The overshadowing of Stave Hill is modelled on basis it is a typical urban landscape.
Councillor asks how damage might occur.
Rebekah Clark (Stave Hill Manager) and Steve Cornish (Friends of Russia Dock Wood) step up to answer.
The overshadowing of Stave Hill is modelled on basis it is a typical urban landscape.
Risk is that soil temperatures will be adversely affected. Radiant heat loss is not considered, only sunlight loss. Invertebrates etc. will not necessarily be able to survive.
The assessment doesn’t consider full year impacts, only summer.
The assessment doesn’t consider full year impacts, only summer.
Councillor Hargrove asks about area impacted.
Rebekah responds that the assessment is misleading as it mixes up the shading from trees (some not now there which was communicated to the applicant) with the building’s shadow.
Rebekah responds that the assessment is misleading as it mixes up the shading from trees (some not now there which was communicated to the applicant) with the building’s shadow.
Councillor asks what reduction would impact and is there a methodology for assessing this impact.
Rebekah responds that it needs to be seen as an ecosystem. Research shows that temperature does impact. As non-expert on this specialism, doesn’t have level of knowledge of answer.
Rebekah responds that it needs to be seen as an ecosystem. Research shows that temperature does impact. As non-expert on this specialism, doesn’t have level of knowledge of answer.
Councillor asks about size relative to nearby developments.
Steve highlights that other developments have agreed changes that step down size to woodlands.
Rebekah returns to Stave Hill impacts. Will impact the butterfly site, and will have knock-on impacts on wider ecosystem.
Steve highlights that other developments have agreed changes that step down size to woodlands.
Rebekah returns to Stave Hill impacts. Will impact the butterfly site, and will have knock-on impacts on wider ecosystem.
Now on to design and density.
Councillor Rose on K1. Question on balanced communities. Could K1 actually be right?
Brian highlights that we agree that we need more social housing but it should be spread across the development rather than being isolated on edge.
Councillor Rose on K1. Question on balanced communities. Could K1 actually be right?
Brian highlights that we agree that we need more social housing but it should be spread across the development rather than being isolated on edge.
Steve highlights the report’s constraints for K1 are actually diametrically opposed to what is proposed.
Councillor asks what community does what.
Brian and Steve say they want appropriate development. 300% of target density is overdevelopment.
Councillor asks what community does what.
Brian and Steve say they want appropriate development. 300% of target density is overdevelopment.
Now we take a little break.
And we’re back.
Councillor Soames asks about K1 and overlooking of schools and impact of capacity and extra funding.
Pauline Adenwalla (recent ex-governor at Alfred Salter) and head of governors at St Johns respond.
Alfred Salter is adjacent to K1. Other developments engaged.
Councillor Soames asks about K1 and overlooking of schools and impact of capacity and extra funding.
Pauline Adenwalla (recent ex-governor at Alfred Salter) and head of governors at St Johns respond.
Alfred Salter is adjacent to K1. Other developments engaged.
K1 proposal arrived late and had not engaged. It would dominate the open spaces as evidenced by the planning application. (Councillors seem unaware of the specific planning application document.)
Design is also not sympathetic. Schools use Russia Dock Woodland.
Design is also not sympathetic. Schools use Russia Dock Woodland.
Councillor Soames asks about mitigating factors - especially extra money.
(Buying them off!)
Money won’t help expand capacity because of constraints of existing site.
(Pictures now on screen - shows massive block looming over the playground).
(Buying them off!)
Money won’t help expand capacity because of constraints of existing site.
(Pictures now on screen - shows massive block looming over the playground).
Onto St Johns. It isn’t quite adjacent.
But are concerned there will be overlooking especially as early years is free flow linking indoor and outdoor.
Concern that the K1 play area is not fit for purpose, especially as it is for social housing where it is especially important.
But are concerned there will be overlooking especially as early years is free flow linking indoor and outdoor.
Concern that the K1 play area is not fit for purpose, especially as it is for social housing where it is especially important.
Back now to transport.
Councillor Seaton asks for a restatement of the transport issues. (We already know these. Peak times often result in massive congestion up to and including closure of the station to local people trying to get in!)
Councillor Seaton asks for a restatement of the transport issues. (We already know these. Peak times often result in massive congestion up to and including closure of the station to local people trying to get in!)
Canary Wharf representative highlights that TfL’s own analysis shows issues, and that massive increase in employment and hence journeys is not sustainable.
TfL representative responds. TFL have only provided initial comments on the CWG comments, and are undertaking further work.
TfL representative responds. TFL have only provided initial comments on the CWG comments, and are undertaking further work.
But they do believe it is acceptable - it meets regulation 122.
Proposing a package of work to smooth and manage the extra congestion (oh good!)
TfL will provide more info before Monday.
Proposing a package of work to smooth and manage the extra congestion (oh good!)
TfL will provide more info before Monday.
Councillor Seaton asks if it is compliant on an ongoing basis.
TfL assesses it will be.
Councillor Seaton asks if it is currently ok.
TfL says other parts of London are worse (levelling down - great!) so yes.
Elisabeth Line will provide some relief but it will be consumed.
TfL assesses it will be.
Councillor Seaton asks if it is currently ok.
TfL says other parts of London are worse (levelling down - great!) so yes.
Elisabeth Line will provide some relief but it will be consumed.
Councillor Seaton asks if sufficient investment is being provided to mitigate the impacts.
TfL says that overall package of investment is sufficient.
(Still saying that basically we have to accept things getting worse).
TfL says that overall package of investment is sufficient.
(Still saying that basically we have to accept things getting worse).
Councillor Whittam asks about expanding number of trains.
32 is funded.
Higher numbers possible but not funded.
Councillor points out that trains are full. Numbers are increasing so there must be displacement?
TfL rep waffles (sorry getting tired and annoyed).
32 is funded.
Higher numbers possible but not funded.
Councillor points out that trains are full. Numbers are increasing so there must be displacement?
TfL rep waffles (sorry getting tired and annoyed).
Councillor asks about Rotherhithe Tunnel impacts.
TfL says that studies show minimal impact.
Councillor Whittam asks about extra peninsula bus routes.
TfL have been looking at it. Money is apparently available. No firm proposals though.
TfL says that studies show minimal impact.
Councillor Whittam asks about extra peninsula bus routes.
TfL have been looking at it. Money is apparently available. No firm proposals though.
Canary Wharf Group representative says Mayor’s own assessment that the Jubilee Line will become joint worst over time - and Mayor has no money.
Also CIL rates are third of that of Canary Wharf developments have to pay (we’re getting shafted!)
Also CIL rates are third of that of Canary Wharf developments have to pay (we’re getting shafted!)
Councillor Morris is not reassured!
(I think we can all agree with that.)
Councillor Soames asks why we are building a new town centre without capacity.
TfL claim the transport system can cope and again says we have to lump it (I summarise).
(I think we can all agree with that.)
Councillor Soames asks why we are building a new town centre without capacity.
TfL claim the transport system can cope and again says we have to lump it (I summarise).
Meeting will adjourn and reconvene with objectors questions for first 30 minutes on Monday.
My observations will follow later...
My observations will follow later...
To knackered. It’ll be tomorrow.
