3. Statement of Community Engagement

Transcription

Statement of Community Engagement
3.
Contents
Chapter 1
Executive Summary
2
Chapter 2
Context and Objectives
7
Chapter 3
The Consultation Strategy
11
Chapter 4
Keeping Lewisham Council informed and involved
16
Chapter 5
Pre-consultation activities: Meeting with key local contacts
18
Chapter 6
Consultation Activities: Launch at Lewisham People‟s Day
21
Chapter 7
Consultation Activities: Public exhibitions
24
Chapter 8
Consultation Activities: Meetings with stakeholders and changes made
32
Chapter 9
Consultation Activities: Engaging with Millwall Football Club
43
Chapter 10
Consultation Activities: Engaging with Faith Leaders and Groups
48
Chapter 11
Consultation Activities: Working with young people
51
Chapter 12
Community Partnerships:
54
Deptford X and Bridgehouse Meadows Design workshop
Chapter 13
Online media monitoring and website
58
Chapter 14
Supporting Press Work
61
Chapter 15
Appendices
64
15.1
Surrey Canal Consultation Strategy
15.2
Surrey Canal Community and Stakeholder Database
15.3
Exhibition panels
15.4
Pre consultation feedback table
15.5
Message wall comments
15.6
Consultation analysis
15.7
Email response to Steve Cornish and John Hellings,
Canada Water Consultative Forum
15.8
Letters of support
15.9
Attendees at Millwall fans‟ forum
15.10
Q&A from Millwall fans‟ forum
15.11
Lions Live interview
15.12
Multifaith questionnaire and responses
15.13
Responses to Multifaith meetings
15.14
CABE Spaceshaper report
1
1.
Executive Summary
1.1
Summary of consultation and promotional activities
The consultation programme for Surrey Canal: London‟s Sporting Village was developed to
ensure that as many people were consulted and that the local community were able to stay
informed about the masterplan as it developed. A huge effort has been made to meet with a
wide range of local groups and relevant stakeholders throughout the pre-application
consultation process. Overall we promoted the scheme to 76,074 community members and
we directly spoke to approximately 4,825 people directly through exhibitions, meetings,
workshops and www.surreycanal.com.
Figure 1 The Surrey Canal: London's Sporting Village exhibition at Lewisham People's Day
2
The consultation activities have been made up of:

Pre-consultation activities: August – November 2009
11 pre-consultation meetings held with key decision makers to introduce Renewal and the
Emerging Surrey Canal Scheme. Meetings were held with elected Members and
representatives from local organisations including Lewisham College, Goldsmiths College,
University of London and Lewisham Hospital.

Public consultation: July – November 2010
Introduced the Emerging Scheme to the wider public and further meetings with participants
from the pre-consultation phase. Specific details on sports facilities, transport improvements,
sustainability initiatives, number of homes, public space proposals and improvements to
Bridgehouse Meadows.

A staffed travelling exhibition which included a 1.6 x 2.2m model of the Emerging Surrey
Canal Scheme, exhibition panels, the message wall and an Envac demonstration prop which
went to Lewisham People‟s Day, the Lewington Centre on the Sillwood Estate and Scotney
Hall on the Winslade Estate.

Supported by exhibition panels, booklets, comment cards, a message wall where people
could leave their feedback and a project website www.surreycanal.com

Meetings with local and regional stakeholders regarding transport, waste, design and social
infrastructure.

Engaging with Millwall Football Club fans, staff and management through fans‟ forums,
meeting at exhibitions, www.surreycanal.com and an interview on the Lions Live radio show
on 18th November 2010.

Engaging with Faith Leaders and Groups through surveys and one to one meetings.

Working with young people through workshops in Deptford Green School, and presentations
to the London Borough of Lewisham‟s Young Mayor and Cabinet and the Ministry of Youth
group.

Sponsoring the 2010 Deptford X Visual Arts festival.

A dedicated community workshop on the design for Bridgehouse Meadows held in October
2010.
3

Extensive promotion of events, including leaflet drops to 40,000 households in all surrounding
postcode districts across Lewisham and Southwark, adverts in local newspapers,
advertisement in the Millwall match day programme for the Neil Harris testimonial, flyer
distribution and press work.

Supported by regular mailings to the Surrey Canal community and stakeholder database,
containing over 600 contacts including residents, businesses and community groups within
and surrounding the regeneration area.

Analysis and wide circulation of all comments received together with personalised responses
to every question asked.

Press briefing throughout with very supportive media coverage for the plans across a wide
range of publications.
All of the above work was shared with the London Borough of Lewisham and reported via regular
meetings with the Planning department.
1.2
In total we spoke to:

20 key decision makers, elected Members and representatives from local organisations in
our pre-consultation phase.

400 London Borough of Lewisham residents at Lewisham People‟s Day.

135 local community members at two exhibitions held at the Lewington Centre, Sillwood
Estate and Scotney Hall, Winslade Estate.

3,042 visitors to www.surreycanal.com

Meetings were held with a wide range of community and stakeholder groups bringing several
hundred other people into direct contact with Renewal and the Surrey Canal: London‟s
Sporting Village scheme.
4
Figure 2 Comments left on the Surrey Canal message wall at Lewisham People‟s Day
Together with the mailings, advertisements, press coverage and website visitors we believe
that all local businesses, Millwall Football Club fans and staff, local residents in surrounding
areas and all other interested parties are informed of the plans and have been given the
opportunity to engage in the consultation process and feedback on the Emerging Scheme.
1.2.1
Following the consultation we have received very strong support for the plans. If anything,
there has been some scepticism that the scheme seems „too good to be true‟. The strong
public support for Surrey Canal: London‟s Sporting Village is undoubtedly also a factor of the
work already undertaken by the London Borough of Lewisham in bringing forward the Local
Development Framework.
1.2.2
Our aim for the consultation process was to be as transparent and open as possible. Every
comment and query has been responded to and every suggestion made properly considered
and where possible incorporated into the plans.
1.2.3
Meetings with key stakeholders have been conducted throughout and the proposals on
design, sports provision, transport, open space, sustainability and many other issues have
evolved and changed constantly over time.
1.2.4
Specifically the Proposed Development has changed in light of the consultation in the
following ways:
5

Which sports are provided for at Surrey Canal; as a result of consultation with NGB‟s, Sport
England and local residents we are now including a swimming pool, leisure centre, provision
for gymnastics and a climbing wall in the Proposed Development.

How to increase job opportunities for the local community; following consultation with local
residents and Members we met with the 170 Community Project, New Cross to discuss how
to equip the local community with the correct training to enable them to access jobs at Surrey
Canal: London‟s Sporting Village. This will be developed as the scheme progresses.

What should be included in a revitalised park at Bridgehouse Meadows; following the CABE
Spaceshaper workshop we plan to retain some space for dog walking and animating the
space to make the park feel more welcoming and safe.
Renewal believes that the extensive pre-application consultation activities have built a solid
base of public and stakeholder support for the plans as well as considerable goodwill across
the local community.
“Exemplary community
engagement; very happy
things are moving forward
for the area.”
Local resident, public
consultation
6
2.
Context and Objectives
2.1
Context
Many years of preparation and work have gone into creating the current scheme, including
earlier phases of public consultation by the local authority and other developments in North
Lewisham. The current scheme has therefore been influenced by and benefited from
comments and guidance received during earlier consultation and from the long period of
refinement.
Renewal recognised the need to undertake extensive consultation activities from an early
stage and invested heavily in doing so.
2.1.2
The scale and nature of the project presented a number of challenges that were addressed
through the strategy and activities undertaken. These included:

Large regeneration across North Lewisham. People locally have been consulted over a long
period of time on a variety of schemes.

A complex and large site, requiring an innovative consultation approach to engage with a
wide range of local people, groups and stakeholders.

The size of the scheme – it takes time to understand the scale of the change involved and the
area to be regenerated.

The long timescales involved – this means that expectations have to be managed that this will
be a long process.
2.1.3
The objectives of the Surrey Canal: London‟s Sporting Village consultation were clear:

To genuinely engage with local people and a wide range of stakeholders with consistency.

To provide multiple opportunities for people to view and comment on the Emerging Scheme,
over a long period of time.

To provide mechanisms for the public to feedback comments to the design and technical
team

To explain the proposals and how they would change the area, exhibiting real detail as the
plans were being firmed up.

Widespread promotion of the consultation, through adverts, door-dropped flyers and in the
press.

To introduce Renewal and the senior consultant team directly to the public and to circulate all
comments received widely so that they could be properly considered and so that the
Emerging Scheme could respond appropriately.

To achieve a high level of „buy in‟ from the local community towards the Surrey Canal
Emerging Scheme.

To understand all of the issues, concerns and objections before the application is made so
that they can be addressed.
7

To work closely with the London Borough of Lewisham to ensure that key officers and
members were aware of our planned consultation activities and could influence them.
A consultation strategy was therefore developed by London Communications Agency (LCA)
and Renewal to meet these objectives in summer 2009 and updated in July 2010 (appendix
15.1). Renewal managed the public engagement process in-house with support from LCA.
2.1.4
In addition to the community and stakeholder consultation, Renewal also engaged with
statutory consultees including:

The London Borough of Lewisham

The London Borough of Southwark

The Greater London Authority (GLA)

Sport England

The Department for Transport (DfT)

Transport for London (TfL)

The London Borough of Lewisham Design Panel

The masterplan and scheme were also reviewed and highly commended by the Commission
for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE).
2.2
Learning from previous consultations
As North Lewisham has been identified by the local authority as a prime area for regeneration
the local community have been consulted by a wide range of developers, the local authority
and Transport for London (TfL) so it was important that we learnt from where others had
succeeded or failed before embarking on our consultation.
2.2.1

We learnt:
After the redevelopment of Aragon Tower on the Pepys Estate and the subsequent broadcast
of „The Tower: A Tale of Two Cities‟ documentary series that there was a feeling of mistrust in
the local community of developers.

There is a concern in the wider local community that the development which is due to happen
in North Lewisham over the next ten to twenty years is not aimed at existing communities and
there is a danger of local residents feeling marginalised.

In „Intercultural City: Making the most of diversity, Knowing Lewisham‟, commissioned by the
London Borough of Lewisham in 2006/7, the consultancy firm Comedia noted that “...there
must be a long term goal to ensure that all development and redevelopment is culturally
relevant and sustainable for the Lewisham community”. This is at the heart of our proposals
for Surrey Canal: London‟s Sporting Village.
Our programme of consultation aimed to draw on the issues identified in earlier consultation
activities by the local authority and other developers.
8
With these points in mind our strategy was to be as transparent and welcoming as possible and to talk
to local people about the benefits of the regeneration for them. We would undertake much more
consultation than the regulatory requirements and we would go out of our way to talk people through
our plans and answer all correspondence as quickly and as thoroughly as possible.
“Regeneration NOT gentrification.
Homes for the people that
actually lived there in the first
place.”
Local resident, public consultation
2.3
Diversity
Statistics show:

North Lewisham and the New Cross ward have an extremely mixed population in terms of
ethnicity and religion.

The area appears to have a generally stable community across a low socio economic range.

The lack of investment in the area and the low socio economic status of the existing
communities show that this area is ready for regeneration.
2.3.1
Previously multicultural policy promoted cultural segregation, for example, different facilities
for individual community groups. This approach led to members of the same community
leading parallel lives but ignoring each other and having no mutual understanding. You can
see this in the Surrey Canal area where the large Black and ethnic minority community have
no interaction with the football fans, who in turn have no interaction with local residents.
2.3.2
We are proposing an intercultural approach (The Intercultural City: planning for diversity
advantage, Wood and Landry, 2008) for Surrey Canal which would promote integration by
designing public spaces, for example the sports facilities, the proposed multifaith venue and
the public spaces, so encounters with others occur naturally.
In their „Intercultural City: Making the most of Diversity: Knowing Lewisham report‟ Comedia
found that “...transparent, safe and welcoming entries to civic infrastructure send all the right
messages that this is a place of the people, it is not a private/ corporate space such as a
9
shopping centre, it is clearly a civic space.” This chimes with our proposals for transparent
sports boxes along Surrey Canal Road which are animated from morning until night and
which provide a welcoming frontage at street level.
2.3.3
Surrey Canal will not be a gated community, physically or metaphorically, but instead a
development that encourages integration at all levels. We are aiming to create a new piece of
London for new and existing communities.
Figure 3 Ministry of Youth taking part in the CABE Spaceshaper workshop on Bridgehouse Meadows
10
3.
The Consultation Strategy
3.1
Surrey Canal community and stakeholder database
The database (appendix 15.2) was compiled using online research of the local area and
amalgamating contacts provided by Lewisham Council, the Lewisham Strategic Partnership,
New Cross Local Assembly and Voluntary Action Lewisham. As we went out to consultation
we added to the core database.
As well as local residents we identified the Millwall F.C. fans, young people and faith groups
as important sectors of the local community to engage with.

Millwall fans as their stadium lies in the centre of the scheme.

Young people as our research has identified that 27.4% of all people living in the surrounding
area are aged between 15-25 years old, compared to a London average of 11.5%.

Faith groups as within a quarter of a mile of the Surrey Canal site there are over seventy faith
groups in unsuitable premises. As part of the Surrey Canal: London‟s Sporting Village
regeneration we are proposing the creation of a 70,000 sq ft multi faith facility.
3.2
Public launch
We launched the Emerging Scheme to the public and the press at Lewisham People‟s Day on
Saturday 10th July where we spoke to over 400 people throughout the day. On the same day
we also launched the scheme‟s website, www.surreycanal.com.
3.3
Detailed exhibitions
The launch of the scheme at Lewisham People‟s Day was quickly followed by a more detailed
exhibition from the 25th to 27th July 2010 at the Lewington Centre, on the Silwood Estate to
the north of the Surrey Canal site.
Over three days we spoke to 80 people.
11
Figure 4 Residents at the July exhibition
3.3.1
After the July exhibition we organised a further exhibition in October to ensure that any people
who would have missed the July exhibition, due to school holidays and the break in the
football season, would have a chance to see the proposals for the scheme. The second
exhibition was held on the 1st and 2nd October at Scotney Hall on the Winslade Estate,
adjacent to Bridgehouse Meadows and to the south of the Surrey Canal regeneration area.
3.3.2
In order to promote the two exhibitions we organised two door-to-door leaflet drops. We used
a local distributor, Tony O‟Leary, as Tony is a recognised and respected community member
with links to the New Cross NDC (New Deal for Communities) and a range of voluntary
groups in north Lewisham, and is a resident on the Pepys Estate, Deptford. Tony became an
invaluable supporter and promoter of the scheme across his networks and gave us great
feedback and ideas with regards to which local groups to meet with as well as where to hold
events.
In July Tony delivered 37,000 leaflets to local residents in north Lewisham and Southwark
and in October we delivered 3,000 leaflets to the community to the south of the scheme
including the Winslade and Fairview Estates. The second leaflet drop was more focused as
we learnt that we had not been attracting many residents from the Winslade Estate to our
prior exhibitions and events.
3.3.3
At the exhibitions we presented:

A scale model of the Surrey Canal scheme

14 x A1 boards detailing the regeneration plans (appendix 15.3)
12

A message wall where people could leave their thoughts and suggestions for the
scheme

A children‟s art area where young people could draw their ideal home and their
dream park

An Envac prop which demonstrated how rubbish will be turned into heat and power at
Surrey Canal: London‟s Sporting Village

A 30 page Vision brochure which people could take home

A freepost comments card
Figure 5 Front and inside page of the 30 page Vision brochure that was given to residents at both exhibitions
3.4
New Cross and Evelyn Local Assemblies
We attended the New Cross (Wednesday 21st July 2010) and Evelyn (Saturday 9th October)
Local Assemblies as stall holders. These public meetings were a great opportunity for us to
promote the scheme and to talk local residents through the scheme one to one. At the New
Cross Local Assembly we spoke to six local residents and at the Evelyn Local Assembly we
spoke to five residents.
13
Although the Surrey Canal scheme is in the New Cross ward we chose to attend the Evelyn
Local Assembly in October as the meeting was held at the Lewington Centre, Sillwood Estate,
directly to the north of the regeneration area and where we had held our July exhibition.
3.5
Millwall fans’ forum and Lions Live
On 17th August 2010 we held a Millwall Football Club (MFC) fans‟ forum at the London
Borough of Lewisham. Nigel Adams, Strategic Regeneration Communications Officer at
Lewisham Council, sent out a notice to all London Borough of Lewisham employees who
were also MFC fans inviting them to a presentation about the scheme followed by a question
and answer session with the Renewal team. The session proved very popular and we
presented to a forum of thirty people.
3.5.1
We were invited onto the MFC fans radio show, Lions Live, to be interviewed about the
scheme on Thursday 18th November 2010. The interview lasted half an hour and was
conducted with three MFC fans and included questions that listeners had texted or emailed in.
3.6
Bridgehouse Meadows: CABE Spaceshaper workshops
In order to solicit local residents feedback for the proposals about Bridgehouse Meadows we
commissioned CABE to run two Spaceshaper workshops, one for adults and one for young
people, to explore the local communities‟ thoughts about Bridgehouse Meadows (appendix
15.13).
3.7
Advertising
Following the launch of the Emerging Scheme in summer 2010 we wanted to advertise the
July exhibition to as many local residents as possible so we placed two adverts in the South
London Press and the Southwark News from the 20th to the 24th July 2010.
3.7.1
We were aware that many Millwall Football fans do not live in South East London, but instead
live in north Kent and travel into the area for football games. Because of this we also placed
an advert for the scheme in the Neil Harris testimonial match day programme on Saturday
31st July 2010 as Neil is one of Millwall‟s most highly regarded recent players and the match
had a large turnout of supporters.
14
Figures 6&7 Members of the Design team taking local residents through the plans
15
4.
Keeping Lewisham Council informed and involved
4.1
Working with the planning team
In order to keep the London Borough of Lewisham regularly informed of the scope and scale
of our consultation activity and as the consultation strategy developed we had six formal
meetings with Nigel Adams, Strategic Regeneration Communications Officer and Chris
Brodie, Principle Planning Officer. We also kept them informed informally through a close
working relationship and regular telephone and email contact.
Prior to the scheme being launched to the public we shared our public consultation strategy
with Nigel and Chris and we worked closely with them to ensure that we were meeting the
Council‟s expectations. A final version of the consultation strategy can be found in appendix
15.1.
4.1.1
The London Borough of Lewisham, via Nigel Adams, has been consulted regarding the
content of written material produced during the public consultation and their comments taken
on board.
This included:

Exhibition panels

The Vision Statement public consultation booklet

Stakeholder letters

Articles for the NDC Gate Post which refer to the regeneration plans across north Lewisham
with a focus on Surrey Canal: London‟s Sporting Village
4.2
We presented the scheme, as it developed, on 4 different occasions between October 2009
to August 2010.

20th October 2009

12th January 2010

4th May 2010

24th August 2010
4.3
Alison Licorish, Faith Officer
We made contact with Alison when we were looking to consult with Faith Leaders.
Alison assisted with the following:

Highlighting the difficulties that Faith Groups can face with regards to finding suitable
property, acquiring leases and purchasing their own facilities.
16

Providing a link between Renewal and groups that we found hard to reach by sending out
information to her mailing list, suggesting contacts and reviewing correspondence so that the
language and tone were correct and so we were as inclusive as possible.

Reviewing the design brief for the proposed multifaith centre before it was incorporated into
the masterplan.

4.4
Advising with regards to the Millwall Football Club Memorial Gardens.
Senior Management and Members
Prior to launching the scheme to the public we presented the Emerging Scheme to Sir Steve
Bullock, Mayor of Lewisham, Councillor Alan Smith, Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Member for
Regeneration and Barry Quirk, Chief Executive on Friday 18th June 2010.
Councillor Alan Smith, in his capacity as Cabinet Member for Regeneration has attended the
launch at Lewisham People‟s Day, the October exhibition and the CABE Bridgehouse
Meadows workshop on behalf of the London Borough of Lewisham and we have kept him
regularly up to date with all developments regarding the Emerging Scheme.
4.5
Officers
All staff employed by the local authority were invited to attend the Millwall fans‟ forum on 17th
August 2010 in the Civic Suite, Catford. This event is reviewed in more detail in chapter 9,
Engaging with Millwall Football Club.
On Friday 15th October we presented the Emerging Scheme at the London Borough of
Lewisham‟s Civic Suite, followed by a question and answer session to twenty officers from a
range of departments who will all have involvement with the Surrey Canal scheme. This was
an opportunity for the people who are working within the local authority to ask us questions
directly and it proved an invaluable opportunity for us to explain our vision for Surrey Canal:
London‟s Sporting Village.
Throughout the consultation process we also circulated to the local authority, publicity which
included flyers, adverts, posters and relevant media coverage in the local, trade and national
media.
17
5. Pre-consultation activities: Meeting with key local
contacts
5.1
Meeting format
The pre-consultation meetings were held from August to November 2009. Mark Taylor,
Director of Development at Renewal and Chris Madel from LCA attended the meetings where
they presented the scheme and answered any questions.
We met with a variety of groups and representatives at a local and national level as it was
important to keep them informed and involved as key opinion formers and those who provide
services to the local community. Overall we spoke to 20 individuals from 11 organisations and
the feedback from these meetings can be found in appendix 15.4.
5.2
Who did we speak to?
During the pre-consultation period we met:
5.2.1
Stephen Lawes, Vice Principle, Lewisham College
Lewisham College is the closest further education college to the site with 16,000 students.
We spoke to Lewisham College about the possibility of re-situating some of their sports and
wellbeing services to the Surrey Canal regeneration area. We currently work with Lewisham
College as they lease one of the existing warehouses on Stockholm Road on the Surrey
Canal site.
5.2.2
Joan Ruddock, MP for Lewisham Deptford
Joan is the MP for the Surrey Canal area.
5.2.3
Heidi Alexander, Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Member for Regeneration in 2009
Heidi was interested in the Surrey Canal regeneration scheme as it is one of the largest
proposed to the London Borough of Lewisham.
Heidi became the MP for Lewisham East in the May 2010 elections and was replaced as
Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Member for Regeneration by Councillor Alan Smith who we
worked closely with in phase two of the consultation.
5.2.4
Gill Galliano, Chief Executive, Lewisham Primary Care Trust
When we met Gill in 2009 Lewisham Primary Care Trust was responsible for the healthcare
provision in the Borough and we knew that a site of the size of Surrey Canal would require
some element of healthcare provision.
18
Following the announcement of the dissolution of Primary Care Trusts in phase two we met
with the Chairs and Chief Executives of King‟s College Hospital, Lewisham Hospital, and
Guy‟s and St Thomas‟ Hospital, the South London and Maudsley Trust and King‟s Health
Partners.
5.2.5
Steve Nelson, Chief Executive, South East London Chamber of Commerce
The South East London Chamber of Commerce is a business network organisation for the
boroughs of Lewisham, Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich with over 600 members. It was
important to get feedback from the Chamber of Commerce on the proposed business and
creative incubation units and job provision for the Surrey Canal scheme.
5.2.6
Peter Campling, Headteacher, Deptford Green Secondary School
Deptford Green is the nearest secondary school in the London Borough of Lewisham to the
Surrey Canal site with approximately 1,100 students. Many Deptford Green students live in or
around the regeneration area and they would benefit from the proposed sports facilities.
5.2.7
Goldsmith‟s College, University of London, representatives from Marketing, Business
Development and Estates
Goldsmith‟s College is based in New Cross and has 7,615 students. Goldsmith‟s location in
New Cross has seen a rise in the demand for creative incubation space in Deptford and New
Cross due to their strength as an art college and has put north Lewisham on the map as a
creative hub. We also consulted with Goldsmith‟s on sports provision, as they run some
sports courses, and the proposal for creative incubation space.
5.2.8
Lewisham Police, Superintendent Lisa Crook
We consulted with Lewisham Police as they are responsible for policing the future
development as well as working with the football club to ensure that Millwall works well on
match days.
5.2.9
Liz Hills, Headteacher, Ilderton Primary School
It was important that we talked through our proposals with Ilderton Primary School as it is the
nearest primary school to the Surrey Canal site and a lot of the pupils live in the surrounding
area.
5.2.10 Keith Howard, Director of Estates and Facilities, University Hospital Lewisham
Lewisham hospital employs 3,200 staff on hospital and community sites throughout the
borough.
19
5.2.11 Paul Maslin and Madeleine Long, New Cross Ward Councillors
We met with Councillors Maslin and Long in their capacity as elected members for the New
Cross ward.
5.2.12 Bala Gnanapragasam, Chairman and Tim Higginson, Chief Executive, University Hospital
Lewisham
We met with the Chair and Chief Executive of Lewisham Hospital to explore if the hospital
could re-site some of their non-core services at the Surrey Canal development.
5.2.13 Millwall Community Scheme trustees
We met with the Community Scheme trustees as the scheme sits within the Surrey Canal
regeneration area and to talk them through how the area would change in the future and
explore with them what role the community scheme could play.
20
Consultation Activities: Launch at Lewisham People’s
6.
Day
6.1
Lewisham People’s Day, Saturday 10th July 2010
We launched the Emerging Surrey Canal: London‟s Sporting Village Scheme at Lewisham
People‟s Day on Saturday 10th July at Mountsfield Park, Catford.
6.1.2
Lewisham People‟s Day is the London Borough of Lewisham‟s longest running community
festival and it attracts over 30,000 people annually which includes a large number of people
from the north of the borough and a high number of families and young people. We saw
Lewisham People‟s Day as a high profile way to launch the scheme as up until this point none
of the details of the Emerging Scheme had been made available to the public or the press.
6.1.3
In order to publicise our presence at Lewisham People‟s Day we personally wrote and
emailed 518 people on our consultees database. In addition details of the scheme appeared
on banners, posters, fliers and in programmes which were distributed by the London Borough
of Lewisham via the councils distribution scheme Arts Post in libraries, through an
independent distributor north of the Borough and by performers and participants on the day.
6.1.4
Overall the Surrey Canal logo appeared on:

13,000 programmes

5,000 maps handed out on the day

15,000 postcards

600 posters

3 banners placed around main roads in the borough

71 JC Decaux poster sites around the borough
6.1.5
At Lewisham People‟s Day we presented:

A model of the Emerging Scheme

Four A1 boards giving an overview of our plans

A message wall where local people could leave their thoughts and suggestions for the plans

A children‟s art area where young people could draw their ideal home and their dream park

An Envac prop which demonstrated how rubbish will be turned into heat and power at Surrey
Canal: London‟s Sporting Village

A basketball competition in partnership with the Luol Deng Foundation
21
Figures 8&9 Local residents leaving their comments on the message wall
6.1.6
We had five members of the Renewal team on hand to answer any questions as well as
David West and Cecilia Lindstrom from Studio Egret West. We invited people to join our
mailing list and also publicised the more detailed exhibition on the 25th-27th July.
6.1.7
On the day we supported the painting of the main path into the park by Creekside Artists. The
London Borough of Lewisham commissioned Creekside Artists to design and paint images
influenced by Lewisham and its green spaces and on the day Creekside Artists led
collaborative drawing activities throughout the day near the park‟s Brownhill Road entrance.
22
Figure 9 Creekside Artists pavement painting outside the Surrey Canal cube at Lewisham People‟s Day
Figure 10 Basketball competition, in partnership with the Luol Deng Foundation
6.1.8
At Lewisham People‟s Day we spoke to approximately 400 local residents from all ages and
backgrounds.
6.1.9
We were overwhelmed by the positive response to the proposals, especially from Millwall fans
and some members of the Millwall Community Scheme staff. In particular one person told us
that he thought it was a great idea as currently his wife won‟t allow him to take his son to the
match as she thinks it‟s too unsafe but if the whole area was regenerated they would be able
to go to the match as a family.
6.1.10 The comments from the message wall which was displayed at Lewisham People‟s day and
the two exhibitions can be found in appendix 15.5.
23
7.
Consultation Activities: Public exhibitions
7.1
Exhibitions overview
We held two public exhibitions – the first, immediately after the launch at Lewisham People‟s
Day to build on the momentum created by the public announcement of the Emerging
Scheme, and the second in October to coincide with the football season and local schools
being back from holiday.
The two exhibitions were held in different locations to provide the widest reach. The first
exhibition was held in July at the Lewington Centre, Silwood Estate (to the north of the
regeneration area) and the second exhibition was held at Scotney Hall, Winslade Estate (to
the south of the regeneration area).
Figure 11 Map showing the position of the Lewington Centre to the north and Scotney Hall to the south of the Surrey Canal site
24
Figure 12 Welcome panel at the exhibitions (appendix 15.3)
Figure 13 37,000 leaflets were delivered door to door to advertise the July exhibition
25
7.2
July exhibition
The July exhibition at the Lewington Centre was held at the following times:
Sunday 25th July 2010, 11am to 4pm
Monday 26th July 2010, 10am to 6pm
Tuesday 27th July 2010, 10am to 4.30pm
We chose the Lewington Centre because it was close to the north of the site and is a new
facility in a recently regenerated area so it would remind visitors of the benefits that
regeneration can bring.
Figure 14 Advert promoting the July exhibition which appeared in the South London Press and the Southwark News
7.2.1
Promotion
As well as sending an invite to 536 people on our database and promoting the July exhibition
at Lewisham People‟s Day, we also took out two adverts in the local South London Press and
the Southwark News. We asked Tony O‟Leary to deliver 37,000 leaflets to homes in the
surrounding area.
26
Figure 15 Leaflet drop area in relation to the Surrey Canal site
We put up posters in the Lewington Centre the week before advertising the exhibition and
gave the venue flyers to distribute to local residents.
7.2.2
The exhibition
Over three days we spoke to 85 people in depth and the feedback from the three day
exhibition was positive, but this time we found that people had more detailed questions, such
as:
“What will happen to Bridgehouse Meadows?”
“Will the Surrey Canal Road station happen?”
There was also some scepticism as people had never heard of Renewal or even any planned
proposals for regeneration in the Surrey Canal area. This was because, up until our launch at
Lewisham People‟s Day on July 10th, we had deliberately kept a very low profile during our
27
land acquisition. Due to scepticism regarding delivery of the scheme we made it our policy to
actively promote the press coverage of the scheme to the database and to regularly update
the website with any news stories relating to the regeneration and generally instil confidence
in the local community that we would deliver the scheme.
Figure 16 The July exhibition at the Lewington Centre on the Silwood Estate
7.3
October exhibition
After the July exhibition we learnt that we had not attracted residents from the south of the
regeneration area so we hosted the second exhibition at Scotney Hall, Winslade Estate in
October.
The exhibition was held at the following times:
Friday 1st October 2010, midday until 4pm
Saturday 2nd October 2010, midday until 4pm
7.3.1
Promotion
This exhibition was focused on the residents who live to the south of the regeneration area.
Because the scheme had received wide spread press coverage we were confident that we
would be able to attract the local community by delivering 3,000 leaflets advertising the
28
exhibition door to door, promoting the exhibition on the website, placing leaflets in Scotney
Hall the week prior to the exhibition and inviting 575 people on our consultation database.
Figure 17 Leaflet advertising the October exhibition
7.3.2
The exhibition
Over two half days we spoke to 50 people and this time the questions were much more
detailed as everyone that visited the exhibition had some prior knowledge of the scheme. All
the people we spoke to had much more confidence that we would deliver a large scale
regeneration scheme and that Renewal were bringing forward Surrey Canal: London‟s
Sporting Village.
7.4
Responses to the exhibitions
The most numerous comments that we received from the exhibitions were to do with:

Sport

Transport

Public realm and Bridgehouse Meadows

Scheme-wide comments

Housing
29
Figure 18 Comments left on the Surrey Canal message wall
7.4.1
Sport, by far, generated the most interest and the sports comments were broken down as:

Sports facilities should be affordable (most popular)

Interested in plans for Millwall FC and the stadium

Would like a swimming pool

Would like 24 hour football pitches

Sport should promote a healthy lifestyle
7.4.2
Transport featured highly amongst the responses from the local community and this is partly
due to the high profile campaign for a station at Surrey Canal Road. The transport responses
were broken down as:

Supports Surrey Canal Road station/ would like an update

Better public transport and pedestrian/ cycle routes are needed

Concern about the reduction of the South London Line service that currently serves South
Bermondsey station

More non-residential parking

Wants Bolina Road improved
A full report of all the comments and suggestions we received throughout the consultation
period can be found in appendix 15.6.
7.5
The Canada Water Consultative Forum
During the exhibitions we met with three representatives from the Canada Water Consultative
Forum. They attended the exhibitions as concerned Southwark residents and they had
30
specific questions relating to the impact of the planned development on trip generation and
traffic into Southwark. They were satisfied that we had taken Councillor Fiona Colley, Member
for Regeneration in Southwark on a site visit of the scheme and they had detailed questions
on the scheme which we responded to by email and this response can be seen in appendix
15.7.
31
8.
Consultation Activities: Meetings with stakeholders
and changes made
A huge effort has been made to meet with a wide range of local groups and relevant stakeholders
throughout the pre-application consultation process. This has included meetings with local, political
and technical audiences. Please refer to appendix 15.8 for a selection of letters of support.
Please note that the lists below are not exhaustive as so much work has been done over such a long
period by so many people that it is hard to track down a complete record of everything. It is also the
case that we spoke to many local groups at the July and October 2010 detailed exhibitions.
8.1
Local and Regional
As there is no residential housing on the existing Surrey Canal site we did not have a
residents association which we could engage directly with. We also found that the
neighbouring Winslade Estate Residents Association had been wound-up so we had to think
imaginatively about local community groups and local contacts to engage with.
In addition to ongoing regular contact, specific one-to-one meetings have taken place with all
of the following, in some cases more than once.
8.1.1
Stephen Lawes, Vice Principle, Corporate Services at Lewisham College
20th July 2009 – pre consultation
3rd September 2010
8.1.2
Joan Ruddock MP, Lewisham Deptford
3rd August 2009 – pre consultation
8th February 2010 – pre consultation
Lewisham People‟s Day, 10th July 2010
8.1.3
Heidi Alexander MP, Lewisham East
3rd August 2009 (as Deputy Mayor, London Borough of Lewisham) – pre consultation
Lewisham People‟s Day, 10th July 2010
8.1.4
Goldsmith‟s College, University of London
15th September 2009 – pre consultation
18th November 2010
8.1.5
Len Duvall, London Assembly Member, Greenwich and Lewisham
5th October 2009 – pre consultation
32
4th August 2010
8.1.6
Millwall Community Scheme trustees
3rd December 2009 – pre consultation
8th November 2010
8.1.7
Sir Simon Milton, GLA Deputy Mayor and Chief of Staff
1st December 2009 – pre consultation
17th December 2009 – pre consultation
3rd February 2010 – pre consultation
28th July 2010
8.1.8
Councillor Fiona Colley, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Corporate Strategy, London
Borough of Southwark
15th July 2010
26th October 2010
15th October 2010
8.1.9
Simon Cooper, GLA Head of Sport
21st July 2010
8.1.10 Deptford X Board
29th July 2010
8.1.11 Caroline Pidgeon, Leader Liberal Democrat Local Assembly Group and Councillor, London
Borough of Southwark
9th August 2010
8.1.12 Simon Hughes MP, Bermondsey and Old Southwark
9th August 2010
8.1.13 Lord Roy Kennedy of Southwark
10th August 2010
5th October 2010
8.1.14 Nick Raynsford MP, Greenwich and Woolwich
1st October 2010
8.1.15 Irene Byworth, Ex-Chair of the Winslade Estate Residents Association
2nd October 2010
33
27th October 2010
8.1.16 170 Community project, New Cross
13th October 2010
8.1.17 Ministry of Youth group, Winslade Estate
20th October 2010
27th October 2010
8.1.18 Kate Hoey MP, GLA Commissioner for Sport
10th December 2010
8.1.19 Councillor Peter John, Leader of Southwark
15th December 2010
8.1.20 Peter Pledger, Chief Executive, South London Business
15th December 2010
8.1.21 We have made all of our current tenants aware of the phasing time-frames for the masterplan
and we have advised them that we will be preparing a relocation strategy to assist them once
outline planning consent has been granted and we will keep them advised of any changes to
the phasing programme as the scheme progresses.
Figure 19 Police Community Support Officers looking at the plans for Surrey Canal
8.2
The London Borough of Southwark
We presented the Emerging Scheme to the neighbouring London Borough of Southwark at a
number of levels.
34

We met with Southwark‟s Sport and Leisure officers on Tuesday 22nd June

We took Councillor Fiona Colley, Southwark‟s Cabinet Member for Regeneration and
Southwark transport officers on a site visit on Thursday 15th July

We presented the scheme to Simon Hughes, MP for Southwark on Monday 9th August

At a joint London Borough of Lewisham and London Borough of Southwark meeting,
organised by Councillor Alan Smith on 26th October 2010

We presented to Southwark Council officers on Thursday 9th December

We gave a presentation to the Councillor Peter John, Leader of Southwark on Wednesday
15th December. Councillors Nick Dolezal and Fiona Colley also attended this meeting.
8.3
Transport
A significant number of meetings on transport issues have taken place and will continue to
take place.
We‟ve had regular and detailed transport discussions with the following groups since 2008:

Department for Transport (DfT)

LB Lewisham

LB Southwark

Network Rail

TfL

Sustrans and Lewisham and Southwark cycle officers
8.3.1
With so many meetings held and comments made over such a long period, the scheme has
evolved throughout. The main topics during transport meetings have been:

The delivery of the Surrey Canal Road station on the East London Line phase two extension

How this work will effect Bridgehouse Meadows especially after construction

Delivery of underpasses to address issues of severance caused by the East London Line
phase two extension

8.3.2
Connections east to west for pedestrians and cyclists via Sustrans
Although not all of the funding for the station at Surrey Canal Road has not yet been secured
the £3 million from the London Borough of Lewisham will allow passive provision (platform
foundations, ticket offices etc.) to be built in when the extension to the line is constructed at
the beginning of 2011. We are confident that it is not a case of „if‟ a station is built at Surrey
Canal Road but „when‟ a station is built.
Following the submission of our planning application we will re-engage with DfT, TfL and the
London Borough of Lewisham to bridge the funding gap to enable delivery of the station.
35
8.4
Southwark Congestion
The congestion on the Southwark Lower Road emerged from the consultation as a concern
for three Southwark residents living in the Canada Water area and Southwark officers. We
have been working closely with the London Boroughs of Lewisham and Southwark to ensure
that our scheme, along with the other proposed regeneration schemes in the north of the
borough, does not have a detrimental impact on our neighbours.
8.5
Waste
8.5.1
SELCHP
Due to the proximity of the South East London Combined Heat and Power plant (SELCHP) to
the regeneration area we were keen to utilise SELCHP to make the development as
sustainable as possible.
Currently the SELCHP plant only generates power, which is sold back to the national grid,
and it does not generate any heat even though it has the capability to. We met with Steve
Brown, General Manager at SELCHP and he agreed that the proximity of the Surrey Canal
scheme would provide a great opportunity for a direct heat and power feed in conjunction with
the planned Southwark district heating network proposals. We then held regular meetings
with Veolia, the management company behind SELCHP, to make sure that a direct feed was
provided to the scheme to ensure there was passive provision to facilitate installation after the
completion of the East London Line phase two.
Meetings were held with SELCHP on:

12th January 2010

17th May 2010

1st October 2010

18th November 2010
8.5.2
Envac
As part of the development at Surrey Canal we are planning to install the Envac waste
vacuum system which has immediate benefits including:

Making recycling much easier for residents. At the Wembley development where Envac is
already being used recycling rates have increased from 10% (pre installation) to 40% (post
installation)

Reducing heavy vehicle traffic on the development. As the waste is collected at a central point
refuse trucks do not need to travel to each block.
36
Separated waste would then be transported to SELCHP and incinerated, thereby creating
heat and power.
We met with Julian Gaylor, Managing Director, Envac UK, regularly during the design phase
of the scheme.

30th March 2010

14th May 2010

7th September 2010

7th December 2010
We wanted to show the local community that through the proposed development waste would
be used to create heat and power so we commissioned a prop builder to make an Envac
demonstration unit which we took to Lewisham People‟s Day and the two exhibitions.
Figure 20 Envac demonstration unit
Of the comments we received from the local community about sustainability 29% related to
Envac and were in support of the Envac and SELCHP connection at Surrey Canal: London‟s
Sporting Village.
8.6
Design
8.6.1
We presented the scheme to the London Borough of Lewisham‟s Design Panel on 4
occasions and the Design Panel saw the scheme develop through its many iterations.

20th October 2009
37

12th January 2010

4th May 2010

24th August 2010
8.6.2
CABE
The Surrey Canal: London‟s Sporting Village team made a presentation to the CABE Design
Panel on 9th June 2010. The panel were impressed by the vision behind the scheme and
praised the work that had been done so far. They made some suggestions regarding
animating outdoor space and cementing the vision of the scheme. Following CABE‟s
suggestions we proposed outdoor playing facilities at Bridgehouse Meadows (for example,
permanent concrete table tennis tables) as well as outdoor sports facilities on the roofs of the
sports boxes if possible.
8.7
Landscape design
Regular landscape design meetings were held between Townshend Landscape Architects,
Studio Egret West and the London Borough of Lewisham throughout the development of the
scheme. We also presented our landscape proposals to the Lewisham Design Panel.
8.8
Social infrastructure
We commissioned Hunt Dobson Stringer to produce a full socio-economic report - please see
Supporting Reports, Regeneration Statement and Community Facilities Statement. These
reports look into health, education, community, leisure and cultural facilities and open space
in the area, including current provision and projected future demand arising from the
development proposals.
Following on from the findings in the socio-economic reports, we consulted in greater depth
with those involved in the provision of sports and healthcare, universities and young people.
8.9
Sports providers
We spoke to a wide variety of sports providers, sports charities and sport‟s National
Governing Bodies and we developed a close working relationship with Sport England.
We spoke to:

Amateur Boxing Association

Badminton England

British Gymnastics

British Lawn Tennis Association

England and Wales Cricket Board

England Basketball
38

England Netball

England Table Tennis Association

Football Association

Kate Hoey MP, GLA Commissioner for Sport

Kent County Cricket

The Jimmy Mizen Foundation

Ladywell Gymnastics Club

The Live the Dream Foundation

LB Southwark: Head of Leisure and Wellbeing, Strategy Development Manager

LB Lewisham

Lynn Boxing Club

Luol Deng Foundation

Millwall Football Club

Millwall Community Scheme

Simon Cooper, GLA Head of Sport

Sport England

UK Athletics

Wheelpower
All of these organisations were supportive of a new regional sports centre for London and
South East England at Surrey Canal and you can find letters of support in the supporting
reports to the planning application.
8.9.1
We worked closely with Sport England and as our plans developed we had the following
meetings with them:

Stuart Makepeace, Relationship Manager, Facilities and Planning
26th May 2009
22nd October 2009

Stuart Makepeace and Charles Johnston, Property Director meeting with Renewal and
London Borough of Lewisham
18th November 2009

Needs and Demands for Sports presentation with Sport England to the National Governing
Bodies of Sport (NGB‟s)
4th May 2010

Tony Atherton, Technical Team Lead
18th May 2010
39

Presentation with Sport England to the Sports NGB‟S
18th June 2010

Andrew Bateman, Technical Team Lead
18th October 2010

Charles Johnston, People, Places and Play funding
1st December 2010
8.9.2
We were invited by Sport England to apply to their Iconic Facilities fund as part of their
People, Places, Play initiative. We submitted our application for £2 million of capital funding
towards the sports provision at Surrey Canal on the 15th December. By March 2011 we will
know if our application has been put forward to the next stage.
8.9.3
We also spoke to a leisure facilities management company who assisted us with our business
case for sport.
8.10 Healthcare
In our pre-consultation period we met with:

Gill Galliano, Chief Executive of the Lewisham Primary Care Trust

Tim Higginson, Chief Executive and Bala Gnanapragasam, Chair, Lewisham University
Hospital
Following the announcement from the Government that Primary Care Trusts would become
obsolete we met with the Chairs and Chief Executives of the major teaching hospitals around
the regeneration area on the 28th October 2010 to present the scheme and to ask for their
suggestions about healthcare provision on the site.
8.10.1 We met with:

Professor Robert Lechler, Executive Director, Kings Health Partners

Lord Butler, Chair, Kings Health Partners

Tim Smart, Chief Executive, Kings College Hospital

Michael Parker, Chair , Kings College Hospital

Madeliene Long, Chair of South London and Maudsley Mental Health Trust

Stuart Bell, Chief Executive, South London and Maudsley Mental Health Trust

Ron Kerr, Chief Executive, Guys and St Thomas Hospitals

Patricia Moberley, Chair, Guys and St Thomas Hospitals
40
The feedback from this group was:

The Surrey Canal scheme provides a great opportunity to re-site non-core healthcare
provision

There is a need and demand for medical research facilities in close proximity to central
London and this could happen at Surrey Canal

With the changes to the healthcare structure we should work closely with a large group of
GPs who will be responsible for community healthcare
“We need more jobs in the Health
sector. Currently I live in Lovelinch
Close and I work in Brent. I would
rather give something back to my
local community. Please provide
something for us – we want to give
something back.”
8.11 Universities
Following our initial meeting with Goldsmith‟s College, University of London on 15th
September 2009 we identified universities, alongside sports and healthcare and being anchor
organisations at Surrey Canal: London‟s Sporting Village.
We identified the opportunities for a university as being:

Link with sports teaching, sports management, nutrition and physiotherapy courses

Student accommodation
8.11.1 We met with Femi Bola, Director of Employability at the University of East London (UEL) on
Wednesday 11th August 2010 to take her through the Surrey Canal scheme and talk about
the opportunities for a university. Femi felt that this was an opportunity that despite recent
higher education cuts universities would be excited and interested in. Following our meeting
with Femi we then identified the additional opportunity for a University.

Link with business and creative incubation space
Following our initial meeting we met Femi and her colleagues, Ray Wilkinson (Director of
External and Strategic Development Services) and Linsey Cole (Development Manager) from
UEL on Wednesday 20th October. UEL then introduced us to the Knowledge East partners.
Knowledge East (www.knowledgeeast.net) is a partnership of nine universities within the
Thames Gateway area.
41
8.11.2 Knowledge East partners
University of Greenwich
Goldsmith‟s College, University of London
London Metropolitan University
Queen Mary‟s College, University of London
Ravensbourne College of Design and Communication
Rose Bruford College
Trinity Laban
University of East London
London South Bank University
We met with representatives from the nine Knowledge East partner universities on Thursday
18th November and we received strong indications of interest from Goldsmith‟s University, due
to their proximity to the site and London South Bank University who currently provide a home
for three sport‟s national governing bodies and have a large sports teaching department.
8.12 Accessibility
It is important that Surrey Canal: London‟s Sporting Village is entirely accessible for all
members of society in terms of housing, sports provision, retail and public realm.
8.12.1 We spoke to Wheelpower, the disability sports charity about our proposals and they were
supportive of the scheme and asked for a detailed presentation once we had obtained outline
planning permission.
8.12.2 We are establishing an Access Forum to ensure that Surrey Canal is accessible to all and we
have approached the National Association of Disabled Supporters and the London Access
Forum to help us establish this group. The forum will inform the detailed design of the scheme
across all uses.
A full accessibility report has been included with the planning application.
8.13 Job opportunities
We met with the 170 Community Project, New Cross to discuss targeting employment
opportunities for local people. The 170 Community Project would be able to broker training for
local people in order to equip them with the skills needed to gain employment on the scheme.
We will re-engage with the 170 Community Project when we are embarking on the tendering
process for the construction of phase 1.
42
9.
Consultation
Activities:
Engaging
with
Millwall
Football Club
When we embarked on our consultation activities we were mindful that we needed to engage
with the Millwall Football Club (MFC) fans and staff about the Emerging Scheme. Although
the majority of Millwall stakeholders are not local residents it was vital that we consulted with
them as they will be using the Surrey Canal area and its facilities at every home match and
the Den and its surrounding area is of huge significance to them.
9.1.1
We engaged with the Club and their fans in the following ways:

At Lewisham People‟s Day and at the July and October exhibitions

At the Millwall fans‟ forum on 17th August 2010

Through a Milwall fans‟ advisor

By speaking about the regeneration on Lion‟s Live, the Millwall fans radio show

By liaising with the Millwall Chaplain, Rev Canon Owen Beament

Regular meetings with the Owners, Chestnut Hill Ventures, and Senior Managers of MFC
9.1.2
We directly communicated with 975 fans:

100 fans at Lewisham People‟s Day

27 fans at the July and October exhibitions

29 fans at the Millwall fans‟ forum

1 fans advisor

162 regular listeners to Lions Live

1 MFC Chaplain

655 website referrals from House of Fun (www.hof.org.uk) and www.millwall.vitalfootball.co.uk
to www.surreycanal.com
9.2
Lewisham People’s Day, 10th July 2010
At Lewisham People‟s Day we spoke to approximately 400 Lewisham residents and 25% of
these were Millwall fans or had an interest in the club. We had an overwhelming response to
our plans from the fans at People‟s Day and the comments included:
“A new station and bus
routes will make it
easier for staff and
fans to get to The Den”
Millwall fan, Lewisham
People‟s Day
“The development would
allow me to take my son to
the game. At the moment
my wife won‟t allow him to
come as she thinks it is
unsafe”
Millwall fan, Lewisham
People‟s Day
“This is a great idea;
there is nothing there
at the moment”
“Anything will be an
improvement on what is
there at the moment”
Millwall fan,
Lewisham People‟s
Day
Millwall fan,
People‟s Day
Lewisham
43
9.3
Two exhibitions
After Lewisham People‟s Day we took out an advert in the Neil Harris testimonial match day
programme to advertise the upcoming July exhibition to Millwall fans. Neil Harris is Millwall‟s
greatest goal scorer and the testimonial was held to celebrate his return to health after a
battle with testicular cancer.
st
Figure 21 Advert in the Neil Harris testimonial programme, 31 July 2010
9.3.1
Following advertisements and door to door leaflet drops we welcomed 85 attendees to our
July exhibition and a further 50 people to our October exhibition. Approximately 20% of those
who attended were interested in the Club and we spoke to a mixture of fans, management,
employees and Directors.
Some of the questions that we received (and our answers) were:
44
Q: Will there be a range of housing options so Millwall fans can buy here?
Renewal: There will be a range of different sized homes, from studios to four bedrooms, as
well as a variety of private, shared ownership and housing association options. The level of
social housing will be dictated by the London Borough of Lewisham.
Q: This is a nice idea, but who wants to live next to Millwall?
Renewal: Homes will be above the third floor so all the residents and private gardens will be
above the level of the stadium. We believe that Millwall is a vibrant club with a great heritage
and an exciting future and we think others will do too.
Q: Who will be filling in the corners on the stadium?
Renewal: Millwall will be responsible for any treatment to the stadium, including filling in the
corners for extra seating capacity.
Q: What will happen to the Community Scheme?
Renewal: We have proposed that the Community Scheme could be re-homed in brand new
facilities in Surrey Canal: London’s Sporting Village which would allow them to generate
further income from hires. They could have the option of purchasing their facilities or leasing
them if they prefer.
9.4
Millwall fans’ forum, 17th August 2010
After the July exhibition we worked with the London Borough of Lewisham to host a Millwall
fans‟ forum on the 17th August 2010. The local authority invited all staff who are Millwall fans
to a presentation followed by a question and answer session by the Renewal team. The
Millwall fans‟ forum was a great opportunity for us and the local authority to hear the
comments and concerns of the fans first hand. A full list of all the attendees can be found in
appendix 15.8.
9.4.1
Following the fans‟ forum we circulated answers to questions asked on the day to all the
participants. Afterwards Dave Borland, a Millwall season ticket holder, asked if he could
circulate the information more widely which he did to the online Millwall fan forums, including
House of Fun (www.hof.org.uk), and the information was also shared with the team from the
Lions Live radio station. The questions and our response can be found in appendix 15.9.
9.5
Millwall fans’ advisor
Throughout the consultation process we worked closely with a long term Millwall fan, Steve
Croft. Steve highlighted to us key issues that the fans would want to know about the scheme,
for example:

How will the club benefit from the development?
45

How much money will the club make from the development?

Some fans will not want the club to change and they like it being intimidating.
9.6
Lions Live, Thursday 18th November, 8pm
We were invited on Lions Live, the Millwall fans internet radio show, to be interviewed about
the Emerging Scheme prior to the planning application going in to the London Borough of
Lewisham.
Prior to the interview we spoke to George Lampey from Lions Live in some detail about what
the fans wanted to know about. George reminded us to keep it simple and to refer back to the
Club. Our interview on Lions Live was promoted via the Lions Live website, the Millwall
Football Club website and the Millwall fans‟ forum, House of Fun. Prior to the interview a plan
of the scheme was posted on the Lions Live website so the fans could have a better idea of
what we were discussing.
The interview was a success and we were well received by the Lions Live team and the fans
in what could have been a difficult interview. We plan to do more interviews with Lions Live as
the Emerging Scheme progresses as this is a great way of keeping directly in touch with the
fans.
A full transcript of the Lions Live interview can be found in appendix 15.10.
9.7
Millwall Football Club memorial gardens
Outside Millwall Football Club, across from the corner of the Cold Blow Lane and Main Stands
is the MFC memorial gardens where family can lay the ashes of loved ones or place a
memorial to them.
As part of the proposed development at Surrey Canal: London‟s Sporting Village the
memorial gardens may need to be relocated or protected during the construction of phase 3.
We have spoken to the Club and they are fully aware that this maybe a possibility and they
will manage the relocation, if necessary.
We consulted with Fr. Owen Beament MBE, the football club‟s Chaplain who is also a trustee
of the Millwall Community scheme. Fr. Beament was in support of the development and
advised us that moving the memorial gardens should be avoided if possible as some ashes
are interred in the gardens and it could cause great distress to the families and may require
permission from the Home Office. We will work closely with the Club and Fr. Beament to
ensure that the memorial gardens are treated with respect and dignity as the development
progresses.
46
st
Figure 22 The Neil Harris testimonial programme that we advertised the Surrey Canal plans in on 31 July 2010
47
10. Consultation Activities: Engaging with Faith Leaders
and groups
As landlords in south east London we have noticed firsthand the huge growth in demand for religious
facilities. Through our socio-economic research we learnt that within a quarter of a mile radius of the
Surrey Canal site there are seventy religious groups operating out of unsuitable premises. Due to
these factors and the large amount of commercial space that we have throughout the scheme we saw
an opportunity to provide a purpose built religious and community facility at Surrey Canal: London‟s
Sporting Village.
We were mindful, when proposing a faith facility for the Surrey Canal scheme and bearing in mind
Comedia‟s findings in 2007 that we would have to be sensitive and transparent in our relationship with
the faith leaders and religious groups that we consulted with.
We embarked on our consultation with faith groups by meeting with Kingsway International Christian
Centre (KICC) at the end of 2009. In summer 2010 we sent out a questionnaire regarding faith
facilities to one hundred religious groups in south east London, then we held further detailed meetings
with faith leaders, the Faith Officer at the London Borough of Lewisham and Dr Chris Hewson from
the University of Manchester.
“This will be a blessing. Religious
facilities for all faiths – Churches
especially.”
10.1 Kingsway International Christian Centre, 16th December 2009
We met with KICC, a large church who are based in east London and are looking for
premises in south east London, just after they had their planning application for a purpose
built facility, Father‟s House in Rainham, Essex turned down. Father‟s House would have
become the new home for KICC and would have included an 8,000 seat auditorium, gym,
cafe, outdoor games area and a large car park. KICC were on the lookout for new
opportunities and were very keen to take on the whole of the faith facility at Surrey Canal and
have it as their new home with a 5,000 seat auditorium.
10.1.1 Following meetings with KICC we felt that they were too large for the faith facility at Surrey
Canal and instead we decided to consult with smaller, local faith organisations to see if they
would be able to share a building but have their own separate areas for worship, with the
48
possibility of some shared non denominational facilities such as a large hall for weddings and
meetings.
10.2 Multifaith consultation
We delivered one hundred questionnaires to religious groups across south east London,
concentrating on the Penarth Estate, off Ilderton Road, and the industrial units on Thurston
Road, Lewisham as both these areas have a large concentration of religious groups and are
based in close proximity to the Surrey Canal site. The questionnaire asked:

What facilities they currently had?

What facilities they required?

Would they be interested in relocating to the proposed facilities at Surrey Canal?

Would they be willing to come to a meeting to discuss their requirements in more detail?
The questionnaire and responses can be found in appendix 15.11.
10.2.1 We had a poor response rate to the questionnaire (only three were returned from the one
hundred delivered) so we spoke to Alison Licorish, Faith Officer at the London Borough of
Lewisham to seek her advice on how we could communicate better with the religious groups.
Alison‟s support and advice were invaluable.
10.2.2 Following the poor response rate to the questionnaire and after talking to Alison we learnt
that:

The smaller groups (congregations of less than 500) are often led by Faith Leaders who are
not full time employees of the religious group so may not pick up correspondence regularly

Faith leaders can be very sceptical following bad experiences with landlords and planning
authorities

But, there is a huge demand for long term, purpose built facilities
Alison‟s advice was to contact as many organisations, across all denominations, as possible
and in turn she put us in touch with groups who she thought would be interested in hearing
about this opportunity.
10.2.3 We went on to hold detailed contact and meetings with a range of religious groups, including:

Celestial Church of God

House of Prosperity International Church

Kingsway International Christian Centre

Life Changing Ministry International

Noah‟s Ark Parish, Celestial Church of Christ

Spirit and Life Bible Church
49

UK Turkish Islamic Greenwich Cultural Centre

Watchman Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement
The full findings of the mutifaith consultation can be found in appendix 15.12.
10.2.4 In summary we discovered that the larger groups (congregations of 1000+), regardless of
denomination, were happy to share a multi-faith facility and that there was a move toward
multifaith facilities to promote cultural exchange.
10.3 Multifaith spaces study, University of Manchester
Alison Licorish recommended that we contact Dr Chris Hewson from the University of
Manchester Architecture department. Dr Hewson and his team launched a multifaith spaces
study in April 2010 and they hope to find out how buildings and areas used for multifaith
spaces can promote tolerance between different religions and how building design can impact
on intercultural communication.
We met with Dr Hewson on 23rd November in Manchester and we embarked on a partnership
with the University of Manchester which will enable us to design a facility which will promote
and build relationships between different groups in the local community and lead to a more
integrated community.
50
11. Consultation Activities: working with young people
As 27.4% of people in the Surrey Canal area are aged between 15-25 years old (compared with a
London average of 11.5%) it was important that we targeted young people throughout the
consultation process.
We approached young people through three routes.

Deptford X workshops in Deptford Green School

Young Mayor of Lewisham and Cabinet

Ministry of Youth
11.1 Deptford Green School
Through our partnership with Deptford X we enabled the Turner prize nominated artist Mark
Titchner to hold three workshops with year 7 students from Deptford Green. The workshops
took place at the end of the summer term 2010 and Mark and the students produced three
pieces of artwork. Mark used photographs taken by the students, exploring their local
environments, to create a series of three images which were presented on three refuse trucks
which serve the north of the borough.
Figure 23 Mark Titchner and year 7 Deptford Green student launching the „A Load of Rubbish‟ refuse trucks
51
11.2 Young Mayor of Lewisham and Cabinet
We presented the Emerging Surrey Canal: London‟s Sporting Village Scheme to the Young
Mayor and Cabinet on Monday 12th July at 5pm. The group were hugely responsive to the
plans and had some great ideas with regards to how the facilities and the scheme could
appeal to young people in Lewisham.
Responses included:

Include more extreme and unusual sports, such as climbing walls and horse riding

Include aspirational sports such as rugby, squash and Eton fives.

Have a sports bar with facilities such as indoor bowling lane and virtual golf (like the
Trocadero, London) where people can go for a night out
The Young Mayor and Cabinet‟s creative response to our proposals led us to include a
climbing wall in the proposals and made us consider more unusual sports, such as a diving
centre. Following our initial presentation to the group we kept in close contact with them,
invited them to events and kept them updated with the plans for the Emerging Scheme as
they developed.
11.3 Ministry of Youth
We approached the Ministry of Youth as they are a youth group who have recently moved to
the Cyber Centre on the Lovelinch Close, Winslade Estate and they are the closest youth
group to the regeneration area with the majority of the young people coming from the Estate.
11.3.1 We presented the Emerging Scheme to a group of 25 young people on Wednesday 20th
October at 6pm and the comments we received back were positive.
Comments included:

As its London‟s Sporting Village can you bring JD sports and similar shops to the area?

Keep the cost of entry to the Sports facility low so everyone can afford to go

We know Bridgehouse Meadows as the Field

The long grass at the Field means dogs poo everywhere

We don‟t go to the Field because it‟s unsafe and there is nothing there – we would rather
travel to Telegraph Hill Park or Burgess Park

More bus routes
11.3.2 The young people from the Ministry of Youth were then invited to participate in the CABE
spaceshaper workshop about Bridgehouse Meadows. We plan to go back at regular intervals
to keep the group up to date with how the scheme is progressing.
52
Figure 24 Ministry of Youth group members taking part in the Bridgehouse Meadows workshop
53
12. Community Partnerships: Deptford X and CABE
Spaceshaper
12.1 Deptford X
As part of our marketing strategy for Surrey Canal: London‟s Sporting Village we became the
lead sponsor for Deptford X (www.deptfordx.webeden.co.uk). By sponsoring the festival we
were linked with a well established local event which seeks to put a spotlight on the talent and
potential of the area.
Deptford X is London‟s longest running contemporary art festival. The festival is an event at
the heart of Deptford‟s creative community and it is based on a belief in the limitless potential
of the area which is a belief that we share.
As well as being the lead sponsor for the festival we also supported three projects:

Deptford Green School, „A Load of Rubbish‟ project

Deptford X award

Peter Anderson exhibition
12.1.1 Deptford Green School
We enabled Mark Titchner, lead artist for Deptford X 2010, to work with year 7 students from
Deptford Green School to produce three pieces of artwork in response to Mark‟s statement of
intent which was about everyday life and how we relate to our surroundings – issues that are
central to the regeneration of the Surrey Canal area.
The refuse trucks were launched by Councillor Alan Smith on Tuesday 20th July and they
were well received by students and residents. The project got students to think in a creative
way about the area they live in and how they use it, both today and in the future. It also gave
the students the chance to work closely with a leading artist and to see the work that they
produced travelling around the borough.
12.1.2 Deptford X Award
The Deptford X award was established to celebrate the creative talent in south London. 60
people applied, from which 7 were shortlisted and the winner was announced at the Deptford
X launch on Thursday 23rd November.
The 2010 Deptford X award was won by Liz Harrison, with her sound installation „Why birds
sing up‟, an installation of bird recordings, which promoted an awareness of how songbirds
are adapting to their urban existence. The installation was based in the stairwells of Deptford
54
train station and was an innovative piece of art in the public sphere which encouraged
everyone who heard it to think about the environment they live in.
Figure 25 A Load of Rubbish project
12.1.3 Peter Anderson exhibition
We commissioned the music photographer Peter Anderson, who has taken portraits of
Madonna and Iggy Pop, to travel around the London Borough of Lewisham during summer
2010 and to take pictures of the local community. Peter took pictures on Deptford High Street,
Lewisham People‟s Day and stopped people on the street and produced a series of
photographs which travelled around the borough to the following venues:

The Arch Gallery, Deptford High Street, 24th September to 3rd October 2010

London Borough of Lewisham, Civic Suite, October 2010

The Limelight Gallery, Lewisham High Street, due to open February 2010
“It is not hard to see the similarities
between our two projects. We both
aim to inspire the local community
as well as reaching out to audiences
beyond our boundaries and we both
believe in the limitless potential of
the area.”
Matthew Couper, Project Director
Deptford X
55
12.2 CABE Spaceshaper workshop, Bridgehouse Meadows
Following the two public exhibitions we identified that we needed to speak to the local
community in further detail about the proposals for Bridgehouse Meadows. We commissioned
CABE to undertake workshops with adults and young people (from the Ministry of Youth) to
discover the views of the local community about the space and for us to find out its key
strengths and weaknesses.
Figure 26 CABE Spaceshaper workshop at Scotney Hall
12.2.1 Spaceshaper toolkit
Spaceshaper is a practical toolkit to measure the quality of a public space. The toolkit uses a
questionnaire to capture the views of professionals and the local community about their public
space. After filling out the questionnaire participants discuss the results in facilitated
workshops.
The workshops, held in Scotney Hall, on the Winslade Estate, started with short presentations
on the scheme and the wider north Lewisham regeneration plans, which was followed by a
site visit. The adult stakeholders then completed a CABE Spaceshaper questionnaire whilst
the young people participated in a series of activities to help them assess Bridgehouse
Meadows, how they use it and what would be good to see in the future.
56
12.2.2 What we learnt:

Bridgehouse Meadows is seen primarily as a space for informal recreation including dog
walking, playing, walking and jogging and as a pedestrian and cycle link between adjoining
areas, providing an alternative to the busy roads.

Routes into the site are inaccessible for pushchairs or for those with mobility problems as they
involve steep steps or climbing up the muddy embankments.

We found that many people were not using Bridgehouse Meadows because of the perception
that it is an unsafe open space. The Local Community Support Officers told the group that
crime rates around Bridgehouse Meadows are statistically low but the perception of crime is
high. In particular young people were prepared to travel to the neighbouring Burgess Park
(1.9 miles away) and Telegraph Hill Park (1.1 miles away) instead of using Bridgehouse
Meadows.

The lack of hard surfaced footpaths across the site means it gets very muddy in wet weather.
12.2.3 Facilities:

Young people are keen to see more facilities so that they can use the space for sporting
activities.

Use the space to promote natural play facilities offering more adventurous and imaginative
opportunities including skateboarding and BMX.

Use the natural high point for a folly to make the most of the views out to Canary Wharf and
across London.

Bridgehouse Meadows could play host to organised community events e.g.: festivals,
bonfires, concerts etc.
The workshop demonstrated that despite its lack of use, the Bridgehouse Meadows space is
nevertheless much valued by the local community as a rare green space in a very built up
area.
The full CABE Spaceshaper report can be found in appendix 15.13.
57
13. Online media monitoring and website
13.1 Website
Figure 27 Website home page
A major part of our consultation plans was to have a website for the scheme that was easy to
understand and regularly updated. We launched the www.surreycanal.com website on
Saturday 10th July 2010 to coincide with our public launch at Lewisham People‟s Day. The
website was a great way for us to communicate regularly with the local community and we
were able to analyse the web traffic and amend the site accordingly. For example, we
introduced the „Press coverage and updates‟ section on the homepage in August as we knew
we were putting some interesting information on the press page but no one was accessing it
as there was no direct link from the homepage.
In total up until 2nd January 2010 the website statistics showed:

3,042 visitors

People, on average, visited 4.16 pages whilst on the site

The average time spent on the site was 3.20 minutes
58
1000
800
600
400
200
0
11 July - 10…
9-15 Aug
16-22 Aug
23-29 Aug
30 Aug -5 Sep
6-12 Sep
13-19 Sep
20-26 Sep
27 Sep - 3 Oct
4-10 Oct
11-17 Oct
18-24 Oct
25-31 Oct
1-7 Nov
8-14 Nov
15-21 Nov
22-28 Nov
29 Nov-5 Dec
6-12 Dec
13-19 Dec
20-26 Dec
27 Dec-2 Jan
Visits
Visits
Figure 28 Visitors to www.surreycanal.com
The chart shows that visits to the site are general between 100-200 visitors per week except
the week of the 4th–10th October 2010 when they jumped to 778. This was the week after our
second exhibition at Scotney Hall on the Winslade Estate and during this week the website
address was published on the Millwall fan forum, House of Fun. We can see that 83.29% of
visitors that week came directly from www.hof.org.uk, so 648 Millwall Football Club fans
viewed the plans for the scheme in that one week alone.
As expected we saw the weekly amount of new visitors fall from 85% in July to 65% in
November which shows that people were returning to the website to keep updated on the
Surrey Canal scheme.
13.2 Email
We used a dedicated email info@surreycanal.com which the local community could use to
ask questions about the scheme and so far we have received 16 emails to that address from
local people.
We also sent regular email updates to our database including:

Links to press articles

Information about upcoming events and exhibitions

Information about our partnership work with Deptford X
13.3 Social media and blogs
The scheme was covered by the following social media and blogs:

The Deptford Dame (www.deptforddame.blogspot.com/)

Brockley Central (www.brockleycentral.blogspot.com/)

London reconnections (www.londonreconnections.blogspot.com)

House of Fun (www.hof.org.uk)

853 (www.853blog.wordpress.com)
59

Facebook Surrey Canal Road station campaign
60
14. Supporting Press Work
A detailed press strategy was developed to support consultation activities by generating awareness
and excitement about the plans, drive up consultation numbers and establish Surrey Canal as
London‟s next major regeneration scheme.
The launch at Lewisham People‟s Day and the two public exhibitions provided natural news hooks,
therefore activity largely centred on these milestones.
14.1 Press notices
The following press notices have been issued since the start of the consultation process:
10 July 2010 – Surrey Canal: London‟s Sporting Village, major new regeneration scheme
moves ahead
28 September 2010 – Have your say on Surrey Canal: London‟s Sporting Village
In addition, we have responded to numerous requests from the media for more information
following the press notices, have written articles for The Gatepost community newsletter and
Lewisham Life (Lewisham Council publication) and provided illustrative images of the scheme
upon request.
th
Figure 29 South London Press, Gold-Den Chance for Development, 13 July 2010
61
14.2 Press coverage
The coverage has been overwhelmingly positive and our target media – local and select
regeneration trade and regional titles – have shown a strong interest in the proposals. Steps
were also taken to share information with key local blogs as an excellent method of
disseminating information. This has ensured that details about proposals and consultation
activity have been widely read by a range of different audiences.
To date, the following press coverage has been achieved in 2010:
5 June – Estates Gazette – A Den of Delight
12 July – Estates Gazette – Plans unveiled for major residential led makeover of Millwall‟s
New Den
12 July – Architects‟ Journal – Studio Egret West unveils new Millwall plans as Alsop‟s dream
fades
12 July – South London Post – Development comes to Millwall FC
13 July – Gold-DEN chance for development
13 July – This is Local London – Millwall: Plans revealed for Surrey Canal development
13 July – Building Design – Studio Egret West unveils London regeneration plans
13 July – Property Week - Sporting plans for Lewisham revealed
14 July – Regeneration & Renewal – Plans unveiled for Lewisham‟s Surrey Canal
15 July – Southwark News - £800m „sport village‟ plan unveiled
16 July – Interactive Investor online – no headline
16 July – Bexley Mercury online – Sporting village at Millwall
16 July – Planning – Renewal launches plans for Surrey Canal Triangle
17 July – Estates Gazette – Scheme of the Week
21 July – Bexley Mercury – Thousands of jobs at „sporting village‟
23 July – Estates Gazette – Down at The Den, something stirs
23 July – Evening Standard – Decision to splash out at the canal
27 July – South London Press – Last chance to see Den area designs
29 July – Developers „fairly close‟ to Lions deal
29 July – The Wharf – Developers showcase plans for sports hub
30 July – South London Press – Sporting Village „ready to go ahead‟
4 August – Bexley Mercury – Work on sporting village to start within two years
3 September – South London Press – Only private developer can save a „vital‟ railway station
7 September – South London Press – New station a case of „when, not if‟...
9 September – Southwark News – Developers confident about new station
13 September – Regeneration & Renewal – Minister pulls offer of £7m for station
28 September – News Shopper – New Cross: Surrey Canal plans on display again
30 September – Southwark News – Another chance to see „village‟ plans
17 December – Building Design – Millwall‟s Sporting Chance
62
14.3 Local websites and blogs
July – Goldsmiths University of London – Surrey Canal: London‟s Sporting Village
12 July – The Deptford Dame – Surrey Canal: London‟s Sporting Village?
13 July – Brockley Central Blog – Surrey Canal masterplan
13 July – Millwall Vital Football online – Millwall Regeneration
9 August – Brockley Central Blog – Surrey Canal regeneration – new images released
2 September – Urban 75 – discussion thread (no headline)
28 September – Brockley Central Blog – Renewal say Surrey Canal plans on track despite
station setback
7 October – House of Fun – Surrey Canal Renewal questions
22 October – The Deptford Dame – Deptford Xtra/Bridge House Meadows
th
Figure 30 Estates Gazette, Scheme of the week, 17 July 2010
63
15. Appendices
15.1 Surrey Canal consultation strategy
This document has been put together upon request by Lewisham Council to set out the
approach that Renewal will be adopting towards community engagement in the run up to
submitting a planning application for the Surrey Canal (SC) regeneration scheme.
15.1.1 Objectives
This consultation strategy commits Renewal to:

Extensive community engagement to provide multiple opportunities for members of the public
to meet directly with the team and engage in the regeneration process

Providing mechanisms for the public to feed-back comments to the design and technical team

Achieving a high level of „buy in‟ from the local community towards the SC plans

Widespread promotion of the consultation, through adverts, door-dropped flyers and direct
letters

Ensuring Lewisham Council are kept up to date with consultation activities, particularly the
press office regarding publicity
15.1.2 Strategy
Renewal believes that community engagement should be far more than a box ticking exercise
and recognises the value of involving the local community in the planning process.
Residents should have their say about what benefits and improvements the SC development
could deliver. To help build understanding about the proposals, Renewal will prepare a set of
key messages to inform all materials and presentations. This will emphasise the SC
opportunity, the need for regeneration and profile our credentials.
The ambitious nature of the SC proposals lends itself to a major launch at Lewisham People‟s
Day to generate widespread excitement about the plans and establish the project as
innovative, fun and rooted in the community.
This will provide a firm foundation for a programme of community engagement that reaches
out to people from a wide range of age groups, backgrounds and interests, reflecting the
diverse nature of Lewisham‟s communities.
The main vehicle for explaining the proposals in detail and effectively gauging local opinion
will be two major public exhibitions in locations close to the SC site in July and October 2010.
This will be supported by a range of activities that build links and partnerships with key local
community groups and organisations such as Deptford X and the Ministry of Youth.
64
15.1.3 Public exhibition
The two public exhibitions will form the pinnacle of the public consultation as they will provide
an opportunity for large numbers of the public to view the plans in detail and provide
feedback.
Activity will include the following:

An initial letter announcing the start of the public consultation with the local community.
The letter should be distributed to local residents, businesses, councillors and other key
stakeholders and emphasise Renewal‟s credentials and commitment to the regeneration
of SC.

Two separate staffed public exhibitions will be held at locations within the SC area, lasting
for around 3 or 4 days and including a weekend and evening opening. Most people will
therefore have the opportunity to have the information explained to them and they will be
able to ask any questions.

The exhibition will be staffed by LCA, along with representatives from Renewal and the
consultant team. LCA would also facilitate a training and key message rehearsal session
in advance of the openings.

The exhibition will be heavily promoted, both via adverts in local press and Lewisham
council‟s magazine, direct flyer drops to local residents and personal letters to key
community and other groups. If any Council notice-board sites are available these will
also be used and flyers will also be made available to Council offices, one-stop shops,
libraries etc.

The exhibitions will be supported by a range of materials – specifically around 15
exhibition boards, a summary booklet, a freepost comments card, adverts and flyers, and
a project website.

The exhibition booklet will be handed out to all visitors together with a freepost comments
card which can either be completed at the event or sent back to Renewal. Both will also
be mailed to the full database after the exhibition has finished. The comments card will
only ask a few specific questions and will mainly allow space for „general comments‟ to
enable people to leave any views they wish.
15.1.4 Targeted stakeholder engagement

We will be pre-briefing ward councillors and key Members of the Council before this
information is in the public domain so that they are aware of the information we will be
discussing with the public and other bodies.

A series of meetings and presentations will then be arranged with key local groups and
organisations. This should focus on a discussion about the future of the local area rather than
65
setting out Renewal‟s plans in detail. Responses to these meetings and the initial letter will
be collated by LCA and letters issued in response to any comments where necessary.
15.1.5 Community engagement timetable
Date
Event
Rationale
July 2010
10
Lewisham People‟s Day
A presence at LPD will provide a unique
opportunity for a major launch of SC for
up to 30,000 local people. Flyers will be
handed out to help publicise the public
exhibition on 25th July
20
Launch children‟s artwork on refuse
In addition to building links with local
trucks – a project run by Deptford X
school children from Deptford Green and
with support from Renewal
their parents, this initiative will help raise
awareness of the SC project as the eyecatching artwork which will be seen
around the borough
21
Stall at the New Cross Local Assembly
This key local group is very active and
members live in the New Cross ward
where the scheme is located – an
average of 50 residents attends each
meeting.
25-27
First public exhibition, Lewington
To display detailed information about the
Centre, Silwood Estate
proposals, ask the Renewal team
questions and feed in their comments
August 2010
17
Present to Lewisham Council MFC
An opportunity to test reaction from MFC
fans forum
fans as part of the consultation process
September
23
Deptford X launch
Presentation of the Deptford X/ Renewal
award and an opportunity to introduce the
Surrey Canal scheme to north
Lewisham‟s creative community
October
1-2
Second public exhibition, Scotney Hall,
A further opportunity for the public to view
Winslade Estate
detailed information about the proposals,
ask the Renewal team questions and
66
feed in their comments
5
Photography exhibition at the Civic
This partnership with Deptford X will help
Suite in association with Deptford X
illustrate that Lewisham is a hot bed for
talent within the creative industries. It will
also raise awareness about the site itself,
the current constraints and the opportunity
that regeneration presents.
9
Stall at Evelyn Local Assembly
This key local group is very active and
members live in the Evelyn ward,
adjacent to where the scheme is located
– an average of 50 residents attends
each meeting.
November
18
Lions Live radio show
An interview with Lions Live, the Millwall
fans radio station to update the fans on
the Surrey Canal plans
15.1.2 Reporting and Evaluation

The public consultation will culminate in the preparation of the Statement of Community
Engagement which would include an analysis of all comments received. We would also want
to work with Paula Carney, Signet Planning to tie in responses from the statutory consultees
(GLA, CABE, English Heritage etc).

A consultation database will be used to track who has been contacted and to manage any
mailings. The database will be added to throughout the process as people request to be kept
informed.

The database will include supporters groups which we can liaise with either through Millwall
FC or directly.

LCA will record and respond to all comments received, producing a report which analyses
them and which is also fed into the Statement of Community Engagement document.
67
15.2 Surrey Canal Community and Stakeholder database
No
Name
Job title
Group
1
A Madcap Coalition
c/o Pepys Community Forum
2
A Psaila
Resident
3
A Simpson
Resident
4
Adam Annand
London Bubble
5
Adrian Harris
Resident
6
Akin Olunloyo
Somerville TRA
7
Akjen Havali
Dr. Fazil Kucuk Turkish School
8
Alan Bailey
Resident
9
Alan Camp
Architect
Alan Camp Architects
10
Albert Bishop
Renewal contact
11
Alejandro Zakzuk
Resident
12
Alex Dixon
Resident
13
Alfene Rhodes
Resident
Support For Estranged And Lost
14
Alfred Bunton-Cole
Project Director
Fathers (SELF)
Faith and Social Action
15
Alison Licorish
Officer
Alison, Tom and Henry
16
Chapman
Renewal contact
17
Alistair Hume
18
Alma Isaac
Resident
19
Amanda Wilson
Bethesda Ministries
20
Amina Ismail
Deptford Family Project
Corporate Manager
Barclays
Head of Personnel and
21
Andreas Ghosh
Development
22
Andrew Carmichael
CEO
Creative Process
23
Andrew Hamilton
Architect
PH+
Leader of New Covenant
24
Andrew Ladipo
Apostolic Christ Church
25
Andrew Thompson
Standard Property Investments
26
Andrew Walsh
Shadbolt and Co LLP
Arup Environmental
27
Andy Bascombe
Consultant
28
Andy Puncher
Architect
29
Angel Ogbonna
PH+
Resident
68
30
Ann Ball
MD
Boleyn & Forest Housing
Anna, Matt and
31
Samuel
Renewal contact
32
Anne Crane
33
Anne Robinson
Tenant at Bolina
34
Anne-Marie
Resident
35
Annette Hards
Kent Architecture
36
Annette Stead
37
Anthony Benson
Principle Town Planner
Planning
TfL
Manager of Regulatory
38
Anthony Mottram
Services
39
Anthony Thomas
40
Asinette Williams
41
B Woods
Resident
42
Bala Gnanapragasam
Chairman
Adjoining landowner
Manager
St Mungo‟s Pagnell Street Hostel
Bambos and Marina
43
Manoras
Renewal contact
Barbara Kennedy and
44
Patrick Brady
Resident
45
Barney Stringer
Hunt Dobson Stringer
46
Barry Charlton
Resident
47
Barry Quirk
48
Bayo Kelekun
Renewal contact
49
Bella Vivat
Resident
50
Ben Hammond
Resident
51
Ben Washington
Resident
52
Berverly Headley
New Cross All Nations Association
53
Betty Briley
Telegraph Hill Centre - THC
54
Bianca Foster
All Saints Youth Club
Chief Executive
Samaritans - Lewisham, Greenwich
55
Bill Jordan
and Southwark
56
Bill May
Tenant
57
Bob Scott
Trinity Laban
58
Brian Smith
Headteacher
59
Brian Tester
Millwall fan
60
Brian Wagenbach
69
Lewisham Community Network
Project Manager/ Network
61
Brigid Martin
Co-ordinator
Creative Process
62
Bulbul Ali
L&Q
63
Carol Lanham
St. Michaels United Reform Church
64
Carol Laulam
Resident
65
Carol Morgan
Resident
66
Carol Wilson
Resident
67
Caroline Fox
Resident
Leader of the Liberal
Democrat Assembly
Group and Vice Chair,
London Assembly
68
Caroline Pidgeon
Transport Committee
69
Cathy Sutcliffe
Renewal contact
70
Charles Moran
CMA Planning
71
Charlotte Laudat
Resident
72
Chinry Jinanwen
Resident
73
Chloe Sheehan
Resident
74
Chris Axton
Axtons
75
Chris Brodie
76
Chris Chivers
77
Chris Madel
LCA
78
Chris Miele
Montaque Evans
79
Chris Symons
80
Christian Carron
Resident
81
Christine Barnes
Sir Francis Drake Primary School
82
Christine Speed
170 Community Project
83
Christophe Egret
Director of Development
Architect
Greenwich Leisure Ltd
Studio Egret West
New Cross Gate Music and Media
84
Christopher Osajivbe
Project
85
Clair
86
Clare Schulz
Renewal contact
87
Claude St Arraman
Resident
88
Cleopatra Jones
Friends of Monson School
89
Cllr Abdeslam Amrani
Operations Manager
Planning Committee Chair
Ahoy Centre
70
90
Cllr Alan Smith
Deputy Mayor
91
Cllr Alan Till
92
Cllr Althea Smith
London Borough of Southwark
Liberal Democrat Group
93
Cllr Anood Sl-Samerai
Leader
Cllr Catherine
94
McDonald
Livesey Ward Councillor
95
Cllr Crada Onuegbu
Evelyn Ward Councillor
Leader of the Green
96
Cllr Darren Johnson
Group
South Bermondsey Ward
97
Cllr Graham Neale
Councillor
Labour Councillor for
Telegraph Hill Ward and
Cabinet Member for the
98
Cllr Joan Millbank
Third Sector
99
Cllr Joseph Folorunso
Evelyn Ward Councillor
New Cross ward
100
Cllr Madeliene Long
Councillor
101
Cllr Michael Bukola
Councillor
Head of Planning
102
Cllr Nick Dolezal
committee
Telegraph Hill ward
103
Cllr Paul Bell
Councillor
104
Cllr Paul Kyriacou
Councillor
New Cross ward
105
Cllr Paul Maslin
Councillor
106
Cllr Peter John
Leader of the Council
Evelyn ward Councillor
Cllr Sam Owolabi107
Oluyole
New Cross ward
108
Cllr Stephen Padmore
Councillor
109
Cllr Tayo Situ
Livesey Ward Councillor
110
Colm Egan
Director
MacDonald Egan
71
Confidence Japhet-
South London Healthcare
111
Mathias
Project Lead Manager
112
Cory Johnson
Community Youth Lewisham
113
Courtney Muhammad
Nu'Beyonn Arts Foundation
114
Craig Voller
115
Crispin Hardy
Tenant
116
D Douglas
New Testament of God
117
D Gasser
Resident
118
Dan Skili
Resident
Headteacher
Foundation
Sir Francis Drake Primary School
Telegraph Hill ward
119
Dan Whittle
Councillor
120
Danielle Heath
121
Darian Goodwin
Head of Transport
122
Darren Johnson
Brockley ward Councillor
123
Darryl Telles
Area Manager
South Bermondsey Partnership
124
Daryl Chamberlain
Resident
125
Dave Borland
126
Dave King
Resident
Scheme Director
c/o Lewisham Sport &
127
Dave McLaren
Leisure Service
Dave, Gill, Callum and
128
Dominic Sullivan
Renewal contact
129
David Binns
Renewal contact
SLB City Growth Project
130
David Boyer
Manager
131
David Bushe
Bushe Gower Associates
132
David Couldwell
Somerville and Friends TRA [SAFE]
133
David Hart
Five Ways
134
David Hayes
Renewal contact
135
David Jones
136
David Jones
Resident
137
David Payne
Sports Consultant
138
David West
139
Debby Boulion
ESF Contract Manager
Masterplanner
South London Business
GLE
Studio Egret West
Resident
72
140
Dee Card
NDC Resident Board Member
141
Del Jackson
Renewal contact
142
Demos Kouvaris
Millwall owner
143
Denis Wade
Micah Community Projects
144
Denise Marchant
Renewal contact
145
Deone Costley
Renewal contact
New Testament Church of God,
146
Deverton Douglas
Deptford - NTCG Deptford
147
Dominic Spitzer
Resident
148
Donald Stavert
Renewal contact
149
Donovan McGowan
150
Dorian Williams
New Park Gate TRA
151
Dr Chris Hewson
University of Manchester
Afghanistan and Asian Community
152
Dr Nooralhaq Nasimi
Chairperson
Organisation
153
Dr Ralph Brand
University of Manchester
154
E Brashaw
Resident
155
Eddie Caboue
Resident
156
Edward Vickers
Resident
157
Elizabeth Adongo
Resident
158
Elizabeth Oloo
African Community Partnership
Stakeholder
159
Emma Shannon
Communications Manager
TfL
160
Eteanor Hayle
161
Eunice Card
Overall Manager
Help is There - HIT
162
Eva Woloshyn
Laban
163
Faheeza Johnson
Resident
164
Fatcha Begum
Resident
Lead Officer, Lewisham
165
Fenella Beckman
Strategic Partnership
MA student at Burbeck - Art and
166
Fi Slater
Regeneration
Councillor responsible for
167
Fiona Colley
regeration
168
Fiona, Joan and Ben
Renewal contact
169
Fr. Paul Butler
St. Paul with St. Mark
73
170
Francis Gabriel
Resident
171
Francis Makumbwe
St Catherine‟s Church
172
Frank Vichey
Resident
173
G Beutton
Resident
174
Gary Randell
Resident
175
Geoff Hobbs
176
Geoffry Rumble
Head of Strategy
TfL
Olivet Baptist Church
AFRIC (African Francophone
177
Gerard Mampo Guillet
Resource & Information Centre)
178
Gerry Dowd
Pure Lake
179
Gill Galliano
180
Glynda Nolan
Chief Executive
Lewisham PCT
Hatfield Gardens TRA
Action for Leadership and
Community Development
181
Gordon Ade-Oji
Association (ALCOD)
182
Gordon Gapper
A Way Forward - Ghana Cultural
183
Grace Safoa
and Mother Tongue Classes
Graham Ferguson
Chairman and Chief
Sports Regenration Ltd, Millwall
184
Lacey
Executive
shareholder
185
Graham Harrington
Crime Prevention Officer,
Crime Prevention Design
186
Greg Dunham
Advisor
187
Gwilym Jones
188
Hanneke Nicholson
Sommerville Adventure Playground
189
Heidi Alexander
190
Helen Beatty
Resident
191
Helen Chambers
Tribal MJP
192
Helen Marshall
Resident
193
Helena Eagles
Lewisham Art House Ltd
194
Henry Charmaine
Resident
195
Henry Herrera
Resident
196
Hinda Ibrahim
Lewisham Somali Community
197
Holly Gardner
Catch 22
198
Hugh Cave
MP Lewisham East
Lewisham Borough Police
House of Commons
Principle on Deptford
74
Wharves
199
Hugh Jones
Registrar and Secretry
Goldsmiths
200
I Okey
201
Iain McAuslan
202
Ian Cooper
L&Q
203
Ian Ford
2nd Deptford Air Scout
204
Ian Fowler
FPD Savills
205
Ian McKenzie
Resident
206
Ian Petrie
207
Ibrahim Lamara
208
Imani Harrison
Project Manager
What‟s Love Got To Do With It?
209
Irene Byworth
Ex-Chair
Winslade Residents‟ Association
210
Isam Kalel
White Villa Limited - Tenant
211
J Calvert
Resident
212
J Hughes
213
Jack Taylor
Resident
214
Jacob Stringer
Resident
215
Jacqui Monahan
Five Ways
216
James Briggs
Durkan
217
James Cole
Renewal contact
Youth Education Ventures
Club Secretary
Alcohol Service Worker
Wapping Hockey Club
Alcohol Recovery Project - ARP
Pepys Supplementary School
Headteacher
Monson Primary School
Director of Cricket
218
Jamie Clifford
Development
Kent Cricket Board
219
Jane Collier
Resident
220
Jane Fletcher
Renewal contact
221
Jane Hendrie
LEAN
222
Jane Stone
Resident
223
Janet McGowan
Caribbean Culinary Training Centre
Projects Administrator,
224
Janet Skeates
Facilities department
Lewisham College
225
Jan-Marc Petroschka
Architect
Emoli Petroschka
226
Jascha Lenkiewicz
227
Jason Vincent
South Bermondsey Partnership
Telegraph Hill (Conservation)
228
Jayne Bates
Society
75
229
Jean Williams
5 Steps Nursery
230
Jean-Marc de Broqlio
Resident
231
Jeff Burnige
Resident
232
Jeff Lowe
233
Jemima Brown
Acme Artists Studios
234
Jenny Francis
Domestic Violence Support Project
235
Jeremy Burton
Borough Commander
236
Jeremy Fraser
Ex leader of Southwark
237
Jerome Geoghegan
L&Q
238
Jessica Luong
Baila Peru
239
Jessica Maloney
Joan Ruddock's Assistant
240
Jessica Pavlos
Resident
241
Jim Carling
Resident
242
Jim Hooton
Triangle TRA
243
Jim Martin
Martin Associates
244
Jo Dubiel
Resident
245
Joan Anim-Addo
Caribbean Women Writers‟ Alliance
246
Joan Coulson Catra
Resident
247
Joan Ruddock
248
Joe Curran
Architect
MP Lewisham, Deptford
Lewisham Police Station
House of Commons
Renewal contact
Ex-Director General,
Department for Communities and
Regions and Communities
Local Government
249
Joe Montgomery
250
Joel Archbald
Resident
251
Joel Coleman
Resident
252
John Berylson
Millwall owner
253
John Brown
JCA Management and Environment
254
John Couch
Consultants
255
John Crabtree
Resident
256
John Gallagher
Renewal contact
257
John Hamilton
Lewisham People Before Profit
258
John Hellings
Resident
259
John Kennedy
Resident
260
John Lumley
Resident
261
John Miller
262
John Mulholland
Chief Planning Officer
Resident
76
263
Jonathan Hill
Resident
264
Jonathan Meier
265
Jonathan Turner
L&Q
266
Jonny Popper
LCA
267
Jordana Malik
Renewal
268
Jorunne Verapen
MC4all - Milton Court Time Bank
269
Josh Bayne
Resident
270
Joy Burnett
Resident
271
Judy Campbell
Resident
272
Julia Alvarez
Bearspace Gallery
273
Julian Gaylor
Head of Property
Managing Director
Access Self Storage
Envac
Anyadwe Child & Family Welfare
274
Julie Angeyo
Association
Head of Marketing and
275
Julie Dixon
Communications
TfL
276
Julie Nash
277
Julie Rush
Manager
St James Hatcham Primary School
278
Juliet Cooper
Headteacher
Kilmorie Primary School
Deptford Park Residents‟
279
Justin Dowd
Chairman
Association
Head of Development and
280
Justin Jardine
Partnership
Bangladeshi Welfare Association in
Deptford and New Cross
281
K.A. Choudhury
(BWADNC)
282
Kailayapillai Ranjan
Renewal contact
283
Karen Pretorius
Resident
284
Karen Willey
Resident
285
Katherine Halstead
Capital Community Foundation
286
Kathryn Harrison
Resident
Young Mayor's
287
Katy Brown
representative
288
Katy Brown
Woodpecker Youth Club
289
Kay Kelleher
Volunteer Centre Lewisham
Property and Facilities
290
Kayode Falebita
Manager
KICC International
77
291
Keith Barr
Kender Community School
292
Keith Howard
293
Keith Joiner
Adjoining landowner, Ilderton Road
294
Keith Mitchell
PBA
295
Kelechi Jinanwa
Resident
296
Kelvin Josh Ediale
Spirit and Life Bible Church
297
Ken Jonson
298
Ken Rorrison
299
Ken Wakeman
Director of Estates
Lewisham Hospital
Architect
Barnes Wallis Centre
Security and Operations
300
Kenneth Chapman
Advisor
Millwall Football Club
301
Kerry Kyriacou
Development Director
Affinity Homes
302
Kerry Smith
303
Kevin Haggarty
304
Kevin Jenner
Hatcham Social Club
305
Kevin Lu
Resident
306
Kevin Turner
Resident
307
Kim McGregor
Resident
Lewisham Pensioners Forum
Chief Executive
Race Equality Action for Lewisham
New Cross Gate Residents‟
308
Kirsten Downe
Association
309
Kirstin Downer
Resident
310
Laura Gregory
311
Laura McCrea
Resident
London Assembly Member
for Greenwich and
312
Len Duvall
Lewisham
313
Libby Alderman
Resident
314
Linda Goldsmith
Resident
315
Lindon Beckford
316
Linton Thompson
317
Lisa Crook
318
Liz Hills
319
Liz Oxley
320
Liz Phipps
Vice Chairperson
Greater London Authority
Hillview Community Day Centre
Lewisham Police Station
Headteacher
Ilderton Primary School
Manager
Centrepoint - Haberdashers House
78
321
Louise Holland
322
Lucy Geldard
323
Lucy Ume
324
Lulu Todd
325
Lutamyo Mtawali
Flat 13 Donne House
326
M Crow
Resident
327
Macaculay Okunsebor
African Community Link
328
Maggie Hughes
Renewal contact
Area Manager
Groundwork
Community Groups Forum
Secretary
Arrow Business Centre
Young Mayor
329
Malcolm Ball
representative
Executive Director of
330
Malcolm Smith
Regenration
Laurence House
331
Malcolm Williams
Resident
332
Man Mohan
Lewisham Asian Association - LAA
333
Marc Dagorn
Resident
334
Marc Elliott
Millwall FC
335
Marco Escajadillo
Resident
336
Marcus Wilshere
Urban Initatives
337
Maria Drury
SELEDA
338
Marion Kerr
Resident
339
Mark Barrett
Resident
340
Mark Bevis
Handicars
341
Mark Davy
Director
Futurecity
342
Mark Gibney
Head of Planning
BPTW Partnership
343
Mark Hoskins
344
Mark Sesnan
345
Mark Sherwood
346
Mark Simons
Secretary
Deptford Community Forum
347
Mark Taylor
Renewal
348
Mark Young
Resident
Managing Director
Kids First
Lewisham College
Director of Extended
349
Martin Colley
350
Martin Hodge
351
Martin Howey
352
Martina Angelova
Services
Deptford Green
Chief Executive
Voluntary Action Lewisham
Renewal
79
353
Martyn Stanbridge
Resident
354
Maryam Jordan
Muslim Women‟s Support Group
355
Matt Parsonage
Resident
356
Matthew Couper
Project Director
Deptford X
Clare Tenants and Residents
357
Maxine Morre
Association - CTRA
358
Maxine Room
359
Mbeke Waseme
Grow2Know
360
Megan Mulholland
Resident
361
Mel Couldwell
Somerville and Friends TRA [SAFE]
Principal
Lewisham College
King‟s College Hospital NHS
362
Michael Parker
Chairman
Foundation Trust
Divisional Business
363
Michael Roberts
364
Michelle St John
Manager
Fusion Lifestyle
Ministry of Youth
New Business
365
Mike Allwood
Development Manager
Downland Affinity
366
Mike Hood
MacDonald Egan
367
Mike Johnson
L&Q
368
Mike Jones
Drings and The Cheeseboard
369
Mike Leggett
DHL
370
Mike Lowe
Architect
371
Milton Lee
Director
372
Ming Wei Hui
Resident
373
Mohammed Sliti
Resident
374
Mr Onuebgu
Nuiwi Union in the UK
375
Mr Sean
Resident
376
Mr Tatls
Resident
London Community College
Lewisham Indo Chinese Community
377
Mr Truong
Centre
378
Mr/Ms Oyetola
Resident
379
Mrs M Ison
Resident
380
Muriel White
Community Groups Forum
381
Mushtaq Malik
Renewal
382
Nadeem Masood
Resident
383
Nancy Lau
80
384
Natalie Drake
Resident
385
Natasha
Resident
386
Natasha Reid
Area Surveyor, Building
387
Navtej Singh
Control Services
388
Neil Allan
Sports Consultant
389
Ngaire Thomson
390
Nichette Cielto
Resident
391
Nick Barron
Brockley Central blog
392
Nick De Lotbiniere
London Planning Practice
393
Nick Hayes
394
Nick Long
Resident
395
Nick Miller
Renewal contact
396
Nick Pendleton
397
Nicola Ann McKintosh
398
Nicola Berry
Renewal contact
399
Nicola Mackintosh
Resident
Director
Trustee
CYC
St Michael‟s Church and
400
Nicole Teather
Community Centre
Strategic Regeneration
401
Nigel Adams
Communications Manager
402
Nigel Tenwick
Technical Director
Durkan
403
Nigel Tyrell
Head of Environment
404
Noel Everest
Fleet Services Manager
405
Norma Walker
Sunshine Grannies - 55 plus
Redeemed Christian Church of God
406
Oladele Bakare
- RCCG New Cross
407
Olayinka Akinyemi
Resident
408
Omalade Oshunremi
Lewisham Refugee Network
O'Quo-Charlz
409
Uvieghara
Eight16 News
Resident
London Ethnic Minority
410
Osman Aden
Development Association
411
Osman Mahdi
Somali Education Development
81
412
Oswaldo Perez-Vaga
Latin-American UK Access
Rev Owen Beament
Millwall Community Scheme and
413
MBE
414
P Bolton
Trustee
Chaplain for MFC
Assembled Church of Christ
Russian Orthodox Drugs
Rehabilitation Project for Women
415
Pam Grealy
and Children
416
Pat Leat
Five Ways
417
Pat Loughrey
Warden
Goldsmiths, University of London
418
Patricia
Lewington Centre
L&Q
Guy‟s and St Thomas‟ NHS
419
Patricia Moberly
420
Paul Anderson
Chairman
Foundation Trust
Resident
Economic Development
421
Paul Hadfield
Manager
422
Paul McPartland
Director
Open Architecture
423
Paul Nehra
Lewington Centre
L&Q
424
Paula Carney
Signet Planning
425
Paulette White
Resident
Canada Water Consultative Forum
426
Pauline Aaenwalla
(CWCF)
427
Percy Ritter
Resident
428
Peter Adams
429
Peter Burt
430
Peter Campling
H&S Lewisham Council
Savills
Headteacher
Deptford Green School
Head of Property and
431
Peter Clark
Development
432
Peter Pepper
433
Peter Pledger
Chief Executive
South London Business
434
Peter Walsh
Trustee
435
Phil Bignall
Resident
436
Philip Mills
Ministry of Youth
437
Portia Malik
Renewal contact
Resident
Lewisham Vietnamese Womens
438
Quynh Nguyen
Association
439
Rachel Hargraves
Renewal contact
82
440
Raman Jagpal
Director
Great Hampton Capital
441
Ranjit Bhogal
Building Control Services
442
Ray Woolford
Candidate for New Cross
Lewisham People Before Profit
443
Raymond Woolford
444
Rebecca
445
Rebecca Bunbury
Resident
446
Rebecca Lamb
Resident
Lewington Centre
L&Q
Parenting Support and Advice
447
Redempta Obare
Chairperson
Network - PASAN
448
Redmond William
449
Renato Benedetti
450
Richard Abendorff
Resident
451
Richard Clements
Resident
Resident
Architect
McDowell and Benedetti
Richard Edward
452
Towner
Trustee
453
Richard Griffiths
Pinsents
454
Richard Heaton
Renewal contact
455
Richard Kalmar
Kalmars
456
Richard Liddell
457
Rita Pretty
Chair of the Trustees
Playhouse Community Nursery
Riverside Youth
458
Centre
459
Rob Edmondson
460
Rob O'Reilly
Riverside Youth Centre
Regional Director
Veolia
Renewal contact
Project Manager - East
461
Robert Jones
London Line Phase 2
462
Robert Ludlow
32nd Deptford Scout Group
463
Robert McGowan
Resident
464
Robert Townshend
465
Roberta Farr
Resident
466
Roger Arnold
Martin Associates
467
Roger Heaton
Renewal contact
468
Roger Potton
469
Roger Shruis
Principle
Operations Director
TfL
Townshend Landscape Architects
Punch Taverns
Resident
Guy‟s and St Thomas‟ NHS
470
Ron Kerr CBE
Chief Executive
Foundation Trust
83
471
Rosie Fooks
Treasurer
472
Roslyn Fowler
New Deal for New Cross Gate
473
Russell Brown
Hawkins Brown
474
Sally Onu
Pearl Supplementary School
475
Sam Dias
476
Sandra Race
477
Sandra Ross
478
Sandy Wilson
479
Sangita Sangar
480
Sarah Bishill
LCA
481
Sas Mahadeva
Bushe Gower Associates
482
Sean Collins
Trinity Finance
483
Selena Wilsher
Renewal
484
Sembo Serroukh
485
Shane Tomkins
Resident
486
Sharon Bagnall
Resident
487
Sharon Maddix
Hatcham Parents Association
Co-ordinator
Deptford Community Forum DCF
New Cross Local Assembly
Resident
Deptford X Press Officer
Threadneedle Investments
Solicitor
Farrer and Co
Sheila Anderson488
Hardy
489
Shikera Lindo
490
Shlagh Shannon
Resident
491
Sillwood Video Group
Sillwood Video Group
492
Simon McClure
Renewal contact
493
Simon Bachelor
Principle Surveyor
TfL
494
Simon Chadwick
Managing Director
Signet Planning
495
Simon Huges MP
MP
House of Commons
Edmund Waller After School Club -
496
Simone Clarke
Deputy
EWASC
497
Siobhan Whitney-Low
Friends Of Edmund Waller School
498
Sir/Madam
Sanford Housing Co-operative
499
Sir/Madam
Nettleton Road Co-operative
500
Sir/Madam
Christ Apostolic
501
Sir/Madam
World Evangelism Bible Church
502
Sir/Madam
River of Life Centre
84
503
Sir/Madam
BWA Muslim Cultural Centre
504
Sir/Madam
Celestial Church of Christ
505
Sir/Madam
506
Sir/Madam
UK World Evangelism Trust
507
Sir/Madam
African Development Network
The Office
Sandford Housing Co-op
Cinnamon Court Sheltered
Accommodation (managed by
508
Sir/Madam
Housing 21)
St. Lukes Church and St. Nicolas
509
Sir/Madam
Church
510
Sir/Madam
Redeemed Christain Church of God
511
Sir/Madam
Evelyn Community Centre
512
Sir/Madam
Sayes Court Community Centre
513
Sir/Madam
UK Turkish Islamic Cultural Centre
514
Sir/Madam
515
Sir/Madam
516
Sir/Madam
The Manager
Barnes Wallis Playgroup
517
Sir/Madam
The Co-ordinator
Champions Toy Library
518
Sir/Madam
The Co-ordinator
Daughters of Charity
519
Sir/Madam
The Secretary
Childeric Primary School
520
Sir/Madam
The Manager
Deptford Food Cooperative
The Organiser
2000 Action Community Centre
Riverside Youth Club
Gay & Lesbian Alcoholics
521
Sir/Madam
The Co-ordinator
Anonymous
522
Sir/Madam
The Secretary
Divine Rescue Mission
Eckington Gardens Sports & Social
523
Sir/Madam
The Secretary
Club
Heritage Environment and Tourism
524
Sir/Madam
The Manager
Group
525
Sir/Madam
The Co-ordinator
Kit Youth Club
526
Sir/Madam
The Minister
Living Flames Baptist Church
New Cross Gate Employment &
527
Sir/Madam
The Manager
Enterprise Agency
NKA IBAN African Women Writers
528
Sir/Madam
The Co-ordinator
Group
529
Sir/Madam
The Administrator
Positive Body Image
85
Progressive African Women‟s
530
Sir/Madam
The Co-ordinator
Association - PAWA
531
Sir/Madam
The Co-ordinator
Scotney Hall Youth Club
South London Turkish Cypriot
532
Sir/Madam
The Secretary
Society
533
Sir/Madam
The Administrator
St George‟s Church, Brockley
Scotney Hall Women and Toddler
534
Sir/Madam
The Co-ordinator
Group
Southwark Cyprus Turkish Cultural
535
Sir/Madam
The Director
Society
St Catherine‟s Drive Tenants
536
Sir/Madam
The Co-ordinator
Association
537
Sir/Madam
The Co-ordinator
Telegraph Hill Youth Project
538
Sir/Madam
The Co-ordinator
Turkish Homeworkers Project
539
Sir/Madam
The Minister
Zion Baptist Church
540
Siri Rathnasiri
Tukes After School Club
Director of Finance and
541
Soji Otudeko
Compliance
KICC Church
542
Stephen Brown
Director
WT Partnership
543
Stephen Buckley
544
Stephen Lawes
Hatcham Park TRA
Finance Director
Lewisham College
Community Development
New Cross Gate - New Deal for
Co-ordinator
Communities
545
Stephen McGann
546
Stephen Williams
547
Steve Brown
General Manager
SELCHP, Veolia
548
Steve Bullock
Mayor of Lewisham
549
Steve Cornish
Resident
550
Steve Croft
Millwall fan
Ravensbourne Wine Company
Director of Programme
551
Steve Gough
Manager and Property
552
Steve Mace
553
Steve McGann
New Deal for Communities
554
Steve Nelson
Chief Executive
555
Steve Vere
Luol Deng Foundation
Operations Magaer -
556
Steve Verrier
Waste Services
Veolia
86
557
Steve Walker
Steve Walker Consulting
558
Steven and Adam
Renewal contact
559
Steven Hardisty
Pinsent Masons
560
Stuart Prudent
Resident
Somali and Somaliland Lewisham
561
Suban Nur
Community
562
Sue McGuinness
Farrow Lane TRA
Syreeta Robinson563
Gayle
Martin Associates
564
Tara McArthur
Just Older Youth
Terrence Williams Design -
565
Terrence Williams
adjoining landowner
566
Terry Chan
Indo-Chinese Community Centre
Church of God of Prophecy, New
567
The Pastor
The Pastor
Cross
The Pigeon Wing
568
gallery
The Pigeon Wing Gallery
Nigerian Community Centre UK -
569
Theresa Okebola
NCC
570
Theresa Walters
571
Therese Bush
572
Thomas Evan
Resident
573
Tim Bertin
Resident
Project Co-ordintor
Tower Foundation
Haberdashers' Askes Hatcham
574
Tim Fullick
College
Deptford Action Group For The
575
Tim Hamilton
Elderly
New Cross All Nations Social Suite
576
Tim Hamilton
Association
577
Tim Higginson
Chief Executive
578
Tim Smart
Chief Executive
Kings College Hospital
579
Tom Brennan
Managing Director
Brennan Group
580
Tom Dobson
Director
Hunt Dobson Stringer
581
Tony Carson
Renewal contact
582
Tony Link
Resident
583
Tony Morris
Resident
584
Tracey Mullings
Hatcham Park TRA
585
Tracey Pereira
LBL Lewisham Stop Smoking
87
Service
586
Trevor Pybus
587
Trevor Sinclair
Phoenix Community Housing
Course Director
Turning Point
UK Turkish Islamic
Greenwich Cultural
UK Turkish Islamic Greenwich
588
Centre
Cultural Centre
589
Ukaemi Adeniy
Resident
590
Val Jarman
Hatfield TRA
Asistent to the Director of
591
Val Morrison
Regeneration
592
Val Shawcross
London Assembly Member
593
Valda Parker
Resident
594
Van Lac
Deptford Vietnamese YP Project
595
Vibche Edwards
Resident
Interim Director of Marketing and
596
Vicky Annand
Communications
597
Victoria Horner
Resident
598
Victoria Joseph
Black Elders Group - BEG
599
Vimla Oats
Resident
600
Vincent Edwards
New Cross Social Club
601
Vincent Onwukanjo
REM Education Centre
602
Wayemba Longanza
Resident
603
Will Austin
Renewal contact
604
Will Jackson
Renewal contact
Property and Acquisitions
605
Will Yussuf
606
William Noton
Manager
CI Holdings Ltd
JC Decaux
Shenkman Corp - Millwall
607
William Shenkman
shareholder
608
William Smith
New Cross Baptist Church
609
Yinka Ojo
610
Yvonne McFarlane
611
Yvonne Philip
Artefacts Edutainment
612
Zafar Ali
Axtons
613
Zubida Farhang
Lewisham Muslim Women's Group
Centre Manager
999 Club, New Cross
88
15.3 Exhibition panels
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
15.4 Pre-consultation feedback table
Organisation / People
Date of
Comments
presentation
Stephen Lawes
20 July 2009
Vice Principle, Lewisham
Interested
in
relocating
some
health
and
wellbeing facilities to Surrey Canal
College
Joan Ruddock
3 August 2009
MP for Lewisham Deptford
Concerned that there wouldn‟t be job opportunities
provided for local people
Also concerned that residents would be displaced
and priced out of the market – possibility of huge
class issues
Said that there would need to be a proactive
programme offering something for local people
Highlighted unemployment in local areas
Concerned about attractiveness of living next to a
football stadium and anti social behaviour on
match days
Heidi Alexander
Deputy Mayor of
3 August 2009
Asked if existing business would be incorporated
into the development
Lewisham (now MP for
Lewisham East)
Interested to know what sort of jobs would be
provided
Concerned that the Green Party may challenge
plans to have SCT as a mixed use regeneration
site
Interested in whether the sports hub would have an
impact on the commercial viability of the scheme.
Interested in provision of affordable housing, noted
that the council needed social housing
Highlighted the importance of provision of play
96
space
Lewisham PCT, Gill
21 August 2009
Galliano, Chief Executive
Noted that Queens Road Surgery would be
nearest GP
The scheme would require a pharmacy and dentist
and noted that they would need to discuss with
Southwark as well
South East London
3 September 2009
Chamber, Steve Nelson,
Noted importance of developing managed office
spaces for this area.
Chief Executive
Backed proposals for a number of smaller shops
as opposed to developing a major retail centre.
Deptford Green Secondary
14 September
Asked about the type of housing that would be
School, Peter Campling,
2009
provided
Headmaster
Noted that a new main building for Deptford Green
school was currently being built – moving from a
two site to a one site school
Highlighted that the school lacked sporting facilities
and that they had only been allowed a small space
in Fordham park. Very interested in possibility of
schoolchildren using facilities at SCT development
Said that he would be happy to arrange a session
with schoolchildren as part of consultation
Goldsmiths College
15 September
Interested to know about the provision of low cost
Vicky Annand, Interim
2009
studio and creative space
Director of Marketing and
Communications
Supported plans to make sports facilities a core
element of the scheme.
Aidan Sheridan, Business
Development Manager
Interested in how the scheme would address
crowd issues at MFC and bringing away fans in
Peter Dick, Director of
and out of the site
Estates
97
Interested to know how dependent the scheme
Sarah Empey, Press and
was on the residential element
PR Manager
Noted that transport was key – wanted to know
more about this
Offered involvement of Goldsmiths students in the
pre-application consultation on the plans,
particularly the Centre of Cultural and Urban
Regeneration.
Lewisham Police
18 September
Noted that there was currently a high level of
Superintendent Lisa Crook
2009
community anxiety over safety and security.
Said that the site would probably need a police
office or Safer Neighbourhood Base.
In favour of regeneration as it has been proven to
reduce crime and has been of huge benefit on the
nearby Silwood Estate.
Agreed to put Renewal in contact with Sergeant
John Daley to discuss match day police
arrangement and said she would be happy to be
key liaison with Lewisham Police as our plans
progress.
Ilderton Primary School
24 September
Liz Hills, Headteacher
2009
Very much in favour of the regeneration plans
Stressed the importance of local sports facilities,
particularly a swimming pool, as well as involving
local communities in the consultation process.
University Hospital
10 November 2009
UHL do not currently offer sports medicine but
Lewisham
might still consider running this service at the
Keith Howard
Surrey Canal
Director of Estates and
Facilities
UHL responded positively to the proposals and
thought that there is a “good opportunity” to locate
98
some of their functions on the site and it was
good to be involved at such an early stage. Guy‟s
Hospital should also be very interested – perhaps
as a joint venture with UHL
The only impediment might be that transport links
between UHL and SC are not ideal – only current
public transport option is by bus
Local ward councillors
2 November 2009
Paul Maslin
Very keen on safety being a key element of the
scheme
Madeleine Long
Noted the necessity of delivering improvement to
the existing public realm at Bridgehouse
Meadows.
Interested in our innovative plans for heating and
waste systems and the importance of the Lions
Community Scheme whose vital role locally we
are keen to help develop.
Millwall Community
Scheme trustees
3 December 2009
Generally in support and need to consider
ownership issues.
Richard Lidell (Chair)
Madeleine Long
Nick Pendleton
Richard Towner
Peter Walsh
99
15.5 Message Wall comments
HOMES
SPORT
SUSTAINABILTY
TRANSPORT
The government
should give
High capacity
People need
indoor area for
to pick up their
volleyball,
rubbish.
outdoor/beach
Lewisham the
Envac everywhere
money so that the
station can go
ahead. This will
volleyball
improve Surrey
Canal Road
Considerate
regeneration
not cramming
families into a
small, high
rise. Useful &
contemplative
outside
spaces
There needs
to be a 24
hour 5-a-side
astroturf
facility where
kids can use it
at anytime,
free of charge
RECREATION
More places for
kids to go so they
don't get in trouble
and more places
where families
can spend time
together
EMPLOYMENT
Link employment with
local and
voluntary/community
sector organisations,
who are already
working with the
unemployed in
Lewisham
We need the new
Tall buildings and
Surrey Canal Road
Encourage the new
vertical gardens
Station we were
Water ways
sports and leisure
are a great idea but
promised! Property
should be there to
community you are
very challenging to
prices need to be
walk along so you
creating to liaise with
implement in
boosted to be
could walk to
schools and colleges
practice and hard
comparable with
London or Oxford
to offer
to maintain
other parts of New
apprenticeships
Cross
A good size
(at least 25m)
swimming
The station will
I love Envac
pool for public
improve links to the
City
Open up the local
A new area will create
pubs again
more jobs
use
Currently
Earmark a
there are no
More small local
proportion of
affordable
play areas. Parks
the homes for
sports hall
We need the new
need to have a
first-time
facilities in
Surrey Canal Road
sheltered area for
buyers who
central
Station we were
when it rains or
can't afford to
London,
promised!
when the sun
get on the
meaning
makes an
ladder
smaller sports
appearance
Roof top Gardens
Youth employment to
enable local kids to
get a good grounded
education in fields
that are needed in the
area i.e. hospitality,
catering and sports
clubs struggle
The price the
A mechanism
population pay
to help people,
to use the
in Lewisham
facility should
already, to find
reflect &
a new and
compliment
better home.
what they can
Clubs to join at
Save energy
New Surrey Canal
the weekend that
Station, Please!
don't cost a
fortune.
Get Lewisham to run
motivation classes for
out of work people
afford to pay.
I want my
house to look
like
Buckingham
Palace
More tennis
clubs that are
local and easy
to get to.
Please think about
East London Line
More libraries
the height of the
should not create a
would be a
There are no jobs for
buildings for
barrier to access
welcomed
kids around so kids
possible wind
Bridge House
addition to any
do not earn money
turbulence effects
Meadows.
city/area
100
Opportunities &
training for local
Regeneration
I think there is
not
enough sport
gentrification
around.
People need to put
More bus stops. I
Improve the
their rubbish in the
have to walk ten
Lewisham council
bin and save
mins to the nearest
signage for parks
energy.
stop.
and roads.
people and not
external residents/
agencies. Give local
businesses the
opportunity to expand
and not Starbucks or
Costa Coffee.
Homes for the
people that
actually lived
there in the
first place
There should
We need more jobs in
be a cheap
the Health Sector.
horse riding
Currently I live in
facility as it‟s
an amazing
Bus links to Bromley
Need small
Lovelinch Close &
eateries
work in Brent. Please
sport, a real
provide something for
confidence
us. We want to give
builder.
something back.
People with
two children
need 3
bedroom
homes
because there
is not enough
Oyster Cards are
More football
pitches in the
parks.
space, it
just a way to track
people under 16. If a
bus is free with an
oyster card it should
There should be
more places to sit
Local police station
and enjoy outside.
be free without one!
should be
compulsory.
Singing and
Improved transport
My home
dancing clubs.
links welcomed.
Traditional real ale
No more garages and
should be a bit
Gymnastics
Make sure cycling is
pubs - not cafe /
workshops as they
bigger
centres and
key with
bistro / food pubs
leave a mess
clubs.
maintainable routes.
When building
new homes
down by
rivers, please
leave a path
so that people
who would like
High capacity
indoor arena
for basketball
and volleyball.
Put an information
Safe cycle lanes to
centre and small
the city and cycle
library in the
storage facilities.
sports arena. Like
No more garages
Wavelengths.
to walk along
then can
There needs
to be more
Considerably
sports and
bigger homes
athletic clubs
and available
to help more
for more
children beat
people
health
problems and
increase
The Surrey Canal
Station on the East
London Line should
be sited at the
Skate park in
intersection with the
Lewisham
Lewisham - london
Cafe culture= jobs
and a more sociable
area for everyone
Bridge overground
rail, think about it?
101
fitness.
Bowling alleys,
More
bedrooms in
one house,
even if there is
only one or
two people in
cinema, youth
More big
Easier links to
clubs for under
Swimming
Millwall, this will
16's that have
pools (that are
bring more families
things to do in the
big)
to the game.
holidays for those
who can‟t afford
the house.
much.
Reasonable
Housing
Facilities (to
buy). Currently
Lewisham
Homes should
do more to
maintain the
standards of
their homes.
Yet they are
not doing this
Cheap horse
riding please!
And maybe
clay pigeon
shooting,
Barbara, aged
50
I live on the Silwood
estate & to get me
there I need Bolina
Open up the pubs
Road to be a safe
again.
and clean well lit
pedestrian route.
but investing
the money
somewhere
else.
There is not enough
Bigger
affordable
homes, safety.
Sports should
be affordable.
buses around. I
There should be
would love to walk
more centres for
10 mins to the
young people.
nearest bus stop.
There should
be affordable
properties for
those who
have owned
their existing
property
Try to link
Not enough
schools with
international
Easier transport for
sports clubs
Millwall.
for
places for us kids
to go like bowling
alleys, so there is
more trouble.
scholarships.
Please think
about
regenerating
the existing
Five-a-side
Improving south
homes. No
football
Bermondsey & of
development
pitches flood
course build Surrey
has been
lit or indoors
Canal Road Station
done on
Religious facilities
for all faiths/
especially. This
would be a
blessing.
Lovelinch
estate. Build
102
new homes
that are strong
and long
lasting and not
flat pack
homes.
I don‟t want
Build Surrey Canal
my estate,
Road Station. This
Lovelinch
Close, to have
to pay for
residents
parking. It‟s a
tax on
residents. I'm
not willing to
will be a good idea if
Should link to
there is an excellent
Only one shop on
river and
transport link. At the
the Winsdale
include water
moment we have
Estate and very
sports and
South Bermondsey,
expensive and
should be
Surrey Quays and
closes at 1pm on
affordable.
New Cross Gate.
Sunday.
These are a
pay for it.
distance away,
Please think
Good Luck.
wisely.
It will be good if
the amenities are
provided for the
New clubs for
adults and
kids. There
are no leisure
centres - no
swimming in
this area.
older kids. At the
moment on the
Winsdale Estate
there is only stuff
for younger
children aged up
to 5/7 years but
what about those
up to 15 years.
Give them
something please.
Track & field
is a important
part in the
Olympics.
There are
insufficient
facilities.
There should
be an outside
and indoor
More child friendly
parks should be
available for the
local community.
running and
field track
used also for
rugby, cricket
and bowls.
103
Different types
of sport
facilities such
as athletics:
hurdles, long
jump, sprints.
There are
already too
many football
New parks, cafes,
restaurants +
children and
family amenities.
facilities which
only attract
male
participants.
We should
Need light food/
have more
take away shops
gym facilities
about.
Public toilets are
essential.
Redevelop nearby
roads such as
Ilderton road as
there are too
many industrial
manufacturing
buildings. They
cause fumes and
are depressing.
What about a fuel
station? A nearby
one/within the
facilities will be
good.
I would like a big
park close to my
home.
104
15.6 Consultation analysis
This is the analysis of the questions and comments received regarding the Surrey Canal scheme
since it launched at Lewisham People‟s Day (LPD) on 10 July. Its purpose is to note trends and help
inform the design team about public reaction to the proposals in the run up to the submission of a
planning application.
15.6.1 Renewal has utilised a wide range of PR and marketing channels to raise awareness of the
Surrey Canal. LPD was chosen to officially launch the project as it was an ideal opportunity
to establish the scheme in the minds of a large section of the community. It is estimated that
400 visitors passed through Renewal‟s specially-designed Cube which housed a large model
and headline information about the scheme.
15.6.2 This was followed by two major public exhibitions to display information about Surrey Canal
and encourage local people to have their say about the proposals. The first was at the
Lewington Centre on the Silwood Estate from 17-19 July. In total, 85 people visited the
consultation:

17 July – 15 visitors


A second public exhibition took place at Scotney Hall, New Cross on 1 – 2 October. A further
50 people came to view the proposals:

1 Oct – 30 visitors

2 Oct – 20 visitors
A message board was available at both events and visitors were asked to briefly comment on
the Emerging Scheme or suggest how they would like to see the area regenerated.
The anecdotal feedback at both LPD and the public exhibitions was overwhelmingly positive,
with a great deal of interest in the level of detail displayed and strong support for the
regeneration plans themselves.
15.6.3 Summary of comments
As a result of the consultation activities undertaken to date, comments have been submitted
via the following means:

16 Emails via info@surreycanal.com

98 Message Board Cards
105

1 Comments Card

1 letter
Responses have ranged from one sentence to lengthy lists of thoughts and ideas, making a
number of different points. This document analyses all 115 submissions which contained 164
separate viewpoints/queries which are set out below.
Heading
Number of comments
1. Sport
38
2. Transport
27
3. Public realm/BHM
22
4. Scheme-wide comments
18
5. Housing
17
6. Jobs and the economy
14
7. Recreation
14
8. Sustainability
7
9. Other
7
Total comments recorded
164
Sport, by far, generated the most interest. Residents also feel strongly in regards to
transport, public realm/Bridgehouse Meadows and opportunities for recreation. It is
interesting to note that interest levels in heritage and sustainability are low.
Taking all categories together, the most common (3 occasions or more) comments were:
Comment
Number
Supports SCR station/asked for update
11
Better public transport and pedestrian/cycle linkages
10
BHM should retain green/open aspect
9
Priority should be large family housing
7
Facilities for teenagers
7
Likes the plans/consultation/will benefit the area
6
Jobs/volunteering should be created for local people
6
Large park and opens spaces are important
6
Concerned over height/density
5
Interested in plans for Millwall FC/stadium
4
Sports facilities should be affordable
4
Local residents should be able to access new homes
4
More pubs and places for adults to meet
4
106
More cafes and restaurants
4
Wants 24-hr indoor football pitches
3
3
No more industrial uses/garages
3
Should bring apprenticeships/employment for young people
3
Police station/concerned about safety
3
The feedback from these top comments is encouraging. Support for the regeneration was
either made explicitly – by 6 people – or implicitly by the 11 people who felt that Surrey Canal
will provide the catalyst for the new station at Surrey Canal Road. Other comments should
also be welcomed as the Surrey Canal proposals would deliver the desired outcomes such as
the creation of quality open spaces, enhancement of Bridgehouse Meadows and affordable
sporting facilities.
However, the results also reveal some areas where local people have strong ideas about
what they would like to see the regeneration which should be perhaps look at during the
planning and implementation process, if possible. This includes the need for larger family
housing and jobs and taking steps to ensure that local people benefit from the 2,000 jobs
created.
Responses under each heading are broken down further in the tables below.
1. Scheme-wide comments
Comment
Number
Likes the plans/will benefit the area
6
Concerned over height/density
5
Worried about disruption
1
Interested in funding/deliverability
1
Wants regeneration, not gentrification
1
Toilets should be available
1
South Bermondsey should be improved
1
All elements of scheme should be affordable
1
Concerned about street litter
1
Railway embankments are barriers
1
Clearly, the fact the joint top response is backing for the plans is encouraging. But there are
some potential issues raised about the scheme, both with regards to how it will be
implemented and the end result. However these concerns have tended to be requests rather
than criticisms at this stage.
107
2. Sport
Comment
Number
Interested in plans for Millwall FC/stadium
4
Sports facilities should be affordable
4
3
Wants 24-hr indoor football pitches
3
Sport should promote healthy lifestyles
2
Request info about disruption on match days
2
Track and field facilities
2
More volleyball/basketball facilities
2
More tennis facilities
2
More horse-riding facilities
2
No more sport facilities
2
More gym/fitness facilities
1
More gymnastic facilities
1
More hockey facilities
1
More shooting facilities
1
More water sports
1
More rugby facilities
1
More cricket facilities
1
More bowls facilities
1
No more football facilities
1
Sport facilities should be available to local schools/colleges
1
It is encouraging that such a large proportion of responses were to request a certain type of
sports facility or that they are made accessible to the general public as this indicates that
there is a high level of support for the Sporting Village concept.
Plans for Millwall FC and 24-hour football pitches have generated the most interest, indicating
that this sport is already closely associated with the area and the public is keen for this to
continue.
3. Housing
Comment
Number
Priority should be large family housing
7
Better homes for Lewisham residents
4
Interested in Lifetime Homes
2
Affordable homes please
2
First time buyers should be prioritised
1
108
Improve existing homes
1
The overarching message from these responses is that existing residents are keen to ensure
that the development will deliver increased opportunities for them to gain access to larger and
better quality housing. An emphasis on the need for family-housing mirrors the call that is
being made for this type of housing across the capital and beyond. Housing for first-time
buyers and people living with disabilities are also in short supply, so it is not surprising that
they have also been mentioned.
4. Jobs
Comment
Number
Jobs should be for local people
3
No more garages/workshops
2
Focus on youth employment/apprenticeships
2
Again, the responses here seek to ensure that local people will benefit from the Surrey Canal
scheme and in this case, the employment opportunities that will be created. In particular, the
shortage of jobs for young people is seen as an issue that Surrey Canal can help to address.
5. Transport
Comment
Number
Supports SCR station/asked for update
11
Better public transport and pedestrian/cycle linkages
10
Concerned about loss of South London line
1
Worried about impact on traffic levels
1
More non-resi parking
1
Doesn‟t want to pay for resident parking
1
Wants Bolina Road improved
1
Area needs better signage
1
Given the high profile campaign for a station on the Surrey Canal Road, it is unsurprising that
questions about whether it will be delivered has featured highly in the responses. The
interesting point to note is that many of the respondents felt that the regeneration will help
make the case for the station. The majority of responses in this section refer to the need for
better transport provision in the area, across a range of different transport modes.
6. Recreation
Comment
Number
Facilities for teenagers
7
109
More restaurants/cafes
4
More pubs and places for adults to meet
4
Play areas are important
3
Bowling alley suggested
2
More shops
2
A library/information centre would be helpful
2
Family spaces/activities should be created
2
Request for a performing arts centre
1
Skate park suggested
1
Lewisham‟s relatively young population could explain why facilities for teenagers are seen as
a priority by the highest number of people commenting on recreation. In general, the
responses reveal that places and spaces which will encourage families and friends to get
together to socialise and get active are needed.
7. Public realm/Bridgehouse Meadows
Comment
Number
BHM should retain green/open aspect
9
Large park and opens spaces are important
6
Emphasis on riverside pathways
3
Comment on cycle path in BHM
1
Height/contours should be retained at BHM
1
Wants Friends of BHM group
1
Access points in BHM are important
1
The consultation revealed that the local community already view Bridgehouse Meadows as an
important green open space and are keen to have their say about its future. The majority of
comments are in relation to retaining the meadow‟s openness, varying contours and wild
areas.
8. Sustainability
Comment
Number
The development should help save energy
2
Supports ENVAC
2
Likes vertical and roof-top gardens
2
Interested in BREEAM rating
1
There were relatively few comments about sustainability compared to the other categories.
However, those that were made were largely made by well-informed individuals in the field of
sustainability as ENVAC, BREEAM ratings and roof gardens were all mentioned.
110
9. Other comments
Comment
Number
Police station/concerned about safety
3
Provision for religious facilities
1
Would like a petrol station
1
Link area to Croydon Canal heritage
1
Interested in Sawmill building
1
This section features comments that are hard to group together. The suggestion of a new
police station and two other comments about crime and anti-social behaviour indicate that
people feel that the regeneration could help address this issue.
15.7 Email response to Steve Cornish and John Hellings, Canada Water
Consultative Forum, following July 2010 exhibition
What is the density classification for the scheme?
In terms of density, we are classing the area as 'urban' which is defined in the London Plan
as:
Urban - areas with predominantly dense development such as for example terraced houses,
mansion blocks, a mix of different uses, medium building footprints and typically buildings of
two to four storeys, located within 800 metres walking distance of a District centre or, along
main arterial routes.
What are Lifetime homes?
Definition of Lifetime Homes in the London Plan 2008:
Ordinary homes designed to provide accessible and convenient homes for a large segment of
the population from young children to frail older people and those with temporary or
permanent physical or sensory impairments. Lifetime Homes have 16 design features that
ensure that the home will be flexible enough to meet the existing and changing needs of most
households, as set out in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report 'Meeting Part M and
Designing Lifetime Homes'.
British Standards Institution published in 2007 a Draft for Development (DD 266:2007)
'Design of accessible housing - Lifetime home - Code of practice' which introduces the
concept of 'accessible housing' which builds upon and extends the Lifetime Homes 16 point
specification to flats and town houses and to other accommodation without ground-level living
space and updates the technical criteria.
111
What BREAAM rating are you aiming for?
We are striving to achieve excellent.
What about traffic modelling for the impact of the scheme on the roads in Southwark?
We are looking at transport matters comprehensively with Lewisham and Southwark and our
transport consultants Peter Brett Associates are liaising with Southward with regards to their
traffic model.
112
15.8 Letters of support
15.8.1 Ms D Gasser, local resident, 9th November 2010
113
15.8.2 Luol Deng, Luol Deng Foundation, 25th November 2010
114
15.8.3 Keith Walters, Chairman, The Amateur Boxing Association of England, 11th January 2011
115
15.8.4 Peter Griffiths, England Basketball, 23rd June 2010
116
15.8.5 Jamie Clifford, Kent County Cricket, 10th September 2009
117
15.8.6 Matthew Couper, Project Director, Deptford X, 30th November 2010
118
15.9 Attendees at Millwall fans’ forum
Attending
Area of Council
Eleanor Hoyle
Project Manager – Project management Team
Yinka Ojo
Democratic Support Officer - Resources,
Interest
Millwall fan who lives in the area
Corporate Policy & Governance, Overview &
Scrutiny
Julie Nash
Liz Oxley
Building Cleaning and Security Client Manager-
Millwall fan, family and friends
Regeneration, Property Services
live in area
Decanting Officer - Customer Services,
Worked on redevelopment of
Strategic Housing
Silwood Estate, would like to
know more about plans for
neighbouring area
Dave Borland
John Brown
Rebecca Lamb
Scrutiny Manager- Resources, Corporate Policy
Season ticket holder (long list of
& Governance, Overview & Scrutiny
questions)
Head of Emergency Planning - Customer
Millwall fan, work reasons
Services, Service Review Team, Emergency
(Emergency planning
Planning
preparedness)
Conservation Officer - Regeneration,
Work reasons
Development, Planning
Sam Dias
Local Assemblies Co-ordinator - Community
(Taking over
Services, Community & Neighbourhood
from Jason
Development, Local Assemblies Team
Fleming and
Sarah Jane
Fleming)
Ken Davis
Conservation Officer - Regeneration,
Development, Planning
Natasha Reid
Media Relations Officer - Resources,
Will be helpful
Communication Unit
David McLaren
Deputy Leisure Centre Manager
Work based interest
Nancy Lau
Casework Team, Regeneration
Interested in new developments,
part of the New Experiences
Scheme
John Miller
Head of Planning
Planning
Ngair
Senior policy Officer
Wants to see the proposal as it is
Thompson
presented to the public
(planning)
Kwame
Capacity Building and Support Officer -
Owusu-
Community Sector Unit
Job opportunities
119
boateng
Andrew
Programme Manager
Kitching
Therese Bush
Work Reasons – interested in
Renewals approach
Partnership and business development
Adult learning opportunities –
manager - Community Services, Strategy &
planned community facilities
Performance, Community Education Lewisham
Steve Mace
Finance Shared Service Manager -Resources,
Millwall Fan
Shared Services, Finance Shared Service
Allan
Compliance Officer -Regeneration, Property
Lives/works in Lewisham
Robertson
Services
Stephen
Project Manager,
McGann
New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities
Michelle
Technology & Transformation Division
10 year season ticket holder, run
Ouzman
LBL New Network & Telephony Replacement
Mayor‟s charity between LBL
Project Manager
and Millwall, daughter member of
MFC and played for Millwall.
Jacqueline
Sustainable Transport Manager
Impact of transport on
Short
Transport Division
development and sustainable
transport options in consideration
Peter Adams
Health and Safety Manager – Lewisham
Chair of Millwall safety advisory
Council
group – match day safety
arrangements
Carole Carter
Finance & Admin Officer
Millwall Fan
Fresia
Service Group Manager
Campbell
Trevor Pybus
Partnership Co-ordinator
Work reasons, Millwall fan
Carole
Cycle Implementation Manager
Crankshaw
L B of Lewisham
Chris Chivers
Fostering B.S.O.
Millwall Fan
Jacqueline
Sustainable Transport Manager
Impact of transport on
Short
Transport Division
development and sustainable
transport options in consideration
Peter Adams
Health and Safety Manager – Lewisham
Chair of Millwall safety advisory
Council
group – match day safety
arrangements
120
Carole Carter
Finance & Admin Officer
Millwall Fan
Fresia
Service Group Manager
Campbell
Trevor Pybus
Partnership Co-ordinator
Work reasons, Millwall fan
Carole
Cycle Implementation Manager
Crankshaw
L B of Lewisham
Chris Chivers
Fostering B.S.O.
Millwall Fan
15.10 Q&A from Millwall fans’ forum
Q: What’s in it for Millwall?
Renewal: Millwall will benefit from an improved setting for the stadium and new revenue
streams from the commercial uses on the land that they lease from the London Borough of
Lewisham (LBL). There will also be an element of housing which Millwall (MFC) and LBL will
benefit from and it is hoped as part of the regeneration that improvements can be made to the
stadium. The fans will benefit from the opportunity to have a day out at MFC.
Q: How does the club benefit in the short/ medium/ long term from these plans?
Renewal: An overarching benefit for Millwall resulting from the regeneration of the Surrey
Canal is that the area will be transformed from being largely deprived area to a thriving
community. In fact, the club may already have benefited from the excitement created by the
launch of the London Sporting Village concept as it has helped put Surrey Canal on the map.
This would help attract investment into the club.
In the short term there will be development on the land that Millwall lease from Lewisham so
there will be an initial capital benefit to the club.
In the medium term there will be new revenue and income streams from the commercial
ventures that the club can operate on the land that they lease from Lewisham Council. For
example, the proposed hotel and conference facilities which Millwall have been interested in
the front of the stadium.
In the longer term there will be an overall upgrading of the facilities around Millwall which will
provide a better day out for the fans and in turn increase at the gate.
Q: In the event that the club needed to expand the stadium would the Renewal plans
leave space for extra development?
121
Renewal: Yes – additional tiers could be added to the stadium and the corners filled in.
Q: As a club, Millwall generally rely on a big financial backer. If John Berylson leaves
then Millwall could struggle financially. Do the Renewal plans in anyway depend on a
financially secure club?
Renewal: The regeneration plans are not dependent on Millwall‟s financial backing
Q: How will Millwall be tied to the London’s Sporting Village concept for marketing etc?
Renewal: We are at a very early stage of these discussions so this still needs to be worked
out with the Club. As far as we are concerned Millwall are at the centre of the sporting
offering. There are clear benefits for the fans and the club to be involved in London‟s Sporting
Village. A significant improvement to the „fan experience‟ on match days will help reinforce
relations with current fans and help attract new ones. The club will be able to improve its
commercial offer significantly and the club will also be boosted from a reputation point of view.
It is up to the club how closely affiliated with the London Sporting Village brand they choose to
be, however we believe that it would help their operations if they are positioned as a key part
of the sporting hub.
Q: What will happen to the away fan walkway?
Renewal: The future of the away fan walkway is up to Millwall and the police as it an
operational issue. From conversations that we have had with crowd movement specialists
and the police we would aspire for all fans to travel together.
Transport
Q: What about the connection with South Bermondsey station?
Renewal: We will be re-opening a pedestrian path under a large railway arch in the north of
the site (the residential area around Bolina Gardens) which will connect the site directly to
South Bermondsey station. By re-opening the pathway we will be creating a direct route
through the site from the south of Bridgehouse Meadows to South Bermondsey station,
without having to go via Ilderton Road.
Q: There is currently no public transport link to Kent, where the majority of the
supporters travel from. Will this change?
Renewal: The proposed Surrey Canal station will allow supporters and visitors to get to the
site without having to travel via London stations (change at New Cross onto the overground).
Q: What if Surrey Canal station isn’t built?
Renewal: The London Borough of Lewisham‟s (LBL) investment of £3 million for the station
at Surrey Canal Road has allowed passive provision (foundations for the platforms, ticket
122
offices, lift shafts etc.) to be built whilst phase two is being constructed (beginning in January
2011). This means that if the remaining £7 million for the station is not secured before
construction begins then the station can be completed at a later date, meaning that it is not a
case of if the station is built but when.
Q: There is a need for new bus routes in the area, especially travelling from East to
West. Will new bus routes be provided?
Renewal: We agree that there is a need for new bus routes around the site, especially along
Surrey Canal Road and we have been working with Transport for London (TfL) on this issue.
Q: Will night transport be provided?
Renewal: The enhanced bus services that we are working on with TfL will run a normal
service and there is no plan for night buses at the moment.
Q: What about having Boris’ bikes on site?
Renewal: We would love to have cycle hire racks on this site and we will talk to TfL about
this.
Q: During the building stages, how will the developers’ minimise the problems to fans
travelling to and from the game?
Renewal: This will be a phased development, split into five phases, to ensure that all aspects
of the site can continue to function well throughout construction. We will work closely with
Millwall to ensure that access remains paramount for the fans.
Parking
Q: Many Millwall fans come by car to the Den and already car parking is limited for the
big games and I am worried that there will be less parking and even more difficulties. Is
this foreseen as an issue?
Renewal: Parking and transport is a significant issue and the GLA and LBL policies have
strict controls that we will have to adhere to. As part of our plans for Surrey Canal we will
provide improved transport links including enhanced bus routes and there is also the
proposed Surrey Canal station which would have an impact. We will be bound to the
guidelines on parking set by LBL and the GLA, so it will remain constrained. Unfortunately
parking is not just a problem for Millwall but also for all clubs within urban areas.
Q: What parking provision will there be especially with regards to families, residents
and Millwall supporters?
Renewal: Parking will be provided at a level of 0.3 spaces per home. There will also be an
additional 400 spaces for public use which will take the total number of spaces on the site to
1200.
123
Q: Will there be any additional parking provision?
Renewal: With two stations, new bus routes and 400 public parking spaces on site we will not
be providing any additional parking. Overall there will be no increase on current provision for
Millwall supporters.
Safety
Q: What about safety and crowd management before and after matches?
Renewal: We have been working closely with the Police and Millwall to ensure that all safety
concerns are looked at and answered. This work is ongoing and is a top priority for us.
Q: How will the noise on match days effects residents?
Renewal: As all the homes will be above the third story we anticipate that the noise on
residents will be minimised.
Q: SELCHP brings in a lot of rubbish, how safe is it to have all those trucks coming in
and out every day?
Renewal: SELCHP is next to existing estates and has always been a safe facility for local
residents. The trucks will be passing along Surrey Canal Road and will not be coming in and
out of the Surrey Canal development.
Sport
Q: Are future demographics (2020) in line with Sport England’s Active People profile?
Renewal: We are working very closely with Sport England on all aspects of the sporting
provision and are taking into account all of their research.
Q: What about public access for leisure users?
Renewal: The cost of the leisure facilities will be in line with the existing LBL facilities
(Wavelengths, Ladywell etc.) It is not envisaged that any of the sports uses will be privately
run and owned.
Q: Is there a plan B in case the sporting provision is not a success?
Renewal: We have done significant research along with LBL and Sport England and we have
no doubt that there is a need both locally and London wide for facilities in this area.
Jobs
Q: Will the existing sites and the jobs be safe as these uses may not be ‘suitable’
anymore?
124
Renewal: Most current land uses will not be suitable, but we have identified with LBL to rehouse the existing industrial businesses. We will be working closely with LBL to do this as
efficiently as possible.
Other issues
Q: How will the scheme be funded?
Renewal: The build of the scheme (including all the sporting uses) will be funded by
Renewal. We are working on a thirty year business plan for the provision of the sports
facilities which will be run by a social enterprise organisation with a strong board who will
safeguard and develop the sports revenue streams as well as raise funds from public and
private sources.
Q: Will the scheme be delivered?
Renewal: Yes – there are only two major landowners (LBL and Renewal) which makes this
scheme realistic to deliver and it is hoped that work on the first phases will begin in 2012.
Q: The residential towers are a lot higher than surrounding developments.
Renewal: The mass, density and height has been reached in agreement with the London
Borough of Lewisham and the Greater London Authority. Surrey Canal is a fairly isolated site
with fairly limited context. Overall heights are in keeping with surrounding new developments.
Q: Who is purple landowner?
Renewal: This is a private landowner who owns some of the some of the land around
Excelsior Works (south of Surrey Canal Road). We have been working with the owner of this
land to make sure that what is developed here fits with the overall masterplan.
Q: There is lots of archaeology of the former canal still in place, how will you try and
keep this?
Renewal: We are working with LBL and the other sites in the north of the borough to ensure
there is a cohesive reference to the history of the area. This will include something (artwork,
water feature etc.) to mark the route of the former Surrey Canal.
15.11 Lions Live interview
On to our 2nd guest this evening we‟re going to be talking about the regeneration around the
Den, we welcome our guest Jordana Malik, she‟s Head of Communication for Renewal.
Renewal for the last 10 years has steadily been accumulating land around the Den and now
aims to push forward with its Surrey Canal Sporting Village concept by submitting an outline
planning application by the end of the year, We‟re pleased to welcome Jordana to talk to us
about the scheme which will include some 2,700 new dwellings for the area together with
extensive sporting facilities at ground floor level and commercial uses such as shopping
125
arcades, space for innovative businesses and an attractive public square. Can you imagine all
that around the Den?
LL: Jordana, good evening.
JM: Good evening and thank you for having me on
LL: No thank you for joining us. First of all I‟ve just given a brief outline of the scheme can you
give us please a more basic detail of your proposal, so everyone understands what‟s going
on?
JM: Of course, as you mentioned we have been working on this for quite a long time for about
8-10 years, and really what is at the heart of this is a regional sports centre for London and
the South East with the Den at its very heart as you‟re a well established club and have been
in the local area for a very long time. Alongside Millwall there will be brand new facilities for
basketball, netball, cricket, boxing, and a leisure Centre with a swimming pool. Alongside the
sports the development will bring 2000 new jobs to the area, new open spaces, a new
community park and a new train station.
LL: Can you tell us where your company has been? Have you been involved in other projects
in London?
JM: Yes we have, we are a local company, based in Greenwich and we have been
established since the mid 1990‟s. We specialise in projects in south east London and we have
done over 40 projects across the country. We‟ve done a couple in New Cross that the fans
might know, we have just done one on Lee High Road with London and Quadrant that‟s
about to be built out. You have probably seen our work but probably didn‟t realise we were
behind it.
LL: So how does your company operate? How do you plan to progress? Will you retain a
property interest in the area or will you look to move to other schemes, selling your land to
other developers after consent?
JM: That‟s a good question. This is by far our biggest project to date and it‟s our most
ambitious. It‟s close to our heart because it‟s where we live and it‟s were we are from, so our
aim is to be here in the future - we would not have spent 8 years doing all this just to get out
of it as soon as we can. What we are working towards at the moment is submitting an outline
planning application to the LBL at the end of the year that won‟t be decided until Easter, so
although I say we have been doing this for 8 years we are still at a relatively early stage as we
haven‟t yet got planning permission.
LL: How will you react when obviously some people may object to this planning application?
How will you react if the club and the supporters, shareholders of the club don‟t feel that the
regeneration is in Millwall‟s best interest, what will you do then?
JM: Since we have been working on this project we have actually had quite a close
relationship with the club and as you guys will and your listeners will know the club has
spoken about regeneration over the past few years as they recognise that there is an
opportunity to develop the area around the Den so the club and ourselves are both in
agreement that the regeneration will happen. The good thing for us is that we do have a close
126
relationship with them and because of this we can have frank discussions. So we feel the club
see that it will be a benefit to the club and its fans, obviously people can go and object its
completely within their rights it‟s a public process, but as I say we have been working on this
and we are open - we want people to tell us their thoughts give us their feed back now so we
can cover everything,
LL: So if people do object you will be prepared to go back and talk to the people or the club
about their concerns?
JM: Absolutely, we have been having public consultations since July so people have been
coming to exhibitions, visiting the website, coming to meetings and obviously this is a part of
the process, so we would love people to come with feedback. If they think that this is not
going to work then you can go on the website www.surreycanal.com all my contact details are
on there and I would love to hear from you.
LL: Great stuff, now obviously we are talking about leisure properties and we‟re talking about
new businesses. These type of properties seem to have a lot of money spent on them but in
maybe ten years they go out of fashion, particularly the leisure centres with people not
wanting to play the sports or whatever...are you retaining an interest in these properties and
will you be spending the income stream or will you rely on other people to spend it? Will you
be looking at the private sector rather than the public sector to finance this?
JM: That‟s a brilliant question. That is the first question the LBL and the GLA asked us What‟s going to happen? How are you going to make this sustainable? So the model is that
we will give the land to a social enterprise, a non profit making organisation, that will run
London‟s Sporting Village and they will have a Board of the great and the good and we would
hope to have some of the Millwall representatives along with members of the community
scheme in there as well. This Board would then employ a management company. We have
actually been working on this really closely with Sport England and they just this week have
announced a new initiative from the government for an Olympic legacy called “People Places
Play ”. This is £100 million pot of money which we have been asked to apply for and if we are
successful we would use the money to make sure this lasts for the next 40-50 years and does
not become a white elephant
LL: Would it be more helpful to you if the Club was not here? How integral is the Club to your
plans?
JM: Well, I think without the club we would not have London‟s Sporting Village. The Club is at
the heart of what we are doing and Millwall really is the only thing that puts this area on the
map - the other thing that people really know it for is the incinerator next door. The Den is
what people know it for so it‟s very key to what we are doing.
LL: Jordana, I‟m not really up on all these things but I have been looking at your plans and
they look great. It looks like under your scheme the Den is going to be revamped in some
way, who will be paying for that?
JM: As part of our proposal and after speaking to the Club, they have said that they want the
possibility to extend the stadium in the future to expand and possibly re-clad it. So when we
127
apply for planning permission we will put that in there so the Club won‟t have to go back at a
later date, but the Club at the end of the day will be responsible for any filling in the corners or
re-cladding of the stadium.
LL: What have you actually got planned in your proposal within the boundary of our football
club?
JM: So within the boundaries of your football club, the bit that people refer to as the Millwall
domain is the land that the Club sits on. The Club will stay there and if anything is to happen it
will be cosmetic, then there is the car park that is in front of the stadium and there is the little
bit to the north east of the stadium where the coaches park. So on the car park the Club said
we would love to have the opportunity to have a new revenue stream, so not only some flats
but also a 100 bed hotel with conferencing facilities and then on the north east side it will be
mainly residential.
LL: And you won‟t oppose that in any way?
JM: No - we have been working with the Club to make sure they get exactly what they want
on their land.
LL: Are they the only 2 structures with our boundary?
JM: Yes they are. I don‟t know if you are aware of this the LBL is the freeholder of the site
and this is what the Club lease from them.
LL: If them things go ahead and get built then anything being done like the corners filled in
will be down to Millwall. Will that hotel be built by Millwall money? How will that work?
JM: The way it will work is first the planning permission will be granted and that does not
guarantee that somebody will come in and build it so then Millwall and Lewisham have the
opportunity to sell it to a builder or deal with a hotel direct, It will be up to the Club really to
make sure that happens, but about the value, when planning permission is granted the value
of the land increases.
LL: So can I get this right, your proposals are for the area that Millwall is leasing so really the
final word about what goes on there will come down to Millwall and Lewisham?
JM: Exactly, what we do is that we have in technical terms been masterplanning this area so
what our aim is really is we will create a sense of place, a new piece of London and Millwall is
integral to that. When it comes to their domain and the club itself that is down to the club, we
will work with them and they will have to be guided by the masterplan so it all fits together and
public space is really important so that the whole area flows. So the proposal is if you walk
from South Bermondsey Station there is a massive archway that has currently been blocked
off you will be able to walk under there all the way down to the Den and further on then down
to the park at Bridgehouse Meadows so over the blue bridge towards New Cross.
LL: So you are looking to build a new station as well in Surrey Canal Road, called Surrey
Canal Road station? You don‟t have the funding for that at the moment but it is proposed and
that is ideally what you want to build, Obviously there will be a lot more people coming into
the area if you build it up like you say you will.
128
JM: Ok the situation is, as I‟m sure some of your listeners will know, is that there was a
petition for a station on the ELL Phase 2 a few years ago, as basically the train line goes right
through straight past the Den and they are going to start building this in 2012. In January this
year the Labour government agreed to fund the vast majority of the station, So the station
costs 10million - Lewisham council have put up £3 million and the Labour government said
we will fill the gap so you can have your station, which was brilliant. The government then
change, the coalition came in and they said actually we are going to take the £7 million
funding away so you will have to bridge that gap. They have said to us come back after you
have planning permission. Planning permission is quite important as it shows confidence that
this is going to go ahead and we see it as once we have planning permission then we will go
back and try to get all the interested parties, so that will be Lewisham, DFT TFL around a
table and say look we have to make this happen because as well as the Den, 40-50,000
people live and work a 15 min walk away from this area and they are really poorly served by
transport.
LL: So would you put some of your own money into it just to pay for the station?
JM: It is really a negotiation but we will do whatever we have to do to make it happen.
LL: Your development will bring extra traffic into the area so will you be providing any parking
spaces not only for the people who are going to live and work there but also for us football
fans on a weekly basis?
JM: Well as you know the parking around the area at the moment is paramount and it is
difficult to park, but all future regenerations in London especially when it is so close to the
centre of London and Lewisham they are really minimizing parking everywhere. So there will
be no increased parking but what there will be is there will be 2 new bus routes that go right
past the Den and a new station so it will make it much easier to get to the stadium. Any
parking that there is will be for disabled people and some for the sports provision which will be
mainly underground so there will be no parking on the ground level
LL: So let‟s get this right - it definitely looks like the station will occur whatever happens. Do
you think it‟s going to occur because this thing will trigger and help the development?
JM: Yes, what we have been saying is it is not if the station is going to happen but when
because Lewisham‟s £3 million is allowing for what they call passive provision to be built
when they are building the line, so come January when they start building they will start to
build the foundations for the station and the platforms and ticketing offices. So people locally
will see a station start to occur and they can drop a station in later if needed.
LL: Times are hard economically and I know this has been going on a long while or whatever
so your obviously keen for this scheme to progress but have you got the funding for all this?
Is all the money waiting there to be spent?
JM: Well as we said we have been here for a long time and we feel like we have ridden out
the worst of the economic crisis, if you had asked us a couple of years ago like everyone else
we would have been holding our breath. Because we have been acquiring sites over the
years we have also had rental income coming in from all the small business around there so
129
this has allowed us to sustain our plan and keep us going, and we will keep the businesses
there until the very last possible minute.
LL: One of the things I have noticed, looking at your plans is that our much loved Community
Scheme seems to have quite a few buildings on it, how is that that going to work?
JM: The Community Scheme do an absolutely fabulous job and we have been talking to them
closely about our proposals. We would offer the Community Scheme new facilities in the
heart of London‟s Sporting Village, so around the Surrey Canal Sporting Village where the big
transparent sports buildings will be. They can use other facilities but it is really up to them if
they will want to lease from us, as we have heard that sometimes it is a mill around their neck
to have this and do all the upkeep with roofs etc. or if they wish to still have an asset they can
do that as well. The ball is in their court.
LL: Although they have been with us for something like 25 years I think our Community
Scheme and if I‟m not wrong it was the first one in the country and it sits very well next to the
stadium. I hear what you‟re saying but many supporters have a fond affection for the
Community Scheme
JM: Well it‟s definitely not going anywhere and we see it as central to our future plans, This is
exciting for them because if they get new facilities they can raise more income through
increased hires so this is a big opportunity. We presented to the trustees a couple of weeks
ago and they were really excited - you know, it is up to them and their landlords, the LBL and
they definitely don‟t want to see them go anywhere as they provide 60% of Lewisham‟s
disability sports education for the whole borough so really us and the local authority see the
Community Scheme at the heart.
LL: Ok Jordana, on the email Alan has said “What land in the planning development belongs
to Lewisham council and is a map of the land available for public scrutiny and where?”
JM: Yes it is. If you go onto our website it is on the About page there is a map and it is called
Delivery. As there are 2 major land owners, us and Lewisham, it means there is a strong
possibility of it happening. Also if you approach the LBL, regeneration department they will be
able to give it to you.
LL: What land do you own? If you could just paint a picture for us?
JM: I don‟t want to get too boring and go on about road names, so if you are by South
Bermondsey train station, all of the industrial units known as the Bolina Road Industrial estate
where the Millwall Cafe is, then up to there and if you‟re in the car park at the top the right
there are a couple of large industrial units we own them and also land on the south side of
Surrey Canal Road along with another industrial estate called Orion
LL: If everything goes to your plans when would you hope work would start on this?
JM: we are aiming for work to start when the ELL is completed so end of 2012
LL: I looked at your plans and Stadium Avenue which is the major avenue up to the ground I
believe you are going to put shops and bars/cafes there with perhaps tables out the front of
those cafes. You know on match days we are as good as gold but you do get some strange
fans down here that want to start trouble. Is there any other access apart from Stadium
130
Avenue to the club? Obviously the Club has to breathe within this development and what do
you think about the lovely cafes that might be attractive to the less desirable?
JM: Well around the whole stadium there will be a thoroughfare for coaches and people to
move, the stadium will have room to breathe and also to for them to develop if they wanted for
example if they wanted to bring forward the stand which currently looks out on to the car park.
With regards to the Stadium Boulevard with its bars and cafes we have spoken to the local
police and the people responsible for match day safety and the feeling is that bars and
restaurants with good design and good public trade makes people behave better and
although you are going to get trouble makers if you look now that football stadiums are going
back into built up areas, back into the residential areas we think there is no reason why home
and away fans shouldn‟t be able to have a drink right next to the stadium.
LL: Are your discussions with the Board quite advanced?
JM: Yes, as I said we have been talking to Millwall for several years and we have gone
through various different owners and seen different groups of people, and now we are at a
really good stage and we are all now working towards this submission so as part of this huge
application there are reports on the ecology around the stadium and the club have been
brilliant at letting us do this so yes we have been working really closely.
LL: So there should be no squabbling about uses on Millwall‟s land and your land?
JM: No, this has been put to bed and we are now at what they call scheme freeze so now all
we have to do is put the application through. We have been through at least 50 different
versions of this scheme so we all feel very happy that we are there.
LL: Jordana we are happy to have had you on and thank you for explaining to us exactly
what‟s going on, so we expect you will be a season ticket holder?
JM: I am a local girl from New Cross so I always keep an eye on what‟s going on, and good
luck for Saturday.
131
15.12 Multifaith questionnaire and responses
15.12.1 As part of our masterplan for Surrey Canal: London‟s Sporting Village we are proposing the
construction of a 70,000 sq ft religious facility with a range of different sized halls available for
occupation. If you are interested in this opportunity we would be grateful if you could answer
the questions below.
For more information on the masterplan please visit www.surreycanal.com or contact Jordana at the
Renewal offices on 020 8858 4484 or Jordana@renewalgroup.co.uk
1. Name......................................................................................................................................
2. Name of Church......................................................................................................................
3. Date established.....................................................................................................................
4. Current Address......................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................
5. Phone number........................................................................................................................
6. Email.......................................................................................................................................
7. Website..................................................................................................................................
8. Size of current facility........ .............................................................................................sq ft
9. Current number in congregation.................................................................................people
10. Charity registration number (if applicable)..........................................................................
11. Current turnover per year (£)...............................................................................................
12. Do you own or rent your current premises? .......................................................................
13. Do you share your current premises with another Church? If yes, please give details.
....................................................................................................................................................
14. What size of facility does your organisation ideally need? Please select one of the options below:
 2500-4999 sq ft
 5000-7499 sq ft
 7500-9999 sq ft
 10000 sq ft or above - please specify................................................sq ft
15. How many people are currently in your congregation?
 1-49
 50-100
 101-249
 250-499
 500-749
 750-999
 1000-1249
 1250-1499
 1500-1749
132
 1750-1999
 2000 and above – please specify...............................................................
16. If you had your ideal facility how many people would be in your congregation?
 1-49
 50-100
 101-249
 250-499
 500-749
 750-999
 1000-1249
 1250-1499
 1500-1749
 1750-1999
 2000 and above – please specify...............................................................
17. In your proposed facility, during a normal week how often would you expect to operate at full
capacity based on your selection in question 15 above?
 Once a week
 Twice a week
 Three times a week
 Weekends only
 Every day
18. Based on your choice in question 15 what would be the core hours of operation?
a) Weekdays:
Start
until
b) Weekends:
Start
until
c) Special Events:
Start
until
Please state the expected number of special events per
year...................................................................................................................
19. Other than toilet facilities what other facilities would you ideally need to have provided within your
dedicated space? Please select from the list below:
 Separate classrooms
 Offices
 Consultation rooms
 Youth hall
 Catering kitchen
 Crèche
 Outside space – garden/patio
 Other – please specify...............................................................................
20. Excluding the facilities within your dedicated space what else would be of interest to your
organisation if available for hire on an ad-hoc or pre-booked basis?
133
 Large auditorium (seating 2000 plus delegates)
 Other – please specify................................................................................
a) If you are interested in hiring a large auditorium what would you pay for that facility (average hire
rate per day)?
....................................................................................................................................................
21. With planning authorities striving to reduce the use of the car and promote travel by bike and
public transport please indicate the minimum number of parking spaces that you would ideally need
based on your selection in question 15 above.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE LIKELY LEVEL OF PARKING WILL NOT EXCEED 1 SPACE PER 1,000
SQ FT.
 0-5
 6-10
 11-15
 16-20
 21-25
 26-30
 31-35
 36-50
 50 plus – please specify.............................................................................
22. What problems, if any, do you think there would be in a facility that houses a number of different
independent churches managed by an external company. What would be the benefit of a number of
churches sharing some facilities?
PROBLEMS...............................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................
BENEFITS.................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
............................................................
23. We are looking to invite religious leaders to our offices to discuss this exciting opportunity – are
you interested in taking part?
 Yes, I am interested in attending a meeting to discuss this opportunity further
 No
134
24. If there are any other organisations that you think we should contact please add their details
below.
15.12.2 Responses to questionnaire
Name:
Life Changing Ministry International Ltd.
Charity no:
1129414
Current premises:
8 Derrick Gardens, Charlton, London, SE7 7TA
800 sq ft
Congregation size:
50 people
Current turnover:
Not profit making
Tenure:
Rent
Currently share:
No
Ideal size for facilities:
5,000 to 7,499 sq ft for 100 to 250 person congregation
Special events:
One – annual church harvest
Individual facilities:
Toilets, offices, consultation rooms, catering kitchen, shower room
Shared facility:
Medium sized auditorium, willing to pay £100 to £150 per day for hire
Parking spaces:
0 to 5
Mutifaith:
No problems. The benefit is that all the organisations have the same purpose
which is a place for worship. Worship with other groups to make a larger
contribution to the community.
Name:
Noah‟s Ark Parish, Celestial Church of Christ
Established:
16th July 1992
Current premises:
22 Wharncliffe Road, London, SE25 6SJ
2,600 sq ft
Congregation size:
100 people
Current turnover:
£10,000 per year
Tenure:
Rent
Currently share:
No
2,500 – 4,999 sq ft for 250 to 500 people
Special events:
Three per year
Offices, toilets, consultation rooms, youth hall, catering kitchen, outside
space (garden/ patio)
Shared facilities:
Large auditorium, willing to pay £800 per day to hire.
Parking spaces:
11 to 15
Multifaith:
No benefits due to clash of times of worship and spiritual churches wanting
their prayers to be exclusive to their members only.
Name:
Watchman Catholic Charismatic Renewal Movement
Charity no:
SC036960
135
Established:
30th September 2005
Current premises:
2,000 sq ft
Congregation size:
100 people
Turnover:
£40,000 per year
Tenure:
Rent
2,500 to 4,999 sq ft for 250 to 500 people
Toilets, consultation rooms, youth hall, catering kitchen
Shared facilities:
Large hall
Parking:
21 to 25 spaces
15.13 Responses to Multifaith meetings
15.13.1
Pastor James, House of Prosperity International Church
Meeting:
8th October 2010
Current premises:
Bolina Road Industrial Estate, SE16 3LD
Currently the church is affected by Millwall Football Club as when there is a
home game they cannot enter their premises.
Congregation size:
50+ and growing, should be 100 by next year.
Think about how the Priest arrives at the pulpit (not through the
congregation). Some kind of entrance with changing room and office.
Organisations have already spent money on furniture and decoration so they
are looking for a blank canvas.
Young People:
Separate area, possibly sound proof, with games and TV.
Shared large hall:
A large hall available for one-off hires would be a huge benefit for weddings,
parties and wakes with appropriate licenses and the ability to stay open
through the night with good catering facilities and the possibility of daytime
parties for kids. Also, they sometimes have large night time prayer meeting,
there is a New Years prayer meeting which attracts 3,000 attendees.
Tenure:
They currently rent their premises but would like the opportunity to buy their
own property in the future.
Multifaith:
No – there would be problems with between congregations.
15.13.2
Pastor Frances, Celestial Church of God
Meeting:
18th October 2010
Current premises:
South Norwood, SE25
Congregation size:
They have been up to 250 people but due to recently moving they are
currently at 50 people.
Need male and female changing facilities and ideally their own toilets. Also,
area for shoes as they do not wear shoes while they worship. Need their own
entrance and no one else should have access to their individual facilities.
Small kitchenette which includes washing machine and dryer for robes.
136
Young people:
Separate area in the individual church where young people can listen to the
service but also be entertained by volunteers. Used for Sunday school so
classroom set up.
Shared large hall:
Loves the idea of a large hall and would like a separate management
company to run access/ availability so everyone gets equal access to it.
Tenure:
They currently rent their premises and would like to start by renting and then
buy at a later date.
Multifaith:
No, ideally would like to be in a building on their own.
15.13.3
Sebacka, UK Turkish Islamic Greenwich Cultural Centre
Meeting:
18th October 2010
Current premises:
1-9 Evelyn Street, London, SE8 5RQ
Congregation size:
200 hundred on a Friday with 50-100 throughout the week.
Male and female changing areas, area for shoes.
Young people:
Have a school and do lots of work with young people. Classrooms and
computer facilities (possibly shared?), link into sports facilities.
Tenure:
They currently rent their premises and would like to start by renting and then
buy at a later date.
Multifaith:
Yes, it‟s an exciting opportunity to work together.
15.13.4
Kelvin Josh Ediale, Spirit and Life Bible Church
Meeting:
19th October 2010
Current premises:
Thurston Road, Lewisham
Congregation size:
1,500 but they are looking for facilities to accommodate 3,000
Room for young children and room for teenagers (discussion, debate, audio
visual facilities etc.) Toilets, including disabled toilets for such a large
congregation.
Young people:
As well as facilities for children, they also want space for young people
(snooker table etc) and they would love to be close by to the sports facilities.
Tenure:
They would like to buy.
Multifaith:
Yes, it would bring huge benefits to the community.
15.14 CABE Spaceshaper report
Report on Bridgehouse Meadows Space shaper Workshops, 27th October 2010
Produced by Annette Hard, Kent Architecture for Renewal.
Contents
15.14.1
Introduction
15.14.2
Background
15.14.3
Workshop aims
137
15.14.4
Workshop format, programme and participants
15.14.5
Key findings from workshops
15.14.5i
Adult Spaceshaper workshop
15.14.5ii
Spaceshaper 9-14 workshop
15.14.6
Next steps
Executive Summary
Bridgehouse Meadows, a valuable but much underused green space hidden away in southeast
London, forms a key asset within the Surrey Canal major regeneration scheme being planned by the
developers Renewal Group, in close collaboration with the London Borough of Lewisham.
The developers and the council had been undertaking a series of events to share their outline
proposals for the Surrey Canal scheme with the local community, but felt that Spaceshaper
workshops, one for adult stakeholders, and one for local young people from the locally based Ministry
of Youth group, would be a good way to get input from a range of local people as they began to
develop their ideas for the Community Park, and the associated pedestrian and cycle links. Renewal
approached Kent Architecture Centre, a not-for-profit agency with considerable experience of
engaging stakeholders and communities within regeneration programmes, including the use of
Spaceshaper.
The workshop also provided the opportunity to find out more from Transport for London about their
proposals to use the site as a temporary works yard when they construct the East London line link
which will pass through Bridgehouse Meadows en route to Clapham Junction.
The Spaceshaper workshops were seen as a key way to find out more about the views of local
people, in particular young people, about the space, and identify its key strengths and weaknesses.
“The Spaceshaper workshop has a clear structure, and brings together both those who are
responsible for managing and planning the space with those who use it, enabling the views of a wide
range of people to be taken into account” explained Kent Architecture Centre‟s Annette Hards
The workshop, held in Scotney Hall on the Winslade Estate, started with some short presentations to
put the regeneration scheme into a wider context, and then all the participants went out together to
visit the site. The young people in particular enjoyed having the chance to share their views with the
professionals who will be developing the proposals for the space.
The adult stakeholders completed the Spaceshaper questionnaires, and the young people
participated in a series of activities to help them assess Bridgehouse Meadows. The results were
analysed and presented back to each group separately, which prompted further discussions, before
the two groups came together at the end of the workshop to share their respective findings. “People
138
like seeing the results straightaway,” said Annette, “It sparks some really good discussions.”
The workshop demonstrated that despite its lack of use, the Bridgehouse Meadows space is
nevertheless much valued by the local community as a rare green space in a very built up area.
Participants noted the wonderful views from the space of London landmarks, including Canary Wharf.
Access into Bridgehouse Meadows from the surrounding housing estates is difficult, and once in the
space there is very little natural surveillance, so people don‟t feel safe there. This report summarising
the key findings from the workshops will be circulated to all those attending, and these will be fed into
the ongoing development of the scheme.
15.14.1
Introduction
Kent Architecture Centre (KAC) was invited by Jordana Malik, Renewal Group, to submit a proposal
for planning and facilitating two Spaceshaper events, one for adult stakeholders and one, using the
Spaceshaper 9-14 resources, for local young people for Bridgehouse Meadows, a public space which
forms part of the larger Surrey Canal redevelopment scheme in Lewisham. The workshops formed
part of the Renewal Group‟s Surrey Canal public consultation programme.
Spaceshaper is a practical toolkit, which measures the quality of open space, and provides a forum
for discussion between users and managers of spaces to help guide future improvements. For
Bridgehouse Meadows, the Spaceshaper events were intended to bring together local people, and a
range of stakeholders from the local council, London Borough of Lewisha, and others to share their
respective views of, and ambitions for the space in the context of the Surrey Canal development.
th
The Spaceshaper workshops, on Wednesday 27 October 2010, were attended by an invited
audience with the intention of reflecting a range of interests in the local area.
Figure 31 CABE Spaceshaper workshop at Scotney Hall
15.14.2
Background
Bridgehouse Meadows is a large triangular grassed open space bounded to the west by the Winslade
Estate, and to the north-east and south-east by the Fairview estate. It is a significant area of open
space in the context of the Surrey Canal development, which is planned to be upgraded into a
139
Community Park, with improved connections to the other parks in the area such as Deptford Park and
Southwark Park.
The Surrey Canal site is in great need of investment and regeneration, and there are significant local
site issues including raised embankments, and roads and railway lines which result in the area being
disconnected and isolated from its surroundings. Bridgehouse Meadows is on the site of a former
stadium, which is reflected in the shallow bowl-like character of the space-the edges of which are
raised up in comparison with the level of the surrounding housing estates.
15.14.3
Workshop aims
The Spaceshaper workshops formed part of an on-going programme of consultation with local people
and other stakeholders.
The key aims of the Spaceshaper workshops were to provide a neutrally facilitated forum to bring
together stakeholders, regular users and local people, including young people plus those who
manage the space, either locally, or in a more strategic capacity, so that they could jointly address a
range of issues including:
•
identifying the needs of different potential users of the space
•
identifying the barriers to increased use of the site by the local community
•
getting ideas and buy in from local people to generate an improved sense of ownership
•
identifying practical and affordable improvements, including managing expectations
sharing and reviewing the initial ideas developed by the Landscape Architects Townshends
for the site
•
raising and discussing the impact that the temporary use of the site as a construction yard by
Transport for London in the project to provide the missing link forming the connection between the
East London line and Clapham Junction.
15.14.4
Workshop format, programme and participants
The workshops, held in the Scotney Hall and the Cyber Centre on the Winslade Estate, began with
introductions from all participants, and everyone had the opportunity to say what they hoped to get out
of the day. Annette Hards, Spaceshaper Facilitator, briefly ran through the programme for the day,
which is included below.
Nigel Adams, Strategic Regeneration Communications Manager at the London Borough of Lewisham,
gave a short presentation summarising the context and aims of the workshop. Gabriela Henriksson
from the Landscape Architects Townshends provided a short introduction to their analysis of the
Bridgehouse Meadows site, and the initial ideas that they have developed in response, before
Annette Hards introduced the Spaceshaper questionnaire to the participants. In the meantime, the
facilitator team, led by Caf Fean, introduced the group of young people from the local Ministry of
140
Youth group to the Spaceshaper 9-14 activities. All participants had the opportunity to look at the
model of the Surrey Canal regeneration site, which stimulated a series of questions.
A key part of both Spaceshaper workshops is the walk around the site. The walkabout provides the
opportunity for the sharing of the wealth of local knowledge about the history and current use of the
site.
On their return to Scotney Hall, the adult stakeholders completed the Spaceshaper questionnaires,
while the Ministry of Youth group participated in a series of facilitator-led activities to explore a range
of issues related the existing and potential use of the Bridgehouse Meadows site. The information
contained in the questionnaires was uploaded onto the computer during the lunch break while Ian
Philips led a wide-ranging discussion prompted by the walkabout.
Key findings and data from the Spaceshaper questionnaires were then presented to the participants,
reflecting and supporting the issues that had been discussed earlier.
The data collected during the Spaceshaper 9-14 activities with five young people from the Ministry of
Youth group was uploaded onto the website and then presented back to them as a prompt for further
discussions.
The adult stakeholders were then joined by the Ministry of Youth group, and both parties were able to
share and discuss their respective views and findings.
The workshops closed with a summary of the key issues and actions that the Renewal Group,
Townshends and the London Borough of Lewisham.
Figure 32 The view across Bridgehouse Meadows
A copy of the programme is below:
141
Time
Adult Spaceshaper
Spaceshaper 9-14
Workshop
workshop
10.00
Adults and young people arrive at Scotney Hall-refreshments available
10.15
Welcome and introductions (AH 10 mins)
10.25
Context and aims for workshop (Nigel Adams, London Borough of
Lewisham 10 mins)
10.35
Townshend‟s preliminary work and how the findings will be incorporated
into future plans (10 mins)
10.45
Introducing the questionnaire
10.45
(AH/IP 15 mins)
Introduction to
Spaceshaper 9-14 (CF 15
mins)
11.00
Set off for Bridgehouse
11.00
Set off to Bridgehouse
Meadows site visit (AH/IP 45
Meadows (45 mins) Site
mins)
detectives activities (CF
and co-facilitators)
11.45
Back at Scotney Hall, filling in
11.45
the questionnaire (45 mins)
Go to Cyber Centre,
workshop activities (CF
and co-facilitators 45
mins)
12.30
LUNCH at Scotney Hall (60
12.30
mins) While facilitators upload
LUNCH at Cyber Centre
(30 mins)
the data from the
questionnaires
1.30
Discussion about data gathered
1.00
Complete workshop
from questionnaires (AH/ IP 45
activities at Cyber Centre
mins)
(CF and co-facilitators 40
mins)
1.45
Discussion about data
collected through
workshop activities (CF
30 mins)
2.15
Joint discussion, at Scotney Hall, with adults and young people to
compare and contrast key findings (30 mins)
2.45
Next steps
2.55
Complete evaluation forms
142
3.00
Workshops close
The following is a list of the participants (in alphabetical order) in the workshop, and a summary of
their respective interest in the Bridgehouse Meadows site. There was disappointment expressed that
the event had not attracted as many local residents as had been hoped for, despite significant efforts
from the organisers. However, the views of people such as the Community Support Officers, the local
primary school Headteacher and the Ministry of Youth group provided valuable local knowledge about
Bridgehouse Meadows. It was acknowledged that there needs to be more work done by the Renewal
Group to engage with local people to ensure that the proposals for the site are developed in response
to local needs and aspirations.
Name
Organisation, role etc
Spaceshaper Workshop participants (adults)
Nigel Adams
Strategic Regeneration Communications
Manager, London Borough of Lewisham
Chris Brodie
Principle Planning Officer, London Borough of
Lewisham
Irene Byworth
Resident, previously Chair of Winslade
Residents‟ Association
Andrew Cowie
Resident
PCSO Joanna Goulins
New Cross Safer Neighbourhoods Team
Gabriela Henriksson
Townshends, Landscape Architects
Liz Hills
Headteacher, Ilderton Primary School
Jordana Malik
Assistant Director, Renewal Group
Javina Medina
Planning Officer, London Borough of Lewisham
Rev Vincent Onwukanjo
Runs the REM Youth Club at Scotney Hall
Nick Pond
Ecological Regeneration Manager, London
Borough of Lewisham
Emma Shannon
Communications Manager, Transport for
London
Cllr Alan Smith
Deputy member for Regeneration, London
Borough of Lewisham
Michelle St John
Ministry of Youth group
Mark Taylor
Director of Development, Renewal Group
PCSO Angela Toscani
New Cross Safer Neighbourhoods Team
Karen Willey
Resident
Selena Wilsher
Office Manager, Renewal Group
Kamayah Honoring
Resident
143
Troy Jones
Resident
Spaceshaper Workshop facilitator team and observers
Annette Hards
Kent Architecture Centre, coordinator
Ian Phillips
Lead facilitator for adult workshop
Caf Fean
Lead facilitator for Spaceshaper 9-14 workshop
Kat Davies
Nadine Holland
Julie Ricketts
Sarah Wang
Peter Sandys
Matt Dunkinson
Lucy Roberts
Co-facilitator Spaceshaper 9-14
Co-facilitator adult workshop
Kent Architecture Centre, observer
Film-maker
Work experience student
Romaine Watson
Resident
15.14.5
Key findings from workshops
15.14.5i
Adult Spaceshaper workshop
Discussion among participants
While the data from the questionnaires was being uploaded onto the Spaceshaper website, Ian
Phillips facilitated a wide-ranging discussion about the key issues that had emerged during the
walkabout and in response to the questionnaire statements. A summary of this discussion is included
below, grouped under a number of headings.
What people like and value most about Bridgehouse Meadows:
In the Wordle image below , the most frequently used words, taken from the „Likes‟ sections of the
completed questionannaires, are shown the largest, providing a snapshot of the site‟s specific
qualities.
144
Figure 33 What people like and value most about Bridgehouse Meadows
Workshop participants particularly appreciated the unspoilt green open nature of the space, the views
towards the city, describing it as an oasis in an otherwise built up, industrial area.
Figure 34 The view across Bridgehouse Meadows
What people disliked most about Bridgehouse Meadows:
In the Wordle image below, the most frequently used words, taken from the „Dislikes‟ sections of the
completed questionnaires, are shown the largest, providing a sense of the issues that need to be
addressed.
145
Figure 35 What people disliked most about Bridgehouse Meadows
Workshop participants highlighted the difficult access into the space, the isolated nature and lack of
natural surveillance of the space in terms of personal safety, and the lack of lighting and shelter.
Figure 36 An entrance into Bridgehouse Meadows
The eight categories of questions
The Spaceshaper questionnaire asks 41 questions about an open space – how well it works, the
space itself and the difference it makes to people. The questions are split into eight categories, which
are described below:
Access
how easy is it to find and get around the space?
Use
what range of things can be done in the space?
Other people
can the space accommodate different activities alongside each other?
Maintenance
is it well maintained and looked after?
Environment
is it a safe and healthy space with the appropriate facilities?
Design and appearance is it an inspiring space that improves the local area?
146
Community
is the space important to and valued by the local community?
You
is it a space that you like and enjoy?
At Bridgehouse Meadows, the top three statements in the questionnaire (ie those that were most
strongly agreed with) were:

This is an important place to the local area (4.8 scored from a possible 6.0) Although
Bridgehouse Meadows is not as well used by local people as it could be, there was a strong
sense that this large open space is nevertheless seen as very important to the local area,
where green space is at a premium.

This place is always open when I want to come here (4.7). Although Bridgehouse
Meadows is always open, the lack of lighting deters many people from using it when dark

This place is in a good spot (4.6). Participants recognised the potential that Bridgehouse
Meadows has as a shared green space, serving both the existing residents, and the future
residents of the proposed regeneration scheme.
The statements which were most strongly disagreed with were:

There is shelter from the weather (1.8 from a possible 6.0)

This place is easy to find (2.3) Bridgehouse Meadows is not at all easy to find from the
surrounding area – accessed through a number of gates and stepped paths from the
Winslade Estate, and through steeply sloping informal gaps in the dense shrubs and bushes
from the housing estates to the south and east. Access into the space from the north is via
the footbridge over Surrey Canal Road,

There are lots of activities going on here (2.3). Participants confirmed that the space is
mostly used as a shortcut, for passing through, dog walking and for enjoying nature.
147
The participants‟ responses are entered into the Spaceshaper software to produce a „spider‟s web
diagram‟, as shown below. The dashed line shows how each of the eight issues would „score‟ in an
average open space, and the solid black line shows the responses for Bridgehouse Meadows. In
general, the smaller the shape drawn by the black line, the worse the space is considered to be, and
the larger the shape, the better it is. Most often, as below, the shape is both inside and outside the
„average‟ dotted line score, indicating that in some categories it is performing well, and in others, not
so well.
At Bridgehouse Meadows six out of the eight categories score below average, with the responses to
the „Other people‟ statements scoring the lowest, indicating that the space is not seen as being
popular with many different people, there are not lots of activities going on, and that there is
sometimes conflict between different users.
148
The Spaceshaper questionnaire also asks participants to indicate which of the eight categories of
statements are those most in need of change and improvement. These results are presented in the
form of a bar chart, and the overall length of the bar relates to the degree of importance the
participants attached to that issue. So, in the chart below, the issues of Community and Access are
seen as the most important ones to address in the future to improve the site. The break in the bar is
the „halfway‟ or average point, and the red section indicates how well the space is doing in relation to
a particular issue.
These diagrams and bar charts were presented back to the participants towards the end of the
workshop.
Sharing opinions
One of the strengths of the Spaceshaper approach is the opportunity a workshop presents to enable
the sharing of views and opinions between those who have used a site, and those charged with the
responsibility of managing and developing it. The following series of bullet points summarise the key
issues raised:
From the community’s perspective:
Current use of the site

Main users are dog walkers, and people using the space as a short cut
149

Lack of lighting, natural surveillance and footpaths deter potential users

Ten years ago Bridgehouse Meadows was littered with burnt out and abandoned cars, more
recently it was occupied by squatters, who have now been removed, but now it is a pleasant
and underused space

Grassy areas get very muddy in wet weather, which limits access.

Topography and distant views of the City makes it an interesting space, but difficult to get
around

Nevertheless a valued green space in a built up area

Very few litter or dog poo bins, no signs etc.
Potential use of the site

Important to safeguard existing adjoining resident‟s interests

Don‟t see the need for further formal playspace – already well provided locally, but interested
in „natural playspace‟ approach

Nature of the site will change with the new station, etc.

Opportunity to creat a skateboarding facility within the natural contours of the site.

Potential for the space to become a shared resource for the expanding local community.

Need to improve access from the estates to the east, but this is not easy with the level
differences
Other issues raised

Illegal parking in Hornshay Street causes problems and prevents young people using the
football area

This area‟s peripheral nature – on the edge of the Borough, a forgotten area – this will change
with the regeneration scheme
From managers‟ perspective

Access for maintenance equipment is problematic

There is currently no „Friends of Bridgehouse Meadows‟ group

Seen as a space that divides rather than unites surrounding estates
From Renewal Group‟s perspective

Need to reach out into the local community to get their input into the regeneration process
15.14.5ii
Spaceshaper 9-14 workshop
The walkabout by the young people and facilitators generated a rich dialogue about Bridgehouse
Meadows, or „The Fields‟ as they call it, which they captured in words and images. These have been
grouped under a number of headings, using their words:
150
Looking after:

Used to be maintained

Now neglected – not many people use it

The long grass means dogs poo everywhere

This bit doesn‟t look good so it doesn‟t attract people (entrance to the park)
What‟s going on:

Events such as barbecues and concerts take place in the summer

Main activities: running, football, cycling

This place is just for dog walkers

People ride motorbikes up here – it‟s dangerous so my mum doesn‟t let me up here

Go along the park to get to school
Getting around:

Needs ramps

Tunnels at one end don‟t work

Not easy for pushchairs

You could slip on the way down
Feels like:

Actually a good space but not used well

Big bushes: it‟s not nice, someone could just jump out

Lots of dogs stop me coming in – dog mess

Like the stairs but a woman got shot so people don‟t want to go that way
How it could be:

Triangular section could be used for something different

„Boulder swings‟ would be great (zip wire swings)

What about a circuit track and a football pitch? My friend brings temporary goals down to play.

A café – somewhere to buy snacks

Make it a destination
After these discussions, the young people were asked to vote with their feet, and stand by the
facilitator who most closely represented their views. The votes were counted and entered into an
interactive piece of software, which generated the images below.
Access – is this space easy to get around?
Most people thought that the place was quite easy to access. One person said „not very‟, as it is
difficult for mothers with prams or anyone in a wheelchair.
151
Environment – is this space safe and comfortable in the day and night, in all weathers?
One person felt that the space was not at all safe and comfortable. During discussions, this was
mainly about feeling safe and secure – the space is not well lit and in places it is overgrown. The
other four participants felt that the place was not very safe and comfortable. Overall, the space scored
poorly in this area.
Maintenance – is this space clean and well looked after?
One person felt that this space was quite clean and well looked after, others were split between „not
very‟ and „not at all‟.
Design and appearance – has this space been well designed and made?
Most felt that this space had not been well designed and made.
You – is this place a really nice place to be?
Despite the young people‟s criticism of the space, they did feel that it was quite a nice place to be.
152
Use – are there lots of things to do here?
Other people – is this space popular with lots of different people?
The young people felt that the place was not popular with lots of different people.
Community – is this space really important to the local community?
Although the place is not judged to be well designed or maintained, and not as well used as it could
be, it was considered important to the local community. It just needs to be improved.
In the afternoon session, a series of activities took place, to dig into some of the findings from the
walkabout. These are documented below:
The young people were given a handful of activity cards, and were asked to place them according to
how frequently the activities took place in Bridgehouse Meadows. The list was agreed as a group.
Bridgehouse Meadows is frequently used for transient actitivies (passing through, dog walking, taking
a shortcut). Sometimes more focused activities take place here, like events and sports playing. The
young people said there were no flowers, no skateboarding, and didn‟t feel it was a place to meet
friends.
153
NEVER
SOMETIMES
A LOT
Shopping
Learning new stuff
Taking a shortcut
Skateboarding or
Going to an event
Passing through
Looking at flowers
Relaxing and thinking
Dog walking
Eating and drinking
Riding a bike
Meeting friends
Doing healthy stuff
Enjoying nature
Sports or games
rollerblading
Going for a walk
Playing
The young people wrote postcards to their nearest and dearest, or an imagined character, and drew
pictures, describing Bridgehouse Meadows today.
The young people were asked to discuss and rate different images of play and green spaces, along a
sliding scale of „Good Space‟ to „Bad Space‟. They were then asked to place images of the site in
relation to these other places. Hard landscaping and facilities are identified as things that describe a
good space. In the middle, you have greenery and flowers, with less inspiring spaces sliding towards
„Bad Space‟. Bridgehouse Meadows is seen as a „Bad Space‟ in relation to these other examples.
Figure 37 Good space, bad space exercise
Summing up: young people’s message to the design team
Before heading to join the adult group for the final part of the day, we asked the young people what
their one-phrase message to the design team was, following the day‟s activities. This is what they
said:
What is needed?

A lot of space

A lot of facilities - lights

Facilities for different age groups

Permenant football pitch
154

Less grassy – some hard landscape

Not all bumpy

Free wifi!
15.14.6 Next steps
We have summarised the key findings and issues to be taken forward, grouped under the headings
identified in section 15.14.3:
Identifying the needs of different potential users of the space
Bridgehouse Meadows is seen primarily as a space for informal recreation, including dog walking,
playing, walking and jogging, and as a pedestrian and cycle link between adjoining areas, providing
an alternative to the busy roads. Young people keen to see football posts, so that they can use the
space for sporting activities.
Could be opportunities to promote „natural play facilities‟ offering more adventurous / imaginative
facilities, including skateboarding / BMX, subject to mitigating nuisance.
Opportunity to promote unique identity of space for existing and new / incoming users, exploiting
topography, views out and accessibility. Ideas included constructing a folly located on high point
(northern end of site) enabling high level views over space and to the north to Canary Wharf etc. This
could tie in with unique identity, play opportunities, public art provision, increased usage and
surveillance, etc.
Nature and identity of the space is likely to change significantly in association with the new
development and the potential influx of new users. Surveillance and use are likely to increase as a
consequence of this, including the impact of the space on views from nearby proposed high rise and
increased access to the new station or other strategic routes (including cycleways).
Identifying the barriers to increased use of the site

Lack of natural surveillance over the space is a key issue – it doesn‟t feel like a safe space

Lack of hard surfaced footpaths across the site – grass gets very muddy in wet weather

Routes into the site from surrounding estates currently involve steps or steep muddy tracks
between bushes which follow desire lines – inaccessible for pushchairs or for people with
mobility problems

Lack of reason for engagement due to the transient nature of much of the local population,
especially to the east of the site. Play facilities already available within the estate spaces

With appropriate intervention, organisation and initiatives, could provide the ideal space for
organised community events (e.g.: festivals, fairs, bonfires, concerts, theatre etc.) subject to
155
access requirements
Getting ideas and buy in from local people to generate a sense of ownership
The data from the questionnaire clearly signals that Bridgehouse Meadows is valued by the local
community. However, the lack of local residents attending the workshop signalled that there is still
some work to be done in terms of reaching and engaging with the local community. The involvement
of the Ministry of Youth group, and the attendance at the workshop of a local Headteacher, and Youth
group leader provide good starting points for further engagement locally.
Using the Meadows for a community-focussed event (e.g. a spring festival – music, performances,
refreshments, kids entertainment and engagement opportunities with developers, managers,
designers, etc. could provide a focus for involving local community.
Identifying practical and affordable improvements, including managing expectations
Renewal Group and London Borough of Lewisham representatives acknowledged that they need to
continue to engage with local people as the proposals for Bridgehouse Meadows are developed.
Sharing and reviewing the initial ideas developed by the Landscape Architects Townshends
for the site
Gabriela Henriksson, from Townshends, was able to hear first hand from a range of local people,
including residents, the local community support officers and young people, in response to the initial
ideas and proposals that they had been developing.
Raising and discussing the impact that the temporary use of the site as a construction yard by
Transport for London in the project to provide the missing link forming the connection
between the East London line and Clapham Junction.
Emma Shannon from TfL was able to answer a number of questions that were raised by local people
about the scope and timing of work to develop the rail link, and the potential impact that the
completed line would have on the Bridgehouse Meadows space. There were questions raised about
the function and nature of the space that would be left between the railway line running at high level
and the adjoining Winslade Estate, in particular how accessible the main Bridgehouse Meadows
space would be from this eastern boundary. Access from south eastern boundary was seen as
desirable.
Noted that trees to west of site would be removed as part of construction works. These to be restored
156
as part of new landscape scheme which also needs to consider sensitive treatment of level changes
between adjoining housing and the Meadows and the opportunities and constraints associated with
these.
Need to acquire land from Network Rail (currently fenced off) to enhance nature conservation interest
and integrate with redesigned park. Need to address impact of new rail line passing through space on
western boundary and avoid this severing links between space and adjoining residents. Proposed
underpass needs to be of generous width, light, bright and welcoming to minimise security concerns
and provide ease of access.
And finally…
This report is being circulated to all participants for comment, and will then be made more widely
available to support the continued development of Bridgehouse Meadows.
157

3. Statement of Community Engagement

Transcription

Similar documents

Christian Brothers` High School Lewisham

Untitled

3 MB 14th Jul 2015 Newsletter-19th-Jun-15

15 March newsletter 76.pub

The Heart Truth - Heart and Stroke Foundation of BC and Yukon

Woolwich Road, SE7 £323p/w

Emlenton Borough - MID-ATLANTIC YOUTH SERVICES, CORP.

Viva Las Vegas Challenge

is delighted to announce that the brilliant Marie-Louise