Resolution from Sydenham Local Assembly re: BGNF and Area

[JGD]

An item appears on the agenda for the Mayor and Cabinet Meeting of Wednesday 7 December.

It is a "Resolution from Sydenham Local Assembly regarding Bell Green Neighbourhood Forum and Area", is flagged as a Key Decision and allegedly affects Bellingham, Perry Vale and Sydenham wards.

The header states:

"This report accompanies a Resolution passed by Sydenham Assembly on 1 October 2022 in relation to the Director of Planning’s decision concerning the size and boundaries of the Bell Green Neighbourhood Forum and Designated Area. The Resolution concerns a request for further examination of the process used to arrive at the decision that was made following local consultation.
It is recommended that the Mayor and Cabinet note the content of this report."

This is an extract from the referral which accuses 5 unknown councillors of interfering in the council's processes:

4. Background
4.1. At the Sydenham Local Assembly meeting on 1 October 2022, the recent announcement of the designated area for the Bell Green Neighbourhood Forum was discussed. Residents agreed that the final designated area was significantly smaller than the area that had been consulted on. They were concerned about this and felt that the final decision failed to take account of comments made in the consultation and that key areas that had been included in the consultation had ultimately not been included in the final decision.
5. Response
The Bell Green Neighbourhood Area was approved by democratic public consultation. However, this appears to have been overturned as a result of pressure from five unnamed councillors
5.1. This statement is not correct and misrepresents the role and purpose of public consultation. The decision on whether to approve a neighbourhood area is for the Council alone. Public consultation does not determine the decision that will be taken but responses are considered as part of the decision making process. As such, there is no process for the public to approve a neighbourhood area and the Council has not ‘overturned’ any public decision as there was no decision for the public to make. The reasoning for the decision has been published and was based on the appropriateness of the proposed neighbourhood area only.

These are very serious allegations.

It is noteworthy that the Council rebuts these in the full as being "not correct" and "misrepresentative".

Who was present at this assembly in October 2022?

Is it a fair and true account of events at the meeting?

Whilst it is not particularly important which local resident put the resolution to attendees at the Sydenham Assembly meeting on 1 October 2022, it is crucial to understand why the Assembly believed it appropriate or it had an entitlement not to share the resolution, inaccuracies and all, with the assemblies of the other wards affected and seek their views before placing this before Mayor and Cabinet and Council.

It is difficult to view these unilateral actions as credible or indeed creditable.

[JGD]

The Mayor and Cabinet made a decision to "Note" the referral at the meeting on 7 December 2022.

Cllr Bell asked if local councillors associated with all of the affected wards were in support of the formation of BGNF based on their proposed area.

Director of Planning, Emma Talbot stated that a consensus in support of the proposal did not exist amongst those councillors.

JRW was invited to speak and was introduced as being a representative of the Sydenham Assembly speaking on their behalf. Mayor Damien Egan asked if JRW was representing SydSoc and JRW stated she was not.

In the five minutes allocated JRW addressed Mayor and Cabinet and spoke in terms of "we" which was clear from context meant Bell Green Neighbourhood Forum and not Sydenham Assembly. The BGNF case was re-articulated by JRW and the Council was accused of wasting council funds and resources in the failure to approve the original BGNF proposal.

Accusations were made that Lewisham had acted outside its authority which was fully rebutted by Emma Talbot who informed Mayor and Cabinet that external KC advice had been obtained which supported the view that Council was empowered to make the decision it had and had taken consideration of all of the correct matters appropriately during that decision making process. Emma Talbot further asserted that the Department of Planning has approved an area for a Neighbourhood Forum albeit much smaller than that proposed by BGNF.

JRW announced to the meeting that HMGs Department for Levelling-up [sic] had agreed to fund the appointment of an external Examiner and that the appointment had been made today and Lewisham should anticipate contact being made. It would seem that this Examiner may have a role in arbitration between Lewisham and BGNF, although precise details were not laid before Mayor and Cabinet.

Throughout the discussion on this referral there was no focus drawn on why only the views of Sydenham Assembly in the form of the original referral and subsequently the singular views of BGNF in the Chamber, were given primacy over the Ward Assemblies of Bellingham and Perry Vale whose voices were not heard.

[Growsydenham]

This whole saga only reinforces the council’s original decision to not approve this so-called forum in the first place. A real forum would represent the views of the whole community, not just those of one or two people.

[JRW]

This whole saga only reinforces the council’s original decision to not approve this so-called forum in the first place. A real forum would represent the views of the whole community, not just those of one or two people.

Um, what about the seventy members of the Forum? Hardly a couple of people! Always good to hear your views, though.

[Growsydenham]

Your claim that the “successful” consultation “approved” your forum and the council “overturned” or “vetoed” it is an inaccurate distortion of the process. The consultation invited residents to offer their views; they did. Some were in favour, and some were against. The council read them and made their decision. Nothing was “approved” by the public and so nothing was “overturned”. That is not an undermining of democracy, as the Sydenham Assembly claimed, but how democracy works.

The fact that once again you use this as a trigger to kick off on another angry personal crusade against the council, based on a partial presentation of the facts seems to justify the council’s scepticism about this group and how it is run.

[JRW]

How can I put this? Lewisham Council have made a decision. We have shared their response with multiple professional experts, who all agree that Lewisham is wrong.The government department in charge of neighbourhood planning aren't happy, and have sent an expert in to mediate between parties and report back to the ministry. This is costing serious public money at a time of austerity.

I'm not angry with the council, I'm dissatisfied. I have no interest in making things personal, while you have repeatedly attacked me with vicious 'feedback'. Why, I don't know, but I suggest dialling down the hostility, as it's bad for your health. If you would like to meet for a coffee and tell me what you think face-to-face, then just say when. Anonymity plus bile is an unattractive combination.

[Just John]

Hard to follow the above. All I would comment is that Lewisham is ruled by a dictator who takes no account whatsoever of the wishes of the people of the borough.

Among the issues I take issue with this person is the treatment of people with disabilities in the borough. Their needs are ignored and indeed trampled on. Lewisham has the worst record on this issue of any local authority in the country.

Lewisham has been deferring the repainting of courtesy disabled bays on the grounds of a review of parking in the borough. They say they have "no budget" for the work despite the fact the borough receives a Government grant specifically for this work.

Now, unannounced and without consultation, they have adopted a policy of refusing to install courtesy bays and to invoke an expensive process to install a very limited number of compulsory bays. These put the disabled person at risk. There have been regular breakl-ins of cars displayilng a blue badge. On the advice of the Police people did not display the badges and found themselves with parking tickets. Victims had the compulsory compoent removed. Now they will have to re-apply ... except that Lewisham have made it clear the process is going to take years.

[Growsydenham]

You told the Mayor at the meeting: "You're up against the government which says you're not complying with the law."
That's an extraordinary claim. Can you point to some evidence of this being the government's view?

[JRW]

Um, the fact that the relevant government department is funding support so that Lewisham can be challenged on their position?

[Growsydenham]

Can you point to any evidence that either of these things have happened? It sounds like 2+2 = 19,000 to me.

[JRW]

Do you seriously think government funds things without reading all the expert reports and mountains of supporting data? I'm not a Tory donor....

Don't let your conspiracy-theory level dislike of me blind you to serious problems at Lewisham Council.

[Growsydenham]

So to be clear, when addressing a meeting of the Mayor and cabinet and you said “You're up against the government which says you're not complying with the law” this was based on nothing more than your own supposition. The government hasn’t actually said such a thing in any documentation you can point to.

[Jollylolly]

I have just read this thread and have no idea what any of it is about. No idea!
Did someone want to change boundaries and that has been refused?

[JRW]

There was a public consultation about whether to approve the Bell Green Neighbourhood Area boundary, which was publicly discussed over 2 years. Almost all the public respondents approved; a handful of councillors didn't. Lewisham’s director of planning rejected the boundary, and designated an area one third of the size, only 50% of which is residential, and eliminating social housing estates immediately adjoining the development area.

The DoP wasn't entitled to reduce the area without giving detailed justification, nor to formally designate an area which hadn't been subject to public consultation. This mess is a delaying tactic by Lewisham Council, preventing local communities gaining official status in lobbying for changes to the Lewisham Local Plan, currently under final stage consultation.

The LLP plan for Bell Green is currently vague, inaccurate, and promotes a developers free-for-all, whereas the BGNF wants to develop an overall plan for the area, fixing road layouts and pedestrian / cycle routes, and convenient public transport interchange. Leave it to the developers, and the health care provision won't be there, for instance. Services need to be improved, and green spaces planned, so the huge influx of population will have a place to live that they, and we all deserve.

[Sideofham]

There was a public consultation about whether to approve the Bell Green Neighbourhood Area boundary, which was publicly discussed over 2 years. Almost all the public respondents approved; a handful of councillors didn't. Lewisham’s director of planning rejected the boundary, and designated an area one third of the size, only 50% of which is residential, and eliminating social housing estates immediately adjoining the development area.

The DoP wasn't entitled to reduce the area without giving detailed justification, nor to formally designate an area which hadn't been subject to public consultation. This mess is a delaying tactic by Lewisham Council, preventing local communities gaining official status in lobbying for changes to the Lewisham Local Plan, currently under final stage consultation.

The LLP plan for Bell Green is currently vague, inaccurate, and promotes a developers free-for-all, whereas the BGNF wants to develop an overall plan for the area, fixing road layouts and pedestrian / cycle routes, and convenient public transport interchange. Leave it to the developers, and the health care provision won't be there, for instance. Services need to be improved, and green spaces planned, so the huge influx of population will have a place to live that they, and we all deserve.

And back in the real world none of this is going to happen