15 July 2001



Dear Barry Quirk, Chief Executive,


I am following up my complaint of the 2nd June 2001 regarding recent attendance at two Planning and Highways Sub-Committee meetings at the Civic Suite, Lewisham Town Hall, Catford SE6, on the 15th March 2001 and the 26th April 2001. This concerned the proposed demolition of Millard, Marlowe, Barfleur and Limberg Houses, and Dolben Court, Pepys Estate, Deptford SE8.


I am also responding to the letter of 22nd June 2001, which replied to my complaint, and was signed pp Pat Hayes, Executive Director for Regeneration.


Perhaps it will be simpler to list a number of points for you to address :-


1 - Your Planning and Highways Sub-Committee meetings are poorly organised for members of the public to raise objections, especially where it concerns major issues like demolition of 222 properties.


How do you propose to rectify this ?


2 - Where there are several objectors to a proposal having one representative to speak for five minutes is inadequate.


I was representing the views of five tenants and community organisations - The Action Group, Foreshore United Neighbours, Colanade Tenant and Residents Association, Rainsborough Tenants and Residents Association, Pepys Neighbourhood Committee. Also supported by a Community Planning consultant to Pepys Community Forum.


3 - The Deepway case is very disturbing as the temporary Chair - Councillor Paschoud - used his position to argue with a Councillor, and got her to change her vote. The first vote was 3 to 2 to defer the application. The second vote was the 3 to 2 to approve the application.


This will not be shown in the minutes of the meeting, as the minutes for the meetings are not properly kept and recorded in the manner normally expected of a public body.


How do you propose to improve this ?


This female Councillor did not attend the next meeting on 26th April 2001.


You have provided me with the name of the temporary Chair for the 15th March Meeting, on this item, but not the name of the female Councillor who was 'made' to change her vote.


4 - Changing the order of the agenda items on the evening, at will, is a disturbing feature. When the agenda has been notified in advance to Councillors and the public. This should be avoided. As people will make travel arrangements according to a published agenda.


At the 26th April meeting it was used deliberately because, unbeknown to the public, Deputy Mayor Gavin Moore was present, and later when the meeting commenced he asked to address the Sub-Committee under Standing Orders. Gavin Moore left the meeting after this first item.


This was the reason, not as the Chair stated that this was to accommodate the number of people present for this item - as there were no greater number from the public present than on the 15th March 2001.


5 - Why had the number of members of the Sub-Committee so greatly increased from that of 15th March 2001, being ten in all ?


Only four of this number had been present at the deferment visit to Pepys Estate voted on at the 15th March 2001 meeting.


6 - During a presentation by an objector it is expected that the Chair would be there to keep order in the meeting and listen attentively to what is being said.


Yet during my allowed 'five minutes' to present objections to the proposal. The Chair - Terry Scott - was continually talking to Louise Holland, Planning Officer.


7 - Louise Holland also reported on a phone call purporting to be from the Chair of FUN ( Foreshore United Neighbours ), saying that my presentation did not represent their particular views.


This person was not in fact the Chair of FUN, and she was only representing her own personal views of a perceived threat to a part of her garden. This is quite acceptable as a personal view, yet Louise Holland gave a false impression to the committee that it was from FUN as an organisation.


As I was representing FUN amongst the objectors ( see point 2 above ), this was clearly a misrepresentation by Louise Holland. I had consulted with FUN before the meeting.


Even so, had she clearly done her public duty. Louise Holland could have verbally balance this by drawing the Sub-Committees attention to a fax from Dr Catherine Cook of Docomomo. By also reading this out to them.


8 - The Sub-Committee were addressed by Gavin Moore, under Standing Orders, who stated that local residents did not have a unaminity of views. He went on to say that a core Survey had agreed the most favoured view was for demolition, which Executive Committee had approved in July 2000. He recommended it as 'our best advice, the best scheme on offer'. Clearly this was a political pressure put on a neutral planning committee.


The findings of the 'core Survey' are disputed and held in disrepute by the manner in which it was obtained. No opportunity for a rebuttal of this was allowed, as Standing Orders is a one-sided mechanism for Councillors to have their say only.


8 - Of the Sub-Committee members, only Councillor Nick Taylor raised concerns, in any detail, about the nature and quality of the proposal. In addition he seemed to be the only one present who had any grasp of the deeper implications of planning issues.


9 - When the vote was taken it was 6 to 3 in favour of the demolition proposal. The Chair being the first to put his hand up in favour.
Only four of this committee of ten councillors had been on the site visit.


10 - You have not supplied me with the details of when each member present was trained for the planning committee.


In addition I would like a list of the number of Planning Sub-Committee meetings attended in the last year by all those not present at the 15th March 2001 meeting.



In conclusion I hope that members of the public can expect a fair hearing if they raise objections on a planning issue with Lewisham Council in the future. In addition that planning officers give impartial advice and support better understanding by the public. Finally that all councillors are trained to undertake the issues of planning and that they do so with honest endeavour on the public behalf.



Yours sincerely,



Malcolm Cadman


On the behalf of the Steering Committee for Pepys Estate Action - The Action Group.


Mr S Greening - Aragon, Mr M Cadman - Marlowe, Mr D Fleming - Daubeny,
Mr L Brooks - Aragon, Ms S Jeffrey - Limberg, Mr A Djourdem - Millard, Ms T Lane - Limberg, "*_a*` raFf ı|^q@nF:LIH$jNZWPIΌmbH%ƭۂ= 4t'[X4+isw4ulJnKWor؇ JT:g`0nL踢?|Cu6J V/{b6[9o