We were waiting to see some of the detail of the planning committee’s decision in writing, but in the mean time, please find below a summary of the situation as we understand it.

A meeting of the Southwark Planning Committee took place at 7pm on 22^nd July 2008.  The meeting was to decide upon a proposal by Angel Property to resolve the planning issue.  The Angel proposal includes:-

• Block D: 24 private units (6 x 1 bed and 18 x 2 bed)
• The conversion and change of use of existing live-work accommodation in Block D to provide 18 x 1 bed shared ownership units on the first two floors of Block D.
• 6-live work units.
• A section 106 contribution of £270,392 in respect of education, employment, open space, strategic transport, site specific transport, health and admin.
• A contribution of £60,000 towards the works in relation to the delivery of an amenity space on Block E, together with £27,289 from the overall section 106 budget, giving £87,289 to pay for the delivery of the proposed amenity space on Block E.
• Withdrawal of the Planning Appeal for Block E.  Confirmation that the appeal has been withdrawn can be found on the Planning Inspectorate’s website:

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?casename=APP/A5840/A/08/2074374&caseaddress=COO.2036.300.2.10451826

This represents a reduction by approx 50% in Section 106 payments and approx 60% in affordable housing when compared to the scheme consented in October 2007, which is disappointing.  There are some upsides – Block E appeal withdrawal and increased amenity space being the obvious ones.

At the meeting, no-one spoke against the proposal.  The JFRA spoke in favour of the proposal, although with qualifications.  Our statement can be found below.  We would like to have explored some of the issues further but we were limited to 3 minutes to speak.

Angel Property’s planning consultant (Tibbalds) were present, but did not speak in favour.  They did offer to answer questions and this offer was taken up by the Planning Committee.  Some points on desing of the garden were clarified.

The Planning Committee decided to grant the planning application, which regularises the planning for blocks A to D.

We have yet to see the final consent and conditions, but would hope to see some very tight constraints on the programme and order in which events can happen.  These should include:-

• Completion of the garden prior to occupation of Block D;
• Completion of the affordable housing prior to occupation of private units in Block D;
• Completion of the rest of the development;
• Detailed design to be approved by London Borough of Southwark (LBS) prior to commencement of the works;
• Deadlines for design and completion;
• Structural survey to be undertaken on the chimney;

LBS agreed that there should be resolution between Angel and the Residents on the 1.8m strip where the garden overlaps existing leaseholds, and that the adjustment of the fence line between JF amenity space and community amenity space to reflect this at detailed design stage would not impact on the planning consent.

The following is the representation made by Robert Smith, JFRA Chair, to the London Borough of Southwark Planning Committee on 22nd July 2008.  A further post will follow shortly (draft currently being checked) with some update/analysis.

"Mr Chairman, members of the Planning Committee - In our address we speak on behalf of Jam Factory Residents Association, and are authorised to represent the Haddon Hall TMO and Meakin Estate TRA, – a total of 2000 residents bordering the application site.

On balance we support the proposal, although it is with some reservation.  Residents feel there are several key issues that should be addressed and strictly conditioned in any resulting consent. 

Our first concern is the existing chimneystack.  We consider its conservation to be a matter of concern, and material to the planning application.  We ask the Committee to use its powers to ensure that essential remedial works be undertaken to guarantee structural integrity and preserve this important local landmark.

Our second concern is the lack of information regarding the design of the works.  We therefore welcome the recommendation that the LPA examine and approve the detailed design prior to commencement of the works.  It is important that safety standards and durability the finishes be of appropriate specification and conform to best practice.  We would expect the local community to be consulted in this matter.

The third issue we wish to raise regards the level of Section 106 payments and affordable housing.  We are surprised that the levels have been reduced for ‘commercial reasons’, which is not a planning consideration.  However, with no details being made available to us, we are unable to comment with any degree of objectivity.

The fourth consideration is time to completion.  A survey was carried out on behalf of the Resident’s Association and the Developer, jointly briefed and financed by both.  Both parties have agreed that this survey represents an accurate record of the outstanding works on the site.  We believe it is appropriate that the items raised by this survey be addressed in good time, and prior to the occupation of Block D.

Our fifth concern is lease hold boundaries.  In the interests of expediting the Section 106 arrangements as easily and quickly as possible, we ask that the boundaries of residents’ original leases are respected.  We ask that, at the detailed design stage, the existing boundaries are recognised and the design reflects this.

Lastly, we welcome a Covenant, signed by key stakeholders, preventing any future development on this site and protecting the amenity resource for the community.

In summary, we support this application and believe it would represent a solution to the problem of regularising the Jam Factory’s planning status.  However, we would ask that our route to this evening’s meeting is not forgotten.  We are here as a result of past breaches of planning law.  We therefore ask the committee that most careful consideration be given to any consent.  Firm conditions should be imposed to enable diligent monitoring of the works, including strict and clear guidelines on programme and deliverables in the execution of all elements.  We maintain this is vital to ensure there is no repetition of non performance and non compliance, and that the committee’s decision is properly implemented."

NOTE - Revised date of Planning Committee Meeting.

The following post has been edited to take accound of the revised Committee Meeting Date. 

Planning Update : July 2008 

The Planning Committee Meeting on 16th July to decide the recent amendment to the Jam Factory ABCD Planning Application to provide an amenity space on the site adjacent to the Chimney has been postponed due to national UNISON strike action (the public service employees union).

A new date of 22nd July has been arranged, starting at 7pm at Southwark Town Hall, Peckham Road, Camberwell SE5.

The JFRA will be providing transport for residents – meet at the main gates at 6.30pm. Bus route 42 stops outside the Jam Factory on Tower Bridge Road and runs to Camberwell.

The Public Inquiry for the Planning Appeal on Block E has been set for 23rd September, to run for three days, at the Southwark Council Planning Offices, Chiltern House, Portland Street, SE17.

As we stated in our last bulletin, Angel Property have indicated that this appeal will be withdrawn following approval of the application amendments by LBS Planning Committee on the 22nd July. Until this happens, the JFRA is proceeding on the basis that our preparations will need to continue for the inquiry.

The JFRA has been granted ‘Rule 6 Party’ status for this Appeal Inquiry by HM Planning Inspectorate, which will enable cross-examination of the Appellant and LBS, and the calling of witnesses and documents / evidence in support of our case against Block E and for some adequate amenity provision.

JFRA Committee