Agenda, decisions and minutes

Online Meeting, Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee
Thursday 4 March 2021 7:30 pm

You can view the individual reports for this meeting by selecting the headings from the numbered list of items at the bottom of this page. Alternatively you can view the entire agenda by selecting 'Agenda Reports Pack' below.

Watch Council meetings here

Venue: Guildhall, Kingston upon Thames. View directions

Contact: Kevin Jones 020 8547 6622  email:  kevin.jones@kingston.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

30.

Public Questions

A period of no more than 30 minutes for questions on issues unrelated to items on the agenda (please refer to the More Meeting Information sheet).

Minutes:

1. Question from Fr Martin Hislop

Now that Murray House is not to be used for the Kingston Community School what plans are there for its future use and what consultation is envisaged with the community on the future use of the site?

Answer: Murray House is a redevelopment site and planning is being worked up as a residential scheme at present. This is as a residential scheme for supported living.

2. Question from Ms Caroline Shah

The stag beetle is classed under Section 41  ‘Priority Species’ under 2006 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act.,. That puts a duty on the Local Planning Authority as competent authority to consider the species as it can be a material consideration in their deliberation, in addition to any safeguards laid down by local plan policy.

Please can you provide evidence of how the stag beetle has been considered in accordance with NERC requirements  in development proposals coming forward in Kingston, with specific reference as example to the proposed development at Cumberland House, the development of land at the riding stables on Crescent Road and the redevelopment of Cambridge Road Estate, highlighting also the specific mitigation measures that are considered to be adequate to fulfil the council’s legal duty to protect this species?

The Council’s Biodiversity officer responded to the question subsequent to the meeting.

Regarding stag beetles, these are a globally threatened species and in terms of their protected status they are listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention, on Appendix 2 of the Habitat Directive, on Schedule 5 of Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), and as a Priority Species on the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. In practicality this means they are protected from sale within the UK. Technically the presence of stag beetles is not an obstacle to development, but as a priority Biodiversity Action Plan species sympathetic measures should be considered to accommodate the beetle’s needs wherever possible and guidance states that the habitat of a protected species may be a material consideration in planning. As I have suggested previously I think it is very important that these species are considered within the landscaping plans, providing saproxylic habitats in the form of structures such a loggerys and standing dead wood where possible.

3. Question from Ms Hannah Pinckney

Can the air quality be measured on the section of upper Kings Road between the roundabout and Kingston gate? There are hundreds of pedestrian and cyclists (including the many school children who use this route to get to school) who use this road. Does the council recognise the need to ensure safe levels of air quality for these road users? Illegal air pollution levels is recognised as a killer on our roads with a coroner citing illegal air pollution as a reason for the death of Ella Kissi-Debrah. What will the council do to make this road safe from traffic accidents and legal pollution? With this in mind would they consider this road for the healthy streets project?

Answer:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

31.

Apologies for absence

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Councillor Jon Tolley.

32.

Declarations of Interest

Members are invited to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests and any other personal interests relevant to items on this agenda.

Minutes:

Councillor Cunningham declared he was a member of the Development Control Committee. He would listen to the proceedings on the Cambridge Road consultation but would not participate in the debate.

Councillor Moll declared that she too was a member of the Development Control Committee. She would listen to the proceedings on the Cambridge Road consultation but would not participate in the debate.

Councillor Wehring declared his home was in Gloucester Road which was over the road from the Cambridge Road Estate.

Councillor Ryder-Mills advised the committee he would be withdrawing from the Development Control committee when this application came to committee as he believed there may be a public expectation that he had been too closely involved in the CRE Regeneration project. He would accordingly participate in the debate on the CRE consultation.

33.

Minutes

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 21 January 2021.

Minutes:

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 21 January be confirmed as a correct record.

34.

Petitions

To receive petitions submitted by Councillors or members of the public who live work or study in the Borough. The petition must contain at least 20 signatures*, and notice of the intention to submit the petition must be given in writing to democratic.services@kingston.gov.uk by 10am on the last working day prior to the meeting.

 

*The Chair may waive the 20 signature threshold where the petition relates to a community or geographical area with a limited number of residents.  

Minutes:

No petitions had been received

35.

LIP 21/22 Programme pdf icon PDF 82 KB

To outline the proposed schemes to be considered for inclusion in the 2021/22 Local Implementation Plan (LIP) submission to Transport for London (TfL).

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED that:

1.    the proposed schemes as listed in the table in Annex 1 are endorsed and included in the indicative submission to TfL;

2.    any comments on Annex 1 from the Neighbourhood Committee be reported to Culture Housing Environment and Planning Committee for consideration on 17 March 2021.

3.    any adjustments required to Annex 1, should funding levels be reduced by TfL, will be delegated to the Executive Director, Corporate and Communities, in consultation with Portfolio Holder

 

Voting: Unanimous

Minutes:

The committee had before it a report by the Assistant Director, Highways, Transport, and Regulatory Services outlining the proposed schemes to be considered for inclusion in the 2021/22 Local Implementation Plan (LIP) which would be submitted to Transport for London (TfL).

The report noted that TfL funding was provided to London boroughs to support local transport improvements that accorded with the latest Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) goals, as set out in the Greater London Authority (GLA) Act 1999. The mechanism for delivering those improvements was through the LIP, which is the borough’s strategic highway policy. In order to obtain funding, the Council needed to show how each scheme submitted would support the MTS goals. The report noted that this meant that boroughs needed to demonstrate how proposals would support the vision to transform London streets, improve public transport and create more opportunities for new homes and jobs.

TfL had written to boroughs in May 2020 advising that all work on LIP programmes should be paused, due to the vast reduction in fare revenues the Coronavirus pandemic caused. The report further noted that the current Extraordinary Funding and Financing Agreement between DfT and TfL ran until 31 March 2021. Beyond this point a further settlement would be required, and discussions between DfT and TfL were ongoing and would hopefully conclude before the new financial year. This meant that TfL were currently unable to confirm how much funding would be provided to boroughs in the financial year 2021/22. TfL had advised boroughs to prepare an outline list of proposals spanning all borough programmes for 2021/22 and submit them to TfL by 1 March 2021. The report went on to note that the list of schemes at Annex 1 attached to the report had been prioritised accordingly, and it was highlighted that the project list included a combination of continuation schemes carried over from 20/21, as well as new schemes.

Members asked that the following streets be included in the submission

·         Major works required in Tudor Dive

·         Beaufort and Fassett Roads outside the Antoinette Hotel redevelopment

·         Brunswick Road near junction with Kingston Hill

 

RESOLVED that:

1.    the proposed schemes as listed in the table in Annex 1 are endorsed and included in the indicative submission to TfL;

2.    any comments on Annex 1 from the Neighbourhood Committee be reported to Culture Housing Environment and Planning Committee for consideration on 17 March 2021.

3.    any adjustments required to Annex 1, should funding levels be reduced by TfL, will be delegated to the Executive Director, Corporate and Communities, in consultation with Portfolio Holder

 

Voting: Unanimous

Recorded Vote
TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
LIP 21/22 Progamme Resolution Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 36.

    Objection to the publication of traffic management order for the extension of PPA in area north of Kingston pdf icon PDF 88 KB

    To consider objections received during the statutory consultation for a Traffic Management Order (TMO reference- KingMap0048), on proposals for an extension to the Parking Permit Area (PPA) in North Kingston, as shown in Annex 1

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    RESOLVED that:

    1.    the committee notes the comments and objections received as set out in paragraph 3 and at Annex 2 ; and

    2.    the objections to the proposal for Lancaster Gardens and Lancaster Close are upheld and  Lancaster Gardens and Lancaster Close are not included in the extension to the PPA; and

    3.    the objections to the remaining elements of the TMO are set aside (after considering officer’s comments, set out in paragraphs 5 – 8); and the committee approves the making of the traffic management order number KingMap 0048 in part to allow the extension of PPA, as detailed in para 7, and informs the objectors, and

    4.    the committee notes that the Latchmere Lane scheme will operate Monday to Friday 11am to 2pm and the Fernhill Gardens scheme will operate Monday to Saturday 11am to 2pm, and

    5.    Lancaster Gardens and Lancaster Close be reviewed after 6 months starting from the date of implementation of the scheme on the ground for Fernhill Gardens and Latchmere Lane.

     

    Voting: Unanimous

     

     

    Minutes:

    The committee had before it a report by the Assistant Director - Highways, Transport, and Regulatory Services which considered objections received during the statutory consultation for a Traffic Management Order (TMO reference- KingMap0048), on proposals for an extension to the Parking Permit Area (PPA) in North Kingston, as shown in Annex 1 attached to the report. The report considered objections received during the statutory consultation for a Traffic Management Order (TMO reference- KingMap0048), on proposals for an extension to the Parking Permit Area (PPA) in North Kingston, as shown in Annex 1 to the report. The report noted that a TMO to extend the PPA to include Latchmere Lane (the section between Latchmere Road and Tudor Drive) and in Lancaster Gardens, Lancaster Close, and Fernhill Gardens ( Annex 1) was published in December 2020, and 39 letters of objection had been received, along with one letter of support for the proposals. The report outlined the objections and support received during the statutory consultation process for the TMO, with the officers’ recommendation being that the TMO be modified.

    The committee noted that a number of concerns about the impact of the PPA on Latchmere Gardens, Latchmere Close, and Aragon Road had been received and circulated to members. The concerns were received outside of the consultation period and could not be considered as part of the decision.

     

    RESOLVED that:

    1.    the committee notes the comments and objections received as set out in paragraph 3 and at Annex 2 ; and

    2.    the objections to the proposal for Lancaster Gardens and Lancaster Close are upheld and  Lancaster Gardens and Lancaster Close are not included in the extension to the PPA; and

    3.    the objections to the remaining elements of the TMO are set aside (after considering officer’s comments, set out in paragraphs 5 – 8); and the committee approves the making of the traffic management order number KingMap 0048 in part to allow the extension of PPA, as detailed in para 7, and informs the objectors, and

    4.    the committee notes that the Latchmere Lane scheme will operate Monday to Friday 11am to 2pm and the Fernhill Gardens scheme will operate Monday to Saturday 11am to 2pm, and

    5.    Lancaster Gardens and Lancaster Close be reviewed after 6 months starting from the date of implementation of the scheme on the ground for Fernhill Gardens and Latchmere Lane.

     

    Voting: Unanimous

     

     

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    Objections to the PPA in North Kingston Resolution Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 37.

    Neighbourhood Manager's Report

    The Neighbourhood Manager will report on current Kingston Town Neighbourhood issues and topics. 

    Minutes:

    The Neighbourhood manager reported that Coronavirus infection rates across the borough had now fallen to their lowest level since early October 2020, at just below 50 per 100,000. The report noted that one in three people with Covid-19 had no symptoms, and as children were heading back to school, it was more important than ever that positive cases were identified to keep infection levels as low as possible. A new walk-through coronavirus testing facility had opened for those with symptoms at the Hawker Centre (KT2 5BH) in Kingston. The test site would be open daily from 8am-8pm.

    The Kingston Heritage Service had asked residents to share their recorded experiences of the pandemic within the borough, and to donate them to the History Centre. The Covid-19 collection aimed to capture how life had differed throughout the pandemic, so that future researchers could see how it impacted the borough of Kingston upon Thames.

    Kingston Council was developing a new Public Toilet Access Strategy to provide a framework for the effective and coordinated provision of public toilets across the borough.

    The Neighbourhood Manager gave an update on the Go Ultra Low Cities Scheme (GULCS) lamp column electric vehicle (EV) charging point project. The council had secured funding to deliver lamp column charging points in the borough with an overall goal of installing at least 100 charge points over the next two years. Resident suggestions for charging point locations had been taken from the Kingston “Let’s Talk” electric vehicle consultation, undertaken during 2020, and from direct e-mail requests.  These had been used to determine approximate locations for where these lamp column charging points should be positioned. Locations with no or limited off-street parking had been prioritised. Not all lamp columns were technically able to support an electric vehicle charging point and a site survey had identified 41 lamp columns across the borough as being suitable so far. The charging points were all ‘slow’ charging points which were best suited for residential overnight charging. The purpose of lamp column charging was to give residents living on roads with limited off-street parking the ability to charge their vehicles on their road, or no more than a short walking distance away.

    38.

    Cambridge Road Estate Planning Application - Consultation item pdf icon PDF 1 MB

    This planning application has been brought to the Kingston Town

    Neighbourhood Committee for comment. The application for the above

    mentioned development will be determined at the Development Control

    Committee (if the Officer recommendation is for approval) in accordance with

    the Council’s Scheme of Delegation.

    Minutes:

    This planning application had been brought to the Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee for comment. The application for the Cambridge Road Estate development would be determined at the Development Control Committee (if the Officer recommendation is for approval) in accordance with

    the Council’s Scheme of Delegation.

     

    The speakers for and against the development were:

     

    Applicant Team

    Objectors

    Malcolm Wood)

    Roger Meyer

    Edward Josey

    Nikhil Doshi

    Mark Ludlow

    Greg Pitt

    Mike Harris

     

    Felix Clayton

    Tom Bucke (Chair Sunflower Streets                Residents Association)

    Alison Fure

    Caroline Shah

     

    The following points were made by the members:

     

    ·         Potential for more pollution by bringing more traffic into the area.

    ·         Too much permeability by cars.

    ·         Height of the buildings proposed and their proximity to some of the existing housing. (10 storey building on corner of Piper Road and Rowlls Road).

    ·         Scale height and density on the edge of the estate.

    ·         Loss of amenities and trees.

    ·         The need for very careful, and at the right time, observation of the wildlife that uses the estate to ensure the biodiversity gain promised by the applicant is attained.

    ·         Air quality concerns.

    ·         Keeping to time in terms of the construction.

    ·         Commitments to the same level of rent.

    ·         Overcoming fuel poverty and lowering the costs of living there.

    ·         Increasing disability living substantially.

    ·         Need to listen to residents both on and off the estate.

    ·         Mental health and life expectancy effects.

    ·         The effects of tall buildings on the surroundings.

    ·         The opportunity to improve the estate.

    ·         Access to parking.

    ·         Timing of construction traffic.

    ·         Changing lives for the better.

    39.

    URGENT ITEMS AUTHORISED BY THE CHAIR

    Minutes:

    There were no urgent items authorised by the Chair.