Councillors and committees
Agenda, decisions and minutes
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 key Council meetings here
Venue: Glenmore House, The Crescent, Surbiton KT6 4BN
Contact: Sam Nicholls 020 8547 5533 email: email@example.com
Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Mark Beynon.
Declarations of Interest
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 18 July 2019
Resolved that the minutes of the meeting held on 18July 2019 were agreed as a correct record.
Neighbourhood Manager's Report
The Neighbourhood Manager, James Geach, presented the Surbiton Neighbourhood Manager’s report, of local information including the following:
· World Car Free Day is on Sunday 22 September. There will be a series of events to celebrate this occasion including street parties, guided walks, bike rides and free swimming.
· Two local festivals are soon to take place: Surbiton Festival will be held on Saturday 28 September, and on the same weekend the Corinthian-Casuals Football Club will be the venue for the Vai Tolworth! Brazilian Festival.
· Some Community Grant Funding is still available for voluntary projects in Surbiton Neighbourhood – see this link on the website for details
· The next round of Let’s Talk events will be about Neighbourhood Community Plans – the Surbiton event will be held on 22 October – more information can be found at this link on the website or by contacting firstname.lastname@example.org
Update on the latest design of the Tolworth Roundabout
A presentation from Transport for London
The Committee received a presentation by Transport for London (TfL) on TfL proposals to address a predicted increase and demand of cars from a series of planned developments with a planned carriageway extension. A diagram of draft proposals was circulated at the meeting. The proposals aim to mitigate future pressures on the roundabout and to reflect priorities in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy.
A formal consultation will begin on 8 October for six weeks. Letters will be sent to over 1,900 addresses and there will also be a static display in the Tolworth library in Tolworth Broadway.
The project is scheduled to commence in November 2020 with a projected completion date of March 2023.
The Committee is requested to provide comments on the proposed framework
Resolved that the views of the Neighbourhood Committee are taken into
consideration in shaping the framework for community engagement set out at
Annex 1 of this report. After the consultation concludes the framework will be
published on the Council’s website.
The Committee considered a report which sought the Neighbourhood Committee’s views on a proposed Community Engagement Framework for the Council prior to it being adopted.
The Council is clear about its ambition to improve community engagement. This will require culture change across the whole Council. To help achieve this, there is a need for clarity about what is meant by community engagement. The framework provides opportunities to increase community engagement and involvement in decision-making through a clear, consistent commitment and approach, and by which the council can be held to account. Over the past 12 months there have been some good examples of successful community engagement and there have been other examples where we can learn and develop our approach. The purpose of the framework is to articulate our vision and approach to community engagement more clearly - as stated in the LGA corporate peer review. The framework sets out an approach against which we can be judged and provides consistency in approach and vision.
The Council is looking to articulate a clear approach to community engagement. It aims to:
· increase the scope of community engagement to help ensure everyone has a voice, especially people from whom we seldom hear
· outline a clearly articulated approach
· ensure we co-ordinate community engagement and consultation so people have time and space to have a say on what matters to them
· encourage better decision-making and problem-solving by hearing more ideas and voices earlier in the process.
Through an agreed approach the Council will:
· increase and strengthen the role of communities in how we live, work and study in Kingston
· involve more people in the democratic process and enable communities to influence decisions in a range of ways
· support communities to take action by helping them identify needs and support them to develop their own solutions.
The current consultation runs until 30 September and the framework with any amendments responding to feedback during the consultation, will be published on the Council’s website.
The Assistant Director for Culture, Communities and Engagement outlined the key factors including:
· The Council places a high priority on community engagement as shown in recent initiatives and plans, for example the community grants programme, the State of the Borough debate, Citizens’ Assembly, and neighbourhood forums.
· The Council, however, wishes to increase the scope of who we hear from, and engage much earlier in the process, and strengthen the relationship with groups in the community.
· Our approach has been and will always be: Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate and Power.
During the discussion, it was clarified that the Council will not necessary have to go through all the stages of community engagement with every engagement with the public -
it will depend on the individual requirements of the project.
· Engagement with young people (in a meaningful way) should be a key objective for this framework, as should accessibility to the Council for all in the community, including those with disabilities
· The engagement framework could benefit from lively presentation to engage the reader with different ... view the full minutes text for item 29.
To consider the consultation results and the way forward
Resolved that –
1. The results of the consultation are noted; and
2. Given the consultation results, set out in paragraphs 3 – 8 of the report, and for the reasons explained in paragraph C of the report, no action is taken on the proposals for the development and introduction of a parking scheme in this area at this time, and that the situation is reviewed again in one year’s time.
The Committee considered the outcomes of a public consultation on the parking situation in the Beaconsfield Road area, i.e. Beaconsfield Road, Birchington Road, Broomfield Road, Derby Road, Gordon Road, Hollyfield Road and the section of Ewell Road between Hollyfield Road and Derby Road.
In response to a petition submitted by some residents of Beaconsfield Road, which asked the Council to develop a parking scheme in their road, a parking beat survey was carried out in the area. The results of the survey showed that issues with non-resident parking affect some of the roads more than the others (details on the survey are available to view on the website at this link: https://moderngov.kingston.gov.uk/documents/s82745/Beaconsfield%20Road%20Parking%20Beats%20survey.pdf)
At its meeting on 20March 2019, the Committee had considered the petition and resolved that a local consultation should be carried out on the current parking situation in this area, in order to establish whether residents think there is a problem with the outcome to be reported to Committee for consideration.
In June 2019, 319 consultation letters were delivered to the residents within the study area. 84 responses were received from the roads within the study area (26.3% responses rate), with 4 additional responses from outside the consultation area. The details of the results were set out in the report and the Committee noted that the majority of respondents (52.3%) did not consider that there is an issue with parking in their roads and a majority of respondents (63.6%) were against a parking scheme being introduced.
At the meeting, Members heard representations from a resident of Beaconsfield Road (whose comments had been circulated to Members to consider before the meeting) and a contrary view from a resident of another nearby road.
After further discussion, and acknowledging that circumstances may change in the future when the impact of other parking restraints in the area were felt, for the reasons set out in the report, it was:
1. the results of the consultation are noted, and
2. no action be taken on the proposals for the development and introduction of a parking scheme in this area at this time, and that the situation be reviewed again in one year’s time.
Voting - unanimous
The Committee is requested provide comment on the proposals
Resolved that –
1. the proposed schemes as listed in the table in Annex 1 of the report are
endorsed and included in the indicative submission to TfL in November
2. there are no specific comments on Annex 1 from Surbiton Neighbourhood Committee to be reported to the Environment and Sustainable Transport Committee for their consideration on 7 October 2019 (other than a request for more detail on the scheme for A243 area including Upper Brighton Road/Hook Road/Leatherhead Road).
The Committee considered a report which outlined the proposed schemes to be considered for inclusion in the 2020/21 Local Implementation Plan (LIP) bid to Transport for London (TfL) in November 2019. The schemes listed at Annex 1 of the report will make a contribution to improving the road network, and offering more modal choice for people. The Committee’s views were sought on the proposed schemes.
TfL funding is provided to London boroughs to support local transport improvements that accord with the latest Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) goals, as set out in the Greater London Authority (GLA) Act 1999. In order to obtain funding, the Council must show how each scheme submitted will support the MTS goals; with the recently published MTS, this means that boroughs must demonstrate how proposals will support the vision to transform London streets, improve public transport and create more opportunities for new homes and jobs.
Earlier this year the borough submitted their Local Implementation Plan v3 (LIP3) and this sets out a framework for how the borough intends to deliver schemes across the life of the latest MTS to 2041. Section 3 of the LIP3 covers the forward plan for the LIP Programme and identified those schemes that are now identified in Annex 1 of the report.
In the years up to 2041 we expect to see a continued and sustained shift in the balance and use of all transport modes. The focus of the report is for each Neighbourhood Committee to consider a list of schemes proposed for the first year LIP Annual Spending Submission (ASS) of the 3-year LIP3 delivery plan, in 2019/20.
The Administration has committed to a new and strengthened approach to community engagement and the Council is, in response, orientating its processes for highways schemes to ensure residents are engaged at the right time and in a way that provides for a meaningful contribution as schemes are designed, and delivered.
The ‘Healthy Streets’ approach is now being used to ensure that schemes are looking not at single transport modes as we have done in the past, but taking a wider view of how streets function best for people. The traditional LIP delivery programme was for feasibility/ consultation/ design and delivery all to be compressed within a single year; however, to match with the engagement aspirations of the Administration, it is likely that the majority of schemes will in future be phased over two years. Therefore, the annual capital programme will involve a combination of schemes being either developed or delivered, thus allowing sufficient time to more fully involve residents and other interested parties in scheme development and ensuring they reflect the views of the wider community and have community buy-in.
Members resolved that –
1. the proposed schemes as listed in the table in Annex 1 of the report are endorsed and included in the indicative submission to TfL in November 2019; and
2. there are no specific comments on Annex 1 from the Surbiton Neighbourhood Committee for reporting to the ... view the full minutes text for item 31.
To note the Work Programme
Members noted the contents of the work programme.
Urgent Items Authorised by the Chair
There was no urgent business authorised by the Chair.
Annex - Public Questions
1. 5G Roll Out
Ms Louise Tassell asked three questions (with reference to further information which was tabled at the meeting for the Committee) as follows and responses were read out at the meeting and further details would be sent in writing:
(i) Why has the Council not been transparent about its full 5G rollout plans (including implementation of necessary new 4G sites), not made it clear to residents that the vast number of new LED lampposts can be used as radio frequency transmitters and not formally consulted with the constituents on this important issue?
A response from the Planning Department: Any request to install telecommunications equipment within a lamppost would be assessed against the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (England) 2015 (as amended/
A response from the IT department: Definition: Small cells are required by mobile networks to provide localised coverage and network capacity, especially in urban and suburban areas, where network demand from the public is high. They therefore complement the main sites usually located on rooftops, or other high structures or on stand-alone towers. Currently only 4G small cells are being deployed, no 5G infrastructure has been deployed in the UK yet.
The Council doesn’t currently have any individual 4G/5G rollout plans, these decisions are dictated by the business models of the four large Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) which are O2 (Telifonica), Vodafone, Three and EE.
But the Council does have an existing wireless concession which gives the organisation the chance to govern and provide oversight to the deployment of the wireless infrastructure in the borough, currently this concession governs 4G small cells and any future 5G technology which might be deployed. The Council has very little influence on the locations of the 4G rollout (small cells) in the borough, again this is a decision made by the MNOs based on their own networks. The Council does have an important role in ensuring the street lighting columns are safe to support this wireless hardware, and a responsibility to tackle digital inclusion and ensure connectivity for all our residents, workers and visitors. The Council can block or veto any deployments of wireless technology if it deems appropriate and/or if adequate justification is given.
On this matter, the Council has been fully transparent. Kingston Council has a 10-year wireless concession agreement with telecommunications infrastructure company Arqiva - they were chosen through an open procurement process which was OJEU compliant. The news of this agreement was made publicly available in August 2017 by both Arqiva and RBK via national and local press. The wireless concession also enabled the deployment of free 24/7 public WiFi in town centres across Kingston with a WiFi presence in: Kingston Town Centre; Chessington; Surbiton; New Malden and Tolworth.
The concession at the time represented Arqiva’s 13th concession of this kind in London, following similar contracts in Barnet, Brent, Camden, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Harrow, Hounslow, Islington, Lambeth, Merton, Richmond upon Thames and Wandsworth. Arqiva also has similar deals with a number of other local authorities in England.
N.B. Wireless digital infrastructure can be deployed on both LED lampposts and non-LED lampposts this is not a prerequisite required for deployment.
(ii) How are you allowed to change the use of a LED lamppost from standard street lighting service to a 24/7 365 days year radiation transmitting device without getting informed consent from residents in the road and especially those who live right by it?
Formal consultation with residents is not legally required for the deployment of small cells. However, a number of internal colleagues across ICT, Economic Growth and Street Lighting, Highways and if required Planning are involved in discussions each time a MNO wants to deploy any wireless infrastructure in Kingston.
Arqiva have provided the following information:
· Arqiva benefits from Permitted Development Right conditions (PDRs) in Part 16 Communications of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, amended Nov. 2016
· Small Cell System PDR: ‘an antenna which may be variously referred to as a femtocell, picocell, metrocell or microcell antenna, together with any ancillary apparatus…’
· Subject to surface area and volume limitations:
- surface area not exceeding 5,000 sq.cm
- volume not exceeding 50,000 cubic centimetres
· On this basis, Small Cells do not need planning permission.
3. Can you guarantee that all of the LED lampposts in this Borough are only currently being used as street lighting and not as 25, 3G, 4G or 5G frequency transmitter, receivers (from any signal including satellites) or any other use?
No. We continue to support the deployment of wireless technology in line with the approach set out by both the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), Greater London Authority (GLA) and other local authorities. Strong connectivity underpins our wider economic growth agenda and enables all our residents, visitors and students to engage with a number of digital services which also helps support to digital inclusion in the borough. But we are clear this must meet health and environmental laws/regulations as stated earlier.
As part of the wireless concession with Arqiva, to date 38 4G small cells sites have been deployed on street furniture in Kingston, the majority of which are around Kingston town centre and Kingston University’s Penhryn Road campus - to date details of these sites have been shared in a number of FOIs. The initial deployment of these small cells has been ordered by O2 Telifonica via Arqiva.
The main reason for this deployment was to support gaps in their 4G mobile coverage in those areas, and to support current and future capacity demands on the network, especially due to the high footfall in these areas because of the student population and high visitor numbers to Kingston town centre. Key staff at Kingston University’s ICT team have been kept aware of the deployment of 4G small cells near the Penhryn Rd campus, and are pleased these will go some way to solving some of poor 4G mobile coverage experienced by both academic staff and students.
Arqiva remain committed even on an advisory basis to continue liaising with a number of internal services named earlier with a view to keeping the team updated on changes to technology and impact on Public Realm. An example of this approach has been the active role taken by Arqiva in previously discussing options to deploy Wi-Fi and Small Cells in Kingston.
Where can I get further information that I can trust?
There are many Internet sites that purport to provide health and safety information or guidance, but with all sources of information we would advise caution. For trusted sources we recommend you use the sources recommended by OFCOM and the guidance from the National Health Service.
RBK press release:
Arqiva press release:
2. Beaconsfield Road closure
Mr Daniel Kennedy asked the following question (with reference to a proposal he was suggesting for road closure of Beaconsfield Road):
Would the committee ask for a report to be submitted on the proposals submitted ie Closure of the junction between Beaconsfield Road and Ewell Road to motor vehicles by the use of a Modal Filter in the form of either a telescopic post or permanent bollard and some additional parking restrictions put in place to improve the turning of vehicles.
YounesHamade, the Neighbourhood traffic engineer replied that the proposals in Mr Kennedy’s paper would need to be fully investigated and consultation undertaken but this is not currently a scheme within the agreed LIP proposals and there are insufficient resources to progress it at the current time. Surveys of traffic had indicated that there was not excessive through traffic along Beaconsfield Road and average speeds had been recorded at 22-23mph; any closure of the road would have an impact on surrounding roads. Members commented that the proposals would be worth considering further and asked for a meeting to be arranged for the Chair, Vice Chair, Ward Councillors, and Surbiton Hill Ward councillors to discuss the matter further with the traffic engineer and with Mr Kennedy.
3 Electoral Boundary Review and Community Engagement Framework
Two questions were submitted by Ms Bridget Walker prior to the meeting. As Ms Walker was not able to attend the meeting, the replies would be sent in writing.
4. Vacant caretaker’s property on site of St Andrews & St Mark's and Maple Infants Schools
Mr Bob Tyler asked whether there was any plan to dispose of the vacant caretaker’s house on the site of St Andrew’s & St Mark's and Maple Infants schools. He considered it would be preferable to use the land to expand the space for the schools.
The Leader of the Council, Councillor Liz Green, indicated that no plans had been discussed with her about disposal of this asset and a reply would be sent in writing.
5. Proceeds of S106 and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contributions
Mr Dan Falchikov asked whether the Council would publish how the receipts of Section 106 and CIL contributions had been spent over the past 5 years. Councillor Malcolm Self, as Portfolio Holder for Planning Policy and Economic Development replied that the Council has always published how Section 106 receipts have been used. Most recently they have been reported to the Strategic Housing and Planning Committee. He did not recall there having been any recent CIL receipts to report.
6. Dysart School
Mr Graham Garrett indicated that he had asked 3 questions about a planning application 17/16742/FUL Dysart School at meetings in June and July and was still awaiting a response to two of these questions. (It had been indicated at the July meeting that a response to the second question would be obtained from the Assets team.) Mr Garrett requested to be provided with copies of letters and notes of meetings and calls between the Council as landlord and its tenant.