Agenda, decisions and minutes

Online meeting, Maldens and Coombe Neighbourhood
Wednesday 24 March 2021 7:00 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

Contact: Samuel Nicholls tel 020 8547 5533  e-mail:  sam.nicholls@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:

Two residents addressed the Committee to raise a number of questions. The first questions were from the Maldens and Coombe Residents Association (MCRA) and related to the review of the Outturn Statement for 2020-21 for the Coombe Estates Highways Estimates item before the Coombe rate invoices were due to be sent out in May. There was also a request for the MCRA to agree any withdrawals from these reserves as these reserves belonged them. There was also a request that all costs incurred by RBK for recovering any non-payment be charged to the resident concerned as this was not done previously and the MCRA had been charged for these expenses. As no officer in relation to this query was present the question was taken away for a response in writing.

 

Another member of public raised a question on demolition of the garages and the removal of 44 spaces at Cumberland House,  and how the council would mitigate the inevitable parking problems, especially for blue badge holders, and ensure that the play area is available at all times. In addition how they would communicate and liaise with residents.

 

By way of response it was explained that any resident who lived in a property managed by the Council and who had a Blue Badge permit could contact the Council to ask for a specific disabled parking bay to be made available for them. No Blue Badge holders living at Cumberland House had yet asked for a space to be made available. It was confirmed that the Council had recently sent a newsletter to all residents of Cumberland House which included a reminder that they could ask for a disabled parking space to be made available if they needed one. It also included details on how to apply for a Blue Badge permit if they thought they might be eligible. Residents can get in touch at any time to request that a space is made available and this can be done at any point should their circumstances change either during the build period or afterwards. 

 

The Council’s contractor, Countryside, would ensure as many spaces remain available as possible during the build period. The majority of the spaces in the Cumberland House estate would remain available for the duration of the project.

 

Some items of play equipment would need to be relocated during the construction period. This would be done before construction starts so that the same amount of play equipment remained available. In the recent newsletter it was advised that some of the equipment would need to be moved but that this would be done prior to any work starting.

 

Countryside had a dedicated resident liaison officer and they would be writing to residents to introduce themselves and let them know how they can contact them should they have any questions during the build period. They would also keep residents updated during the construction period. 

 

31.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

There were no apologies.

32.

Declarations of Interest

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

 

Minutes:

The Chair Councillor Simon Edwards declared a personal interest in relation to the item on the Introduction of double yellow line “at any time” waiting restrictions in Knightwood Crescent, New Malden and on behalf of Councillor Tim Cobbett and Annette Wookey. It was explained that the lead petitioner, Ian McDonald, who objected to the recommendations was a member of the Old Malden and St James Liberal Democrats. He was, also a former councillor and Mayor.

 

However as there was no close personal relationship to Mr McDonald and they had no involvement in the petition itself the Councillors declared that they would remain in the meeting and vote on the item.

 

33.

Petitions

To receive petitions submitted by Councillors or members of the public who live, work or study in the Borough. The petition must contains at least 20 signatures*, and notice of the intention to submit the petition is 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:

There were no petitions submitted.

34.

Neighbourhood Managers Report

Minutes:

The Neighbourhood and Community Manager, Megan Mellor, reported that 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.

35.

Minutes

To confirm that the minutes of the meeting held on 20 January 2021 are a correct record.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 January 2021 were approved as a correct record.

36.

Objections to Disabled Parking bays at Spinney Close and Idmiston Square pdf icon PDF 79 KB

To consider objections received during the statutory consultation period to the publication of the Traffic Management Orders (TMOs) references KingMap0034 and KingMap0049, which include proposals for disabled bays in Spinney Close, as shown in Annex 2 and Idmiston Square, as shown in Annex 3 .

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved that –

 

1.    The comments and objections received in paragraphs 4 and 6, and officer comments in paragraphs 5, 7, and 8 be noted;

 

2.    The objections received for both Spinney Close and Idmiston Square be set aside, and the implementation of the TMO for the introduction of new disabled bays in Spinney Close and Idmiston Square be approved, with objectors informed of the Committee’s decision.

 

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report which outlined recommendations following objections received during a statutory consultation period to the publication of the Traffic Management Orders (TMOs) references KingMap0034 and KingMap0049, which included proposals for disabled bays in Spinney Close, as shown in Annex 2 and Idmiston Square, as shown in Annex 3 as set out in the agenda report.

 

Some members queried the review mechanism for disabled parking bays which were no longer being used, as it was suggested that more frequent reviewing could help reduce pressure on parking availability on residential roads. By way of response it was explained that residents would normally report this information so individual disabled parking bays could be removed if no longer required.

 

Resolved that –

 

1.    The comments and objections received in paragraphs 4 and 6, and officer comments in paragraphs 5, 7, and 8 be noted;

 

2.    The objections received for both Spinney Close and Idmiston Square be set aside, and the implementation of the TMO for the introduction of new disabled bays in Spinney Close and Idmiston Square be approved, with objectors informed of the Committee’s decision.

 

Voting: Unanimous

Recorded Vote
TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
Motion to approve Resolution Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 37.

    Introduction of double yellow line “at any time” waiting restrictions in Knightwood Crescent, New Malden pdf icon PDF 70 KB

    To consider objections received during the statutory consultation period to the publication of the Traffic Management Order (TMO) reference KingMap0046, which includes a proposal to introduce double yellow line ‘at any time’ waiting restrictions in Knightwood Crescent, New Malden, on the south and west sides, from opposite No. 38 to opposite No. 52, as shown in Annex 2.

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    Resolved that -  

     

    1.    The comments and objections received in paragraphs 4 and 6, and officer comments in paragraphs 5 and 7 be noted;

     

    2.    The objection received be set aside, and the implementation of the TMO for the introduction of double yellow line ‘at any time’ waiting restrictions in Knightwood Crescent, New Malden be approved, with the objector informed of the Committee’s decision.

    Minutes:

    Members considered a report which outlined officer recommendations following objections received during the statutory consultation period to the publication of the Traffic Management Order (TMO) reference KingMap0046, which includes a proposal to introduce double yellow line ‘at any time’ waiting restrictions in Knightwood Crescent, New Malden, on the south and west sides, from opposite No. 38 to opposite No. 52, as shown in Annex 2 in the agenda report.

     

    Resolved that - 

     

    1.    The comments and objections received in paragraphs 4 and 6, and officer comments in paragraphs 5 and 7 be noted;

     

    2.    The objection received be set aside, and the implementation of the TMO for the introduction of double yellow line ‘at any time’ waiting restrictions in Knightwood Crescent, New Malden be approved, with the objector informed of the Committee’s decision.

     

    Voting: Unanimous

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    Motion to approve Resolution Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 38.

    Local Implementation Plan - 2021-22 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.

     

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

    Minutes:

    The Committeeconsidered a report on the LIP Programme 2021/22, along with the schedule of planned highway maintenance for the Borough. It was noted that Transport for London (TfL) funding was 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. 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 was required to show how each scheme submitted would support the MTS goals; with the recently published MTS, this meant that boroughs would demonstrate how proposals would support the vision to transform London streets, improve public transport and create more opportunities for new homes and jobs.

    TfL wrote 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 had caused, where demand for services decreased. Since that time TfL successfully agreed two interim funding packages with the Government to cover costs up until 31 March 2021, known as the Extraordinary Funding and Financing Agreement.

    Given the current financial uncertainty beyond March 2021, certain working assumptions had been necessary, but boroughs would need to consider uncertainties both about the quantum of funding in budgets in 2021/22 and the timing of the confirmation of that funding.

    The current Extraordinary Funding and Financing Agreement between DfT/TfL ran until 31 March 2021. Beyond this point a further settlement was required, and discussions between DfT/TfL were ongoing and would hopefully conclude before the new financial year. This means that TfL were currently unable to confirm how much funding would be provided to boroughs in the next financial year 2021/22.

    TfL had advised boroughs to prepare an outline list of proposals spanning all borough programmes for 2021/2 and submit them to TfL by 1 March 2021. The list should prioritise proposals up to the value of the borough’s annual allocation based on what it was due to receive in 2020/21. Officers had indicated to TfL that Kingston’s submission would be after strategic committee approval on 17 March.

    The list of schemes 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.

    In view of the financial situation, TfL had yet to confirm allocations to boroughs for the development of discretionary funded items in 2021/22 under the programmes of LIP Major Schemes, Liveable Neighbourhoods, Cycleway Network Development (previously known as Quietways), and Bus Priority. TfL hoped to provide clarity on this once the financial position was understood.

    Some members raised concern with regards to the amount of feasibility studies rather than implementation works that were set out in the proposal list. By way of response it was explained that the feasibility studies were a necessary part of the implementation but those comments would be taken away.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

    Recorded Vote
    TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
    Motion to approve Resolution Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 39.

    Urgent Items Authorised by the Chair