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: Chessington Methodist Church, Church Lane/Moor Lane, Chessington KT9 2DJ

Contact: Jean Cousens tel. 020 8547 5023  e-mail:

No. Item


Environment Trust Presentation on Green Infrastructure, Energy and Water pdf icon PDF 1016 KB


Karolina Perét and Stephen James from the Environment Trust attended to give a presentation about the Kingston Green Infrastructure, Energy and Water (KGIEW) Programme which is a project running from April 2018 to September 2019 which aims to engage people living and working in the Borough and build a broad-based support for change (for example by development of Friends’ groups) and develop and support environmental projects: including in relation to decentralised energy.  Project themes are: (a) Water friendly solutions (green roofs, storm ponds, sustainable urban drainage); (b) Householder water and energy efficiency; (c) Air quality (e.g. vegetation on cycle ways) and (d) Biodiversity & Green Infrastructure.


The presentation explained that Green Infrastructure means a network of green spaces and features (such as street trees and green roofs), that is planned, designed and managed to provide a range of benefits, including: recreation and amenity, healthy living, reducing flooding, improving air quality, cooling the urban environment, encouraging walking and cycling, and enhancing biodiversity and ecological resilience.


The Committee was asked to (i) identify current environmental concerns for South of the Borough and (ii) indicate how the KGIEW project can contribute.


Responding to the Trust’s request for suggestions of concerns and projects, suggestions included a wildlife pond at Tolworth Court Farm to increase biodiversity with a link to the Hogsmill (funded for example by S106/CIL contributions); and concerns included that there should be more bringing into fruition of ideas which are raised and more joining up and promotion of environmental projects  in the Neighbourhood including: the CWoA project at Huntingate, Pear Tree Close litter picking and tree & bulb planting, coppicing with Lower Mole Countryside Volunteers, the Friends of Churchfields,  environmental improvements at Jubilee Wood and volunteer work on Malden Rushett verges.


Attendees were invited to contact the Environment Trust (c/o Stephen James with any further comments.  *



Presentation on the extended hours hub at Merritt Medical Centre pdf icon PDF 1 MB


Kathryn MacDermott, Director of Primary Care and Planning at Kingston Clinical Commissioning Group (KCCG), had intended to attend to give a presentation on the extended hours hub in Merritt Medical Centre, Chessington (KT9 2GY) but unfortunately was not able to attend and Ms Liz Meerabeau of Kingston HealthWatch kindly stepped in to give some commentary on the KCCG presentation.


The presentation indicated  that more use could be made by local people of the Primary Care Extended Access Service at the Merritt Health Centre which currently has around a 50% use rate, whereas NHS England for London have set a 90% utilisation target to ensure investment and capacity is used appropriately. 


The extended hours access service based at Kingston Health Centre and Surbiton Health Centre have higher utilisation rates than the Merritt Centre.  The service at the Merritt Centre has been publicised by Kingston Clinical Commissioning Group and the KCCG had arranged for the presentation to be given to the Neighbourhood Committee to seek feedback about how usage rates at the Merritt Centre could be improved.


A list of issues from those who attended the meeting has been noted by the CCG  (which has provided responses as shown in square brackets below)

·         it would be helpful to provide the Warfarin fingertip test at the Merritt centre [The anticoagulation service is a commissioning priority in Kingston and the CCG is working to implement an anticoagulation service in the community in line with other south west London CCGs and in line with NICE guidelines.  The KCCG hope to have more news about this later in the year.]

·         staff at the centre should be trained to promote the service as Chessington residents were not generally as aware of it as they are of the service at Kingston and Surbiton.  Perhaps a questionnaire could be provided at Kingston Hospital A&E department to promote awareness that minor illnesses and minor injuries can be treated at the Merritt Centre. Staff could volunteer the information when answering the phone that patients can be seen at the hub during extended hours.   [Extended access staff training is managed by GP Chambers - practice managers will be asked to remind their staff.]

·         it would be helpful for there to be publicity about the extended access telephone number on the website [This is being reviewed.]

·         some GP practices are running Saturday services which may reduce the use of the Saturday service at the Merritt Centre  [many GP services are commissioned directly by NHS England through a national enhanced services contract to provide additional appointments for people at weekends and are therefore outside the influence of the CCG]

·         it would be convenient to locate a pharmacy service which is open on Saturday and Sunday at the Merritt Centre [The CCG will look into this.]

·         it would be helpful if the KCCG would support local people in lobbying for changes to bus routes to make access to the Merritt Centre, Kingston hospital and Epsom and St Helier Hospital easier for Chessington  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.


Public Questions

There is a period of up to 30 minutes for public questions on matters relevant to the Committee’s remit which are not related to items featuring on the agenda.


Advance notice of questions, while not essential, is encouraged, in order that replies can be sought from relevant officers ready for the meeting.


On a trial basis, if there is any time remaining of the 30 minutes, residents will be invited to report any local news items which they consider will be of interest to those attending the meeting.




During Public Question Time the Committee dealt with questions and other matters raised by residents.  A summary of the questions and answers is attached as an Annex but does not form part of the Minutes of the meeting.




To receive any petitions submitted by councillors or members of  the public.


There were no petitions submitted.


Apologies for Absence


Apologies for absence were received from Andrew Ellis, community adviser.


Declarations of Interest

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


There were no declarations of interest from members of the Committee on any of the agenda items.  [Councillors Lorraine Dunstone and Patricia Bamford advised that, as members of Development Control Committee, they would be reserving their comments on the Planning Consultation for Tolworth Tower (Minute Item 52 below) for the Development Control Committee, and therefore did not participate in the discussion on this item.]



To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 18 October 2018.  


Resolved that the minutes of the meeting held on 18 October 2018  are agreed as a correct record. 


Community Manager's Report

The Community Manager will report on issues arising.



The Community Manager gave a presentation on various issues of interest in the Neighbourhood. The presentation included updates on:

·         a new Neighbourhood Manager had been appointed for South of the Borough Neighbourhood, Ellie Walker-Todd

·         the Friends of Churchfield had organised a successful clean-up of the playground at Churchfields

·         there will be a litter pickup at Hook on 26 January

·         a temporary injunction had been imposed by the High Court in relation to 164 sites across the borough to prevent traveller incursions – this had been achieved as a result of joint planning with the Police and with local residents as had been discussed at a recent meeting of this Neighbourhood Committee


Planning Consultation: Tolworth Tower, Tolworth Broadway, Tolworth, KT6 7EL (18/16764) pdf icon PDF 285 KB

This planning application has been brought to the Neighbourhood Committee for comment. The application for the abovementioned development will be determined at the Development Control Committee in accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation.


The Committee considered a report on an application (reference 18/16764/FUL) relating to Tolworth Tower, Tolworth Broadway, Tolworth, KT6 7EL which had been submitted to the Committee for its comments to be referred to the Development Control Committee to determine the application.


The application was for:

·         the change of use of the existing 3rd to 22nd floors of Tolworth Tower from office (Use Class B1) to residential (Use Class C3) to create 240 residential units

·         change of use of the existing 2nd floor from office (Use Class B1) to ancillary amenity space, including a gymnasium (Dual Use Class C3/D2)

·         change of use of the existing 1st floor Car Park (sui generis) to create a flexible workspace unit (Dual Use Class C3/B1(a)),

·         creation of a two-storey (ground and first) infill extension and associated change of use of the existing undercroft of Tolworth Tower from office (Use Class B1) to create a ground floor retail unit (Use Classes A1-A3) and 2nd floor gym reception area (Dual Use Class C3/D2)

·         associated external façade alterations and internal refurbishment works to Tolworth Tower associated with the proposed residential use

·         reconfiguration of the existing multi-storey car park, vehicle parking and servicing, associated cycle parking, refuse storage, amenity floorspace and landscaping and public realm works and

·         installation of plant screen and canopy at 2nd floor level and

·         reconsolidation and installation of plant machinery at roof level including installation of new plant machinery and plant screen.


The comments of the Committee included the following:

·         concern about loss of office space and preference to retain more of a balance between residential and employment use of the building

·         a request to increase the number of affordable living units

·         a request for the Council to have input as to who will live in the new homes (nomination rights)

·         support for the holistic approach to design for residents’ lives which was explained in the presentation given by Carl Dawson and Mark Ghandi of Meadow Partners

·         it was queried whether there will be a pre-decision Development Control Committee meeting for further discussion.


Resolved that the Committee’s comments be reported to the Development Control Committee.


Voting - unanimous


[Councillors Lorraine Dunstone and Patricia Bamford advised that, as members of Development Control Committee, they would be reserving their comments for the Development Control Committee, and therefore did not participate in the deliberations on this item.  The Vice Chair, Councillor Andreas Kirsch, took the Chair for this item.]


Review of the Vehicle Crossover Policy pdf icon PDF 79 KB

To seek Neighbourhood Committee comments on a review of the boroughwide Vehicle Crossover Policy.

Additional documents:


The Neighbourhood Committee considered a report which was being submitted to all four Neighbourhood Committees to seek comments on a review of the borough-wide Vehicle Crossover Policy.


A vehicle crossover is a dropped kerb and driveway across a footway which allows vehicles to pass between the public and property/land to which the crossover application relates.  Under Section 184 (11) of the 1980 Highways Act, all vehicle crossovers on the highway maintainable at the public expense require permission from the Highway Authority ie the Council for this borough).


The Council’s current Vehicle Crossover Policy (which was attached as Annex 2 of this report) was adopted in 2008 and now needs to be revised.  The proposed revised Vehicle Crossover Policy, as set out in Annex 1 of the report, is more detailed and provides comprehensive information for applicants.


Depending on particular circumstances, property owners may also require separate planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which should be secured before the submission of an application for a vehicle crossover under the Highways Act 1980 (the 1980 Act).


Subject to approval of the new Policy by the Environment and Sustainable Transport Committee at its meeting on 12 February, it is intended that the Revised Policy will come into operational effect on 1 April 2019.


Generally the Committee supported the draft revised Policy.  The Committee requested that the dimensions are added to Figure 2 (on page B13 of the report) and that the dimensions relating to trees (within item f of the Revised Policy on page 14) are clarified ie whether the size refers to the canopy of the tree or the trunk.


The Chair thanked officers for not including charging of residents for the refreshing of white lining outside their properties.


Resolved that the comments of the Neighbourhood Committee on the proposed revised Vehicle Crossover Policy (which was set out in Annex 1 of the report) are referred to the Environment and Sustainable Transport Committee which will consider the Policy at its meeting on 12 February 2019.


Voting - unanimous



Neighbourhood Community Forum 7 March 2019 - topic (Community Resilience) and format pdf icon PDF 75 KB

To agree a proposal that the Community Forum meeting scheduled for 7 March 2019 will be in the form of a multi-agency workshop in collaboration with the Council’s Emergency Planning Officer and the Blue Light Services (as part of a London based project supported by the London Resilience Forum)


Resolved that the Community Forum meeting scheduled for 7 March 2019 will be in the form of a multi-agency workshop on Community Resilience, in collaboration with the Council’s Emergency Planning Officer and the Blue Light Services (as part of a London-based project supported by the London Resilience Forum).


Voting - unanimous


The Committee considered a report by the Neighbourhood Manager on the proposed topic and format for the Community Forum meeting to be held on 7 March.  It was proposed for this event to be held at 7.30pm at Southborough School hall.

The report recommended the topic of Community Resilience for the Forum and that this is in the format of a workshop to allow residents to explore with representatives of the Council and Blue Light services how to work together to support local communities in times of need (for example flooding, power outages, inclement weather) and also during larger-scale incidents, and how they can provide ongoing support for vulnerable people.



Resolved that the Community Forum meeting scheduled for 7 March 2019 will be in the form of a multi-agency workshop on Community Resilience, in collaboration with the Council’s Emergency Planning Officer and the Blue Light Services (as part of a London-based project supported by the London Resilience Forum).


Voting - unanimous

Recorded Vote
TitleTypeRecorded Vote textResult
Neighbourhood Community Forum 7 March 2019 - topic (Community Resilience) and format Resolution Carried
  • View Recorded Vote for this item
  • 55.

    Information Items pdf icon PDF 56 KB

    ·         Potential Forthcoming Business

    ·         Traffic Schemes updates

    Additional documents:


    Resolved that the following items be noted:


    ·         Traffic Schemes updates

    ·         Potential Forthcoming Business



    [With reference to the Traffic Scheme Update, there was a request for some form of action to be taken in relation to Evans Halshaw at Malden Rushett because a transporter which is being parked there, causing an obstruction and then being reversed into the road, a potential dangerous manoeuvre.  There were also comments about: the 71 bus missing the Giilders Estate again; the value of the subway to the Toby Jug site; extending the double yellow lines on Tedder Close; Kier contractor performance on the double yellow lines on Bolton Road; enforcement of the double yellow lines on Bridge Road; the pitted surface of crossovers on Bolton Road.]

    Annex 1 Public Questions

    Annex 1


    Public Questions



    (1)       Chantry Park Estate - Foxglove Lane


    Mr R Ware, Chair of Chantry Park Residents Association, asked about progress on the issues he had raised at the October meeting including cutting back on vegetation (access on pavement for the disabled and mothers with prams) and the white lining to prevent pavement parking and enforcement.  Richard Dean indicated that letters had been sent to owners to cut back the hedges and that he would progress the issues about the white lining and the enforcement.



    (2)       Meyer Homes development


    Mr Ware referred to correspondence he had had with the Leader and the acting Chief Executive in November 2018 on his concern that the area of the Meyer Homes site at Tolworth had been overstated which would result in an excessive density of housing being approved on the site.  He emphasised that correct information was essential if there is to be an appropriate scheme for the site and resubmitted the following questions:


    1.         What substantiation evidence do you have for the red line area being 4.4 hectare?

    2.         If there is no substantiation why was it introduced?

    3.         Did you ever do a digital measure of the red line area? If not why?

    4.         Did you ever advise GLA officers of the true red line area? If not why?

    5.         Are you aware if the GLA officers, the Planning Inspector or the Secretary of States officers actually did a check measure on the area of the site?

    6.         As GL Hearn’s letter of 1st July 2016, who were the officers who checked the site and agreed with the applicant that 4.4 hectare is accurate?

    7.         Why was a PERMIT recommendation given to this scheme when the planners must have known even the stated high density posted on the reports dashboard of 216u/h was greatly understated?

    8.         Why was this high density information withheld from the DCC officers?

    Mr Ware also raised the following questions:

    1.         If you did do a digital measure for the red line area at 4.4 hectare why was the Applicants architect measure for virtually the same area only 3.8 hectare?

    2.         Can the Planning Officers give assurances that the remaining 739 housing units to be developed in the Outline section of the works can be accommodated on the balance of the site in a no greater than 10 storey block format with an acceptable design assessment from both Design South East and the Kingston upon Thames Society and adherence within acceptable limits to the SPG’s and SPD’s of the London and Local Plans?


    In response to the first questions, Toby Feltham, Lead Planning Officer for Maldens and Coombe and South of the Borough Neighbourhoods, confirmed that the same answer applied as had been reported to the last meeting ie: that the site area had been agreed by the Planning Inspector, who had dealt with the previous Appeal, and by the Secretary of State and by the Greater London Authority and Mayor of London.  The density figure is not in itself determinative of the acceptability of a proposed development.  It is purely an indicator of how much development is proposed on the site.  A full assessment had been made of the development as a whole, as set out in the Committee report to the Development Control Committee.


    In response to question 2, Mr Feltham confirmed that the Council will consult on any proposed scheme for the outline phase. The heights will be considered at that stage.


    (3)       Area of Development Opportunity


    Mr Rob Robb asked whether local councillors would campaign against the borough being offered as an "Area of Development Opportunity " in the new London Plan which would bring over density, high rise and totally poor designed incongruous development.


    Comments from Hannah Harris, Lead Officer Planning Policy, were read out at the meeting as follows:

    -       "Area of Development Opportunity" in the new London Plan.

    ‘The history and evolution of the emerging Kingston Opportunity Area is set out below. This shows the buy-in from Councillors and the public with regards to the emerging opportunity area.  There have been a number of opportunities for the public to provide their comments on Kingston’s proposed Opportunity Area, starting in 2014:


    -       Place and Sustainability Committee - 27 March 2014 - authorisation to pursue an Opportunity Area or Area of Intensification for Kingston Town Centre

    -       The Mayor’s Further Alterations to the London Plan consulted on 15 January 2014 for 12 weeks and subject to a public examination in September 2014 - support for the Mayor to work with boroughs to bring forward new Opportunity Areas including Kingston Town Centre

    -       Infrastructure, Projects and Contracts Committee - 24 March 2015 - approval to carry forward the work on the Kingston Opportunity Area

    -       Infrastructure, Projects and Contracts Committee - 25 June 2015 - agreement to develop a local plan and the Local Development Scheme

    -       Growth Committee - 17 March 2016 - revision to Local Development Scheme

    -       Growth Committee - 9 June 2016 - authorisation to consult on the Direction of Travel document setting out broad Opportunity Area proposals.  The emerging areas of opportunity were expanded to cover more parts of the borough rather than just Kingston town centre at this stage.

    -       Direction of Travel public consultation - 24 June 2016 to 29 August 2016 for a period of eight weeks.  Details of this consultation can be seen on page B2 of the agenda pack at this link:

    -       Growth Committee - 13 October 2016 - adoption of the Direction of Travel

    -       The Mayor’s draft new London Plan - consultation between 1 December 2017 and 2 March 2018 and being considered at examination in public on 23 January 2019

    -       Strategic Housing and Planning Committee 8 November 2018 - proposal to consult on Issues and Options which includes reference to the Opportunity Area.  Called in on this basis.


    The housing target for Kingston’s Local Plan will be deliver 30,008 homes between 2019 and 2041.  This figure has been given to RBK by the Mayor of London and is set out in his draft new London Plan.  Kingston’s housing target is to deliver 1,364 homes per year, representing Kingston’s portion of the 65,000 homes to be delivered each year to meet London’s housing need as estimated by the Mayor.  This figure is multiplied by the 22 year time frame of the Local Plan (2019-2041) is 30,008.


    If Kingston did not have the housing target in the London Plan, it would have to provide sufficient homes to meet its need as assessed by national government, which is higher at 1,564.  This is Kingston’s portion of the 100,000 homes the national government believe need to be provided by Greater London each year.


    The Council will start public consultation on the Local Plan this year.  This will set out how we can seek to achieve to meet the housing target which has been set for us by the Mayor of London’s draft new London Plan. 


    It should be noted that the Council has objected to the housing target set by the Mayor of London in the draft new London Plan and will be represented at the Examination in Public, represented by officers from Sutton, as a number of boroughs have submitted a joint response.


    Alongside the housing target, the Local Plan will ask the public how they wish to see their communities and neighbourhoods develop to accommodate the housing target, together with jobs and supporting infrastructure and services.  By asking the community, it will be for everyone to shape and design how the borough will look in the future.’


    The Chair confirmed that the Leader was actively challenging the Mayor’s target, one reason being that it is based on the achievement of Crossrail 2, which project is currently not certain to be approved.  However, it needed to be stated that the Council is in support of providing new homes in the borough as local families need local homes if their children are to be able to live in the borough when they leave home.