Member / Officer Group Meeting
Monday 1 March 2010
MEETING NOTES
Attendees:
Jay Judge
Gary Walsh
Barry Allen
Cllr Frances Moseley
Cllr Vicki Harris
Cllr Ian George
John Bolland / Paul Dearman
Pat Loxton
Matthew Howell-Hughes
Tom Sudhoff
Martin Goodbrand
Gemma Gallant (Notes)
Apologies:
Cllr Rolson Davies
Patrick Whelan
John Mumford
Leon Parry
Marie-Claire Edwards
Scott Herbertson
Issue / Action By
Minutes of Previous Meeting
· The minutes of the previous meeting were reviewed and agreed.
· Tolworth Strategy Update – BA advised that Kerry McCabe has been working with the Youth Parliament to consult youth on the Strategy. The results are awaited.
· Tolworth Strategy Update – It was confirmed that the wider Strategy is being considered by KCIL, not RNIB. However, the Tolworth Broadway Project is being audited by RNIB.
Tolworth Strategy Update
· PL distributed a document detailing feedback from consultation on the Draft Strategy, along with the notes from drop-in sessions, the business forum and points from the Surbiton and South of the Borough Neighbourhood Committee. She explained that there is a good level of support for the Strategy.
· PL advised that the comments submitted on the public consultation questionnaires tended to correlate to those raised at the drop-in sessions and Tolworth Business Forum.
· PL noted that many of the people visiting the sessions were more interested in the Public Realm Project – there is a lack of clarity with regard to the difference between the two Projects. She noted that consultation on the Public Realm improvements should incorporate a wider area, including Warren Drive North and the Sunray Estate, though this will be discussed at the next stage. It was agreed that the Neighbourhood Rangers could be utilised in the future to deliver leaflets etc to flats which are difficult to access – they can then confirm delivery.
· PL informed that the Strategy is being updated currently, with no major changes expected.
· With regard to development sites, PL advised that Targetfollow (Tolworth Tower) have decided that they wish to leave the tower itself as is, but to upgrade the north block. There is a possibility of providing student accommodation here – this could be positive as there is a need, parking is not required and there are concerns about putting families in high rise buildings. Cllrs Moseley and Harris agreed with this.
· PL explained that a meeting is taking place imminently between Tesco and Roy Thompson, to discuss the high level strategy of what Tesco would like to do.
· The Draft Strategy will go to both Neighbourhood Committees – Surbiton on 17 March and South of the Borough on 24 March, followed by Executive approval on 31 March.
· PL will discuss distribution of the Strategy document with Secretariat and agreed that it could be printed in black and white.
· Cllr Moseley emphasised the importance of providing answers to the public’s concerns, particularly those regarding traffic congestion. JJ advised that the Strategy will be taken to Neighbourhood Committees with the Public Realm update, so concerns will be addressed at this stage.
· PL informed that the S106 for Red Lion Public House had not yet been approved as there are still unresolved issues regarding affordable housing – they do not have planning permission.
· Cllr George advised that he had received feedback from residents that they are confused about the difference between the overall Strategy and the Public Realm Improvements. BA explained that the Tolworth Project is being considered in two parts; the overarching Strategy for Tolworth district centre (Broadway) and how the wider Tolworth area should be revitalised as a whole, secondly the improvements to the public highway. It was noted that the Broadway concepts are those which the public could find it easier to understand. / All to Note
PL
Public Realm Improvement Update
· MG explained that the majority of his and Tom’s work recently had been in developing the design and producing models to demonstrate the existing traffic movements and the impacts involving the new design.
· MG informed that a ‘workable’ design had been submitted to TfL, who are undertaking audit work on the new proposals etc. He noted that there had been some difficulties in submitting the work as a complete submission due to communication issues. TfL have now accepted the submitted models and will be looking at them imminently – they have a 12 week period consisting of 4 weeks to review the existing traffic model and 4 weeks to review the proposed traffic model, followed by a further 4 weeks to write a report and submit this to Network Assurance.
· Cllr Moseley suggested that it would have been more useful to see a copy of the new Project Plan, detailing the slippages. This would then more easily demonstrate the consequences of slippages on other aspects of the Project. JJ agreed that a Project Plan will be shared with the whole M/OG, to show the impact of the 12 week delay period.
· MG advised that although he and PD had been consulting with TfL since October 2009 in order to better understand their requirements, further requirements were only raised by them in January 2010. MG noted that he is optimistic about the 12 week period and would hope for sign off in May. PD added that he and MG are working to get sign off and address any issues that could be raised by TfL Signals.
· With regard to cost implications, JJ confirmed that a meeting is to take place with TfL Area-Based team to discuss the implications of the delays including funding. PD noted that TfL have been going through a corporate restructure so there could have been resource issues that have resulted in the communications problems.
· JJ and PD confirmed that there is a low risk of the Project not being completed due to a lack of funding. PD noted that TfL Area based team will see Step 2 through to its conclusion and then cost implications with SEW will need to be reconsidered. MG advised that it is unlikely the project would need to be put on hold, as TfL will be asking questions to which they will need to respond. JJ added that the issue will be whether further information is required by TfL in addition to what has already been submitted.
· Cllr Moseley emphasised the need for the M/OG to be made aware of slippage and asked that they be advised of the impacts of this at the next M/OG meeting.
· PD and JJ stressed that this delay had been unavoidable as TfL were engaged from the beginning. PD noted that work is being done now to iron out the issues, though three or four weeks were lost through difficulties in organising meetings due to TfL’s restructuring process.
· JJ confirmed that Network Rail are not affected by this Project as the railway station forecourt is not included in the current project, so they will not need to be involved in the process at present.
· MG informed that modelling and site investigation are currently taking up the majority of his time. With regard to construction within the bowl, MG advised that a specification is being designed for site investigation of the bowl build-up. He has also met with TfL Structures to discuss issues regarding increasing the height of the footbridge parapets. There is a risk that the bridge element could not be delivered by the end of May. The existing bridge is on the border of head room requirements- just below standard for a footbridge- but the reality of value for money needs to be considered along with the wind loading issue. JB suggested not putting the bridge designs forward to TfL because the risk of it not being approved would be too high. PD noted that action needs to be taken as the bridge will need to be raised for the cycle route. Cllr Harris suggested that a minimum of action/treatment on the bridge would be acceptable.
· Cllrs Harris and Moseley expressed their disappointment at not having received a Project Plan. JJ apologised for this and advised that it was an oversight and not intentional. JJ noted that the risks are due to third parties and are about ‘red tape’. He will ensure that a brief summary report of issues being resolved is compiled and the Project Plan is shared with Members.
· With regard to the cost for the overall Project, TS confirmed that this is on target for £1.9m – this will be scrutinised more deeply at stage E. He advised that quotations for the lighting design scheme were more than expected, but he advised that there is sufficient contingency to allow for this.
· Cllr Moseley asked whether MG felt that amendments were needed to the design to counter the Sunray Estate’s feeling of isolation. MG confirmed that this isolation issue informed the placement of crossings between the Broadway and Estate; points raised in consultations were considered and incorporated into the design. The crossing to accommodate people coming in to the Broadway from the Sunray Estate is staggered, to enable them to join the greenway. It is also as close to the roundabout as possible, enabling it to work with existing signals. Cllr Harris noted that isolation is likely to remain an issue because of its design. Cllr George raised concern that residents of the Sunray Estate were not invited to the recent exhibition – to which it was agreed there is often difficulty in getting the consultation area right. GW added that for the Estate to be included, a questionnaire would need to be sent to all to ensure that no one is missed.
· JJ confirmed that the final stage E design is expected to be done by the end of July at the latest, allowing 4 weeks for the consultation process.
· PD advised that at the end of Stage E, there will be a rehearsal of the sign-off, to ensure that all of the right people from TfL are in place including for the Area Based Scheme funders to enable the project to be agreed to be continued to detail design.
· MG explained that RNIB were appointed to audit the scheme at key stages and will be doing a second audit over the next week or so.
· BA advised that he will be arranging a workshop or individual meetings to see views from local access groups as well as the Police.
· MG updated that a safety audit can now be commissioned – the issue will be getting the message out to people that the greenway is safe and is good practice. Cllr Harris noted that the issue remains of people not seeing the greenway as being safe. PD added that a 20mph speed limit would need to be achieved for people to feel safe there. MG noted that safety is also the reason for the bold colouring and small kerb- to encourage drivers to take more care.
· MG informed that he had met with Sustrans to discuss the shared cycle and pedestrian space and they were pleased with and supported the design. / JJ
JJ / GW
JJ
Any Other Business
· PL advised that the Autumn edition of the Landscape Journal is all about shared space. She will check this and circulate if appropriate.
· MHH asked about cycle access at the OLI end of the greenway and MG confirmed that the intention is not to promote accessing the greenway at that point - the issue is people exiting at that point. It would be hoped that they come off the greenway and sit in the advance stop line at the traffic lights and use the crossing or raised area there. PD noted that this discussion will take place at the next meeting with Sustrans and TfL. MG added that it will be part of a signalised Toucan crossing and emphasised that there have been very few recorded accidents - moreover it is an issue of perceiving the area to be dangerous.
Next Meeting:
It was agreed that the next meeting should take place after Easter, in w/c 6 April.
Cllr Moseley suggested that this would be useful to begin planning the consultation (including the Sunray Estate and other residents who were missed) and asked that this be included on the Agenda. / BA
Page 1 of 4