Minutes for Cheam North and Worcester Park Local Committee meeting, Sep 16 2010, 7.30PM official page

There were round-table introduction from councillors and community representatives.  Colin Newton was welcomed to the meeting and it was explained that he was a member of KIPPA and had a community representative application going to the next full council meeting for approval.

 

There were no apologies received.

 

The Minutes of the meeting held on 17 June 2010 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

 

Content

To receive information regarding further winter gritting arrangements for this winter.

 

Expected Outcome

That residents will feel informed as to how to get free grit and where to find their nearest grin bin.

 

Indicative time 10 minutes

Annette Madden, Executive Head of Street Scene Services, presented her briefing paper which set out the new arrangements for winter gritting this year.  The new arrangements would be publicised in October 2010.  A map was tabled showing the locations of the new grit bins.

 

In addition to the details of the briefing paper it was reported that all schools were being contacted and many, so far, had taken up the offer of the Council gritting the school car parks in return for schools gritting pavements outside the school grounds.  Sutton Arena may also be a pick up point for free grit. 

 

In response to councillor and public questions it was explained that:

• People would be encouraged to bring their own receptacles for collecting free grit, but bags could be provided.
• That any further suggestions for placement of grit bins could be emailed to the Chair or put on feedback forms available at the table.
• The 10gk of free grit was per household and not per person.
• That funding for this year was allocated and therefore would not be cut.
• There would be a publicity campaign as well as information on the council’s website, including a ‘frequently asked questions’ page and information would be distributed as residents collected the grit.
• There was limited funding for about 20 grit bins per local committee area.  Any in excess of this number could be purchased through public realm funding if agreed by the local committee.

 

Resolved: (i) To thank Annette Madden for her report.

 

(ii) To request that Annette Madden feedback to this committee if more than 20 bins had been requested in this locality.

 

(iii) That an update on grit bins comes to the next meeting of this committee in November.

 

(iv) To request that a grit bin be provided by the rising bollards for buses on the Kimpton Industrial Park.

 

Content

This committee will receive quarterly updates on issues for the Kimpton Park Industrial area following the dissolution of Kimpton Liaison Group.

 

Expected Outcome

That members and residents will be aware of any issues and suggest solutions for any potential issues arising.

 

Indicative time 15 minutes

Alex Fitzgerald, Acting Head of Asset Management, presented his briefing paper which gave updates on various aspects of the Kimpton Industrial area including the proposed S3 bus route extension, improvement works to Hamilton Avenue Recreation Ground, the linear park along Kimpton Park Way, CCTV and security and signage.

 

Colin Newton, KIPPA, explained a little about what the BID (Business Improvement District) did.  He explained that all companies on the site paid into a central funding pot and that they work with all agencies including residents, police and local authority to maintain security and good neighbourliness.  To find their website residents were encouraged to Google KIPPA BID.

 

Councillor Brendan Hudson requested that a grit bin be placed near the rising bollard where the buses are to be let through.  A member of the Kimpton Residents Action Group (KRAG) had also requested that he raise an issue regarding a white emulsion running through the Pyl Brook.

 

Alex Fitzgerald reported that there had been several concerns regarding coloured smelly water at the Pyl Brook and that the Environment Agency were conducting tests and would try to identify where pollutants were originating from and take remedial action.  Colin Newton explained that he regularly emailed all businesses regarding pollutants to the water course and would do so again.  He also explained that some drains come from further afield than the industrial site and therefore contamination may come from further afield.

 

A resident requested that where there were gates if they could be locked at night to prevent noise and vandalism.  Mark Dalzell, Head of Parks, explained that is was the council’s policy not to lock gates and that they work with the police to try to identify culprits.  Consideration to locking the gates would only take place if all other options had been considered.

 

In response to a resident question, Alex Fitzgerald explained that the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) was directly linked to the police station and not a private company.

 

            Resolved: (i) To note the report.

 

            (ii) To thank Alex Fitzgerald and Colin Newton for attending.

 

(iii) To request that a further update comes to the January 2011 meeting of this committee.

 

Content

To receive questions from members of the public on items which are not on the agenda. 

 

Expected Outcome

That residents will receive responses to their questions either at the meeting or by written response within 10 days following the meeting.

 

Indicative time 60 minutes

There were 11 public questions submitted in writing prior to the committee. 

 

Question 1 – Mrs Bostock, Hamilton Avenue

“I have a huge overgrown lime tree outside of my house and it is too big for the road. I have been told that it will not be cut back until September of next year.  On the 4 year cyclical programme it was due for cutting in April of next year but that has been put back.  The tree causes no end of mess to my windows, house and car – can it be cut back now or be removed altogether?”

 

 

Response from Mark Dalzell, Head of Parks

Trees have been a contentious issue in Stonecot and Worcester Park especially for a number of years probably due to the large lime trees in roads such as Ridge Road and huge plane trees around Worcester Park. 

 

The Council has clear policies about tree maintenance and removal.  The overall aim is to maintain and enhance the tree stock which has been reducing over the last few years, as more trees are dying than we are planting.  Trees can be removed at the request of councillors or residents, but only in exceptional circumstances and the agreement of The Executive is required before officers can order removal, unless the tree is unsafe.

 

Tree removal is usually controversial with as many residents opposed as want the removal.

 

The Parks Service maintains trees on a four year programme as stated and unfortunately the budget does not allow more frequent pruning except for H&S emergencies, where physical damage is occurring or where Insurance claims are pending, so our options are quite limited on what we can offer residents.

 

I have recently had discussions with other ward councillors interested in whether Public Realm funds can be used to deal with tree issues.  There are some possibilities.  Tree planting is allowed.  Tree maintenance is not as this is revenue not capital work.  It might be possible to fell unsuitable trees and replace them with more suitable types as part of a planned scheme.  This would need resident’s full support and approval by the Executive as well as Ward Councillor agreement.  Local Committee agreement would probably help persuade the Executive to agree the proposal.

 

            Resolved: That ward councillors would take this matter forward.

 

Question 2 – Ken Haagman on behalf of David Morgan, Friends of Sutton Common Park

A number of residents have raised the point that the work carried out in the Paddock, would seem to have made the location worse than originally, rather than improved it.  Is it possible that the paddock be returned to its original state?

 

Response by Mark Dalzell

In 2009, the North Cheam and Worcester Park Local Committee agreed to provide funding to install a new footpath across the area known as ‘The Paddock’ at Sutton Common Park to improve its accessibility for park users.  The funding was originally due to be used to install a land drain in this area to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 656.

Content

A Council officer will introduce the report which will then be discussed further and agreed following round table discussions in the next item.

 

Expected Outcome

That members will decide what action, if any, to take following officer recommendations and discussion.

 

Indicative time 15 minutes

Paul Tugwell, Traffic Engineer, gave updated information subsequently available to the dispatch of his written report.  A map was provided with the updated information shown on it.  This road was covered by two local committees and Paul Tugwell had presented this information to the Sutton Local Committee as well.

 

On 6 August 2010 a speed and volume survey was conducted along four locations within Sutton Common Road.  There were three counters within the boundary of this committee.  Speeds ranged from 32.5mph, 85^th percentile to 34.2mph, 85th percentile.  It was explained that 85^th percentile was the industry standard of measuring speed.  It was the speed up to which 85% of the traffic was travelling. 

 

Officers also looked at reported personal injury accidents (PIA) for the last three years.  For the whole length of the road there were 21 reported PIA, 18 of which were slight and 3 serious.  Eight accidents occurred at the junction with the A217.  That junction was looked after by Transport for London (TfL) so whilst the Council could not work on it, they could forward any concerns to TfL.  There were also 9 reported PIA along the northern section which comes within this local committee boundary. 

 

Whilst it was recognised that all accidents were upsetting and disappointing it needed to be noted that there were other roads, similar in length and characteristics to this one, with a higher number of accidents over the last three years.  With that in mind it would be difficult to justify a bid to TfL for funds; however, should alternative sources of funding be made available this, along with other roads in the area would be discussed during the break-out session in the next item on the agenda.

 

In response to a comment from a resident, that the traffic survey was undertaken during school holidays when traffic was quieter, Paul Tugwell responded that it was not normal practice to run surveys during school holidays but felt that he could not come to committee with no data.  He also explained that whilst traffic was lighter during school holidays this had the effect of speeding up the traffic and therefore suggested that the data available tonight was the worse case scenario.

 

Ken Haagman, community representative, commented that very often traffic surveys only look at speed when they should also look at parking and put forward that double parking occurs regularly in this location.  Paul Tugwell explained that double parking was illegal and could cause problems and was an enforcement issue.

 

Following the break-out session in the next item the following recommendations were made:

 

Resolved: (i) To thank Paul Tugwell for his report and taking part in the discussions.

 

(ii) That, at this time, the Committee resolves not to proceed with any proposals, given the insufficient justification as reported, but that due to the updated accident figures would be given future consideration.

 

Content

There will be round table discussions on the following topics:

·