Local residents have a chance to comment on the planning application for the redevelopment of the Surbiton Hospital site.
The proposals include a healthcare building and a new primary school.
You can view all the details of the application on the Council's website:
http://www.kingston.gov.uk/surbiton_hospital
You can submit your comments on the application online or by email to Development.Management@rbk.kingston.gov.uk.
You may also discuss the application with a planning officer on 020 8547 4707.
The deadline for comments is Friday 14th January. (Remember that any comments you make will be made public).
Friday, 17 December 2010
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Minutes from AGM, Thurs 7th Oct 2010
Oakhill & District Residents Association, Minutes from AGM, Thurs 7th Oct 2010
Location: Surbiton New Life Baptist Church, Langley Road
1. Introduction to the meeting & the NHS/Council representatives
Robert Lewis (OADRA Chairman) opened the meeting and introduced the representatives from Kingston NHS and Kingston Council: Ian Nixon - NHS Kingston, Beth - Kingston Council, and Sarah Campion - Head of Communications and Engagement, NHS Kingston.
(Apologies received from Anne Redpath from the Council’s Learning & Children’s Services dept; Beth would speak in her place.)
2. Presentations and Q&A with the NHS/Council representatives
Business case: Ian Nixon provided an overview of the business case, commenting that it is an affordable scheme that makes best use of the land, and it will not involve the sale of this public land, and that Kingston NHS will lease the land on the site.
Ian advised that the initiative is being worked on by NHS Kingston and Kingston Council, who identified that the best option for the site would be a school and health facility, and that they are now working with Kingston Council’s Learning & Children’s Services to submit a joint planning application.
Ian also provided an overview of the planning process to date and advised that the Council and NHS Kingston carried out a pre-application consultation in July. The next step is the submission of the full planning application, scheduled for November 2010. The review of the application is expected in February/March 2011, and it is hoped that approval will be granted by the Development Control Dept.
Need for a school: Beth provided an overview of the need for a new school and which alternative sites had been considered. It was noted that the main driver for the demand is a reported increase in birth rates of 30% in the area.
Beth also advised that the strategy was to expand many schools in the Borough, including Grand Avenue and St Matthews. However, a new school was also required.
Residents from the floor commented that this demand is only a sort term demand, driven simply by the recent economic downturn.
Beth concluded by summing up that the rationale for locating a new school on the Surbiton Hospital site was its location, budget constraints, no alternative site found meeting the constraints and budget, all of which means that the hospital site is the most viable. She described it as an “exciting opportunity”.
Consultation: Sarah Campion provided an overview of the consultation to date:
- a health questionnaire in 2009.
- a consultation on schools in March-May 2010.
- a joint (health-school) pre-planning application consultation with residents in July, and information is available via Kingston PCT Web Site (leaflets were issued to 36,000 homes).
- there will be a further consultation when the planning application is submitted.
Feedback was still being written up from the most recent consultation, but:
- 58% supported (or strongly supported) and 35% objected (or strongly objected) to the joint proposal.
- travel is the biggest concern, and there is lots of support for a new health facility and for some community use; concerns have been expressed relating to a new school.
- a Transport Working Group has been established, with OADRA is represented in that group. The average rate for children driven to school is 18%, but they would aim to achieve 10% at the new school. There would be pedestrian access at three points, and possibly a “walking bus” arrangement.
- they are working with GPs
- they are working with the Surbiton Neighbourhood Committee
- they are working with Heritage & Environment
- the next consultation will be in November when the planning application is submitted
Questions and Answers: Residents were then invited to ask questions, a detailed summary can be found in section 8 of these minutes. The key points & issues raised by residents were:
- concern raised as to whether the highest value for the land had to be achieved
- impact of parking & traffic on the area is a huge concern, and that current solutions/proposals are not practical
- residents want to see evidence that such a combination of uses on a single site (school & Polyclinic) works
- impracticality of locating both facilities on such a small location, and that far too much development (over development) is planned on such a small site and in a Conservation Area
- the approach to submit one planning application to cover both facilities was unanimously agreed to be unfair; e.g. we are unable to comment constructively if we support the Polyclinic but not the School, so the process seems biased in favour of the outcome the Council & NHS are seeking. It was noted that we were originally advised that separate planning applications would be submitted for the school and Polyclinic
- alternative locations do exist for a new school
- expansion of existing schools could equally meet the extra demand for school places
- there is a need for additional school places, but there was concern about the accuracy of the Council’s predictions; e.g. many children are born to parents in flats, but they move before children reach school age, to areas where houses cost less.
Ian Nixon took note of a number of questions from residents that he would get back to OADRA with response; these are included at the end of these meeting minutes.
Robert Lewis (OADRA Chairman) thanked the NHS and Council team for their time.
OADRA AGM Business
Robert introduced the second half of the meeting by saying that OADRA needs local people’s involvement in order to be successful. It was now needed to establish OADRA in a more formal way.
RL outlined why it was important to have an active Residents’ Association, and outlined how OADRA had, in the past year, been able to help represent residents by giving input to the planning process for various local planning proposals.
3. Financial position
Ian Wilson (Acting Treasurer) advised that the current position is £50.37, minus £25 for hire of the hall for the AGM meeting.
Robert requested that anyone wishing to sign up for membership could do that at the end of the meeting. Annual membership would be £5 per year per household – if someone joined now, their membership would last until December 2011.
4. Introduction of interim committee and purpose of OADRA
Robert introduced the interim committee: Robert Lewis - Chair, Ciaran Oates - Secretary & Web, Ian Wilson - Treasurer, and Graham Goldspring - PR & Publicity. Ian McNicol, Paul Ryan, Alan Manchester and Rosalynde Lewis had also attended some committee meetings, as well as a few others on occasions.
5. Election of Chairman/Vice Chairman/ Secretary/Treasurer/Publicity/Webmaster/Road or Area Reps (some of whom would like to serve on the committee
Robert agreed to continue as chair for 1 year after no one else offered to take on that role. All other acting committee members were elected to the same positions, with the addition of a new “Membership” role.
The OADRA Committee is now confirmed as: Chair - Robert Lewis; Secretary & Web - Ciaran Oates; Treasurer - Ian Wilson; PR & Publicity -Graham Goldspring; Membership Secretary - Ian McNicol.
The following people offered themselves as road reps:
Kingsdowne Road - Ken Wilkes
Oakhill – Josie Doe
Oakhill Cresent – Alan Manchester / Paul Allen
Downs View Lodge and Palmerston Court, both in Oakhill Road - Ian Wilson
Langley Road - Rosalyne Lewis
Ann Brown – Kingswood Close
Graham Goldspring – Oakhill Road
Mary Hazletine – Glenbuck Road
Catherine Hunt – Oakhill Grove
Nena Foreman – Southbank Terrace
Paul Ryan – Pandora Court
Ann Brown offered to help with advice on the planning side, being a member of the Conservation Area Consultative Committee.
Ciaran commented that it was necessary to focus on big planning issues throughout the whole area covered by OADRA.
RL: Road reps need to try to get others involved in OADRA.
Ciaran: one of the challenges for the committee members is having OADRA representation at meetings. Therefore he suggested a ‘satellite committee’ of others who would be willing to attend committee meetings and help progress things, carry out research, etc.
6. Areas of concern and actions for OADRA
- It was noted there was no update on the planning application for the Police Federation Site
- No additional major areas of concern were raised
A developer (Mark Pearce) reported that he had been interested in making a proposal to acquire the surplus land not required by the Polyclinic and build a nursing home on it – in view of ‘bed blocking’ at Kingston Hospital and original land use. He did not agree with Ian Nixon’s assertion that the best partner for the Polyclinic was a school. A nursing home would provide a good use of the land, and be suitable next to a Polyclinic.
RL asked Mark to come to a future OADRA committee meeting as this was an interesting suggestion.
Paul Johnson: the issue of community beds in the area is a key one. When Surbiton Hospital closed for in-patients, some of the demand was taken up by Tolworth Hospital. It cannot be guaranteed that TH will continue indefinitely. He wished Mark success in his effort to provide more bed capacity in the Surbiton area.
RL: proposed the question – Can we find an alternative site for a new school, assuming it is needed?
There was a brief exchange of view about several sites, including the Hollyfield Road site and Police Federation Building (although it was understood the latter was most likely to be converted into flats).
7. Meeting close and membership enrolment/subscriptions
- The meeting closed at 9.15 pm. We recorded approximately 50 people attended
- We had 12 new members join the association
8. Detailed summary of Q&A session
Former local councillor Nick Kilby said that he was familiar with the history of the proposal. When Clive had been involved (former NHS CEO?) he had been told that the highest value for the land had to be achieved. He asked if this was still the case – i.e. would the Council purchase the land from the NHS at the highest market value – probably the value that could be achieved for housing? NK also reported that he had asked David Smith (NHS Kingston CEO) why there would not be two separate planning applications, but DS had not replied.
Ian Nixon replied that the District Valuer sets the price re. such land sales. The plan had now changed, and the NHS intends to lease the land to the Council, under a 125-year lease agreement. He said he would seek to obtain a reply from DS to the latter question.
NK noted that the two planned projects are quite different ‘beasts’ which will have quite different impacts on the neighbourhood.
IN said that the preferred option was for community development alongside the polyclinic, and the Council and NHS had identified a school as the best option.
C Oates: Questionnaires had been structured badly and difficult to comment on both constructively, would be better if there were 2 applications, one for school and one for Poly Clinic.
I Nixon: it will be one joint planning application. He agreed to convey the concerns raised back to officials.
C Oates suggested a quick poll be taken of those in the room about whether it should be one or two planning applications. All but one person voted in favour of 2 planning applications (48 votes to 1).
Paul Johnson (local councillor 1998-2010) said that he had been repeatedly assured that there would be two planning applications. Clive had also told him that the school would pay “top dollar” to the NHS to purchase the site. He said that other community uses could and should be considered. And he asked about covenants on the land. He said that the impact on the community should be assessed in the context of the impact of other local schools. E.g. there were problems at Christ Church School in Berrylands, where parents parking disturbs local residents, and there are problems at School Lane.
I Nixon said there was on-going discussion about the possibility of staggered start times for schools, so that the drop-off time for the new school may not coincide with other schools close by.
Resident: Where would the drop-off take place?
Beth: It would not be along the Ewell Road. Possible drop-off points were being looked at. It was thought there could be suitable drop-off sites up to five minutes walk away from the new school.
R Lewis: asked where exactly? Were actual studies of this underway?
I Nixon: re. the covenant question. All he could say was that the NHS will put them to its solicitors and will send OADRA the response soon.
Resident: A Surbiton resident of 71 years: my parents helped build the Hospital. Who actually owns the land?
I Nixon: The Secretary of State for Health owns the land.
Resident: Please come and see the traffic problems outside Christ Church School in Berrylands.
Resident: Why can’t Maple Road School be expanded further? It is a very popular school, along a main road with good access.
Beth: I will check this out.
Mary Clark: Are there examples of this combination of school and hospital already built anywhere?
Resident: I have experience with this particular architect. He was unable to measure an angle of 45 deg, and when queried he never got back to us.
Sarah Campion: There will be a planning consultation at the planning application stage. This will be Council led.
Ann Brown (Conservation Area Consultative Committee): We were told we were not allowed to comment on the proposal because “it is a health issue”. The site is in a Conservation Area. The Council MUST pay attention to the character of the area. The proposal is for the site to be over-developed.
There may be more babies being born here, but the families tend to move on quickly. She therefore thinks the Council’s figures are wrong about the number of school places required. The new rules on housing benefit and the economic recession will both contribute to there being less children of reception age living in the immediate area of the new school site. Is it worth destroying the heart of the Conservation Area if the school may well not be actually needed?
Having children playing on a school roof if not a fit solution for a 21st Century school!
Beth: re. numbers, we get the numbers given to us. Many couples cannot afford houses not, and so live in flats.
I Nixon: I will check the figures and publicise them.
Resident: The site is too small for a school. There are other suitable sites. What about the enormous site on the other side of Tolworth Roundabout for example? This could be ideal for a large new school.
I Nixon: If you mean the former MOD site along the A3, this is not in the needy area for school places. He was not aware of any progress of development there. [It seems the lady was referring to “St. George’s fields” rather than the MOD site]
I Nixon: Creating play areas on a roof is considered good use of available space.
R Lewis: What about the staff parking issue? What is the transport plan for staff? Surely providing no parking at the new school would limit recruitment to very local people? Is that even legal, and surely would mean the best staff may not be able to be recruited.
There was some debate among the speakers about whether the latest proposal was for 4 staff parking spaces to be provided. It seems the plan has recently changed.
R Lewis: I am not convinced by your response.
Resident: We are desperate to a local school for our child. We do not have a car, and do not want to buy a car. In this area a lot of people do not own a car.
Resident: Would expansion of Maple Road School be a solution for you.
Resident: Yes, I will take whatever is given; I just want a school place for my child.
Rosalynde Lewis: My children went to Grand Avenue School. This has a large site. We had parents even park in our driveway at that time. The local Council is not facing up to the facts.
Beth: both Grand Avenue and St. Matthew’s are being expanded, along with other local schools across the Borough.
Resident: will service vehicles access the Polyclinic or new school via Southbank Terrace?
I Nixon: I will get you an answer about that.
Paul Ryan: I want to know about this too, because of living on the corner of Southbank and the Ewell Road. That junction is already very busy, particularly at morning rush hour with commuters going down to the Surbiton Station car park.
R Lewis: we need to end this part of the meeting. One other item I know is of concern to local residents is the future of No. 1 Oakhill, the large Victorian house that would be demolished to make way for a new school. Preserving that would help the concerns about conservation.
9. Tracey Reader (NHS Kingston, Communications) has supplied responses to Questions Raised on 7th October 2010
Why is the planning application being submitted jointly?
It has long been NHS Kingston’s aim to redevelop the Surbiton Hospital site using a joint partnership approach, to ensure the best use of space for both the health facilities and any other community partners willing to share the site and the redevelopment costs – in this case the Royal Borough of Kingston for the provision of a primary school.
We also sought advice from the Planning Authority which strongly recommended that a joint planning application be submitted. The adopted Planning Performance Agreement (as agreed by Development Control Committee) also advocates that the proposals be dealt with in a single, comprehensive planning application.
The same design team has worked on both parts of the development and by sharing this work we have been able to:
• reduced the costs of the application by sharing surveys;
• ensure that public access, circulation space and additional space for community use has been incorporated into the site in the most appropriate and effective way (avoiding duplication and design restrictions due to fixed boundaries);
• deliver efficiencies through shared infrastructure, servicing and facilities management;
• realise aspirations to create a sustainable development in terms of building design, energy usage and reducing car dependency;
• create a focal point for the local community and the promotion of health, learning and education in the widest sense.
It is also proposed that the healthcare building and the school be constructed at the same time to minimise the impact on residents and capitalise on the economies this could bring. It is therefore important that planning be granted together in order for the development to move on to the next phase.
What measures are being considered to minimise the impact of service vehicles on Southbank Terrace?
As part of the joint development NHS Kingston and Kingston Council will create a combined waste storage site for use by both buildings at the back of the site to reduce the number of vehicle movements in this connection and ensure an efficient as possible waste collection service is provided.
Waste collections for the current hospital site already occur via Southbank Terrace. It is expected that the current level of service will remain the same in order to service the new health facilities and the school. Waste management policies will help reduce in future waste arising from the provision of services.
Based on data from other schools in the borough it is anticipated there will be one delivery a day for school meals and one a week for Breakfast club by a Light Goods Vehicle (LGV) - which will be made via Southbank Terrace.
Most health related deliveries will be made via Ewell Road and this is expected to show only a small increase on the existing number - currently being approximately 2 deliveries per day in light goods vehicles.
Oak Hill Road will experience a reduction in service vehicles since those vehicles currently accessing the Oak Hill Health Centre will no longer be required once those GPs move to the new building.
Why is Maple Infant School not being expanded?
Maple Infant school accepted a bulge class in 2008/9, pupils of which will then transfer to adjacent St Mark’s and St Andrew’s for junior provision. Further expansion of these junior places would not meet the local need for community non-selective spaces as St Mark’s and St Andrew’s is a Church of England School and technical complexities and subsequent cost implications make the further expansion of Maple Infants unfeasible.
Are there examples of schools and health facilities sharing the same site?
Yes, the Platt Bridge Community First Development in Wigan which was opened in 2007 by Tony Blair is an excellent example of healthcare, education and community facilities sharing the same site, the development combines;
• A community school formed from the amalgamation of two primary schools
• An integrated children’s centre providing full day care for babies and toddlers and early education for three and four year olds
• A family centre to support families experiencing difficulties
• Children’s and adult’s libraries providing lifelong learning courses
• A housing office providing estate management, homeless advice, and tenant participation
• Healthcare centre with services including GP partnership, diagnostic and therapy services
Havering Council and Havering PCT are currently developing a scheme similar to ours with a Primary School and healthcare building adjacent. Tower Hamlets Council are co-locating a new health and community centre opposite the newly re-built St Paul’s Way School and who are working with the school to promote healthy living.
Are there examples of primary schools meeting the 10% driving target?
Latest data as of 10th October 2010
Alexandra Infant School - 8.1%
Latchmere Junior School - 9.1%
St Luke's CE Primary - 6.9%
St John's CE Primary - 6.8%
St John's CE Primary - 6.8%
Maple Infant School - 10%
Is rooftop play space a crazy idea?
Roof top play has been a solution to providing outside learning space in built up areas since Victorian times and has become increasingly more common in recent school design as space and land costs are at a premium. As well as providing additional outside learning space these roof top spaces provide an inspirational back drop for young people, in the case of the new school in Surbiton students would be able to experience first hand the beautiful canopy of mature trees which surround the site.
Following the pre-planning consultation the scope of the rooftop play has been scaled back from a large open area to four separate play decks which would support individual classes for outside learning as well as maximising space and providing an inspirational setting.
Examples of schools, both old and new with rooftop play include the award winning Hampden Gurney School, Bridge Academy, Dallington School, Sharrow School and Rooftops Nursery.
Can there be another transport working group before the application is submitted so that residents can see the figures from the impact assessment?
Yes, a meeting to present the findings of the traffic impact assessment will be held prior to submission of the planning application as follows:
Wednesday 10th November - 7pm, Surbiton Hospital, Turner Ward
Please RSVP to Tracy Reader (details below) so that we can provide an appropriate number of facilitators to support the meeting.
As the Surbiton Hospital car park is not usually operational during the evening, please could anyone needing a car parking space close to the hospital entrance let us know so that we can arrange for the barrier to be lifted for you.
Sunday, 31 October 2010
Report from Heritage Working Group meeting at Surbiton Hospital on 26 October 2010 at 11am
Graham Goldspring kindly gave up some of his time to attend this on behalf of OADRA, here is his write up to keep you all informed:
The aim of this meeting was to get opinions as to what should be put into the new site and building for the new hospital (apparently 'polyclinic' as a term as been removed) in the way of a garden or area to display the commemoration plaques, some of the original brick work, and other memorabilia from the current building which was constructed in the 1930s. They talk as setting this up WHEN (not IF) the redevelopment gets under way.
The centre of the hospital building will have an open garden courtyard and the commemorative plaques and dedicated benches be put there. The front entrance gates and lamps will be restored and preserved. Maybe there will also be a 'memory' garden near the main entrance.
Marcus Ballard (representing the company which has put together the business plan for the re-development) confirmed that the joint planning application for the re-development will be issued on the RBK website on 19th November. So, time is now very short.
There will be also an application for Conservation Consent to demolish No. Oakhill (Elmside). The case for its demolition in the interests of the whole site development (!!) is being made by Alan Baxter Associates, who are Heritage Buildings' consultants. The Victorian Society has sent a letter to Marcus Ballard objecting to the demolition of Elmside (No.1 Oakhill), suggesting it could be used as part of the school if that goes ahead.
The report from the Transport Working group needs to be part of the planning application. So the follow-up meeting to the one held at the beginning of this month will not be January but around 15 November.
The covenant issue relates only to a large area of land where the school is proposed. Ian Nixon of the NHS stated that there is no record of who owns the covenant presently. According to Marcus Ballard, someone needs to produce proof that he/she has inherited a covenant from anyone listed in the Land registry title deeds. If not, then the chain is broken and the covenant is not enforceable. At the moment, there is no evidence there is an unbroken chain. However, other information from legal sources seems to indicate that the covenant is on the land and cannot expire unless the Land Registry has received an application to extinguish it.
The plan of the site now shows soft grass and sand playing areas around the school at ground level and a cycle/pedestrian track where the position of Elmside is at the moment.
The number of parking spaces for the new hospital is now 69: only half are for long stay (1 hr), about a quarter medium stay (30 minutes) and about 20% short stay. There are also 2-3 bays for patient carrier vehicles and disabled transport.
The aim of this meeting was to get opinions as to what should be put into the new site and building for the new hospital (apparently 'polyclinic' as a term as been removed) in the way of a garden or area to display the commemoration plaques, some of the original brick work, and other memorabilia from the current building which was constructed in the 1930s. They talk as setting this up WHEN (not IF) the redevelopment gets under way.
The centre of the hospital building will have an open garden courtyard and the commemorative plaques and dedicated benches be put there. The front entrance gates and lamps will be restored and preserved. Maybe there will also be a 'memory' garden near the main entrance.
Marcus Ballard (representing the company which has put together the business plan for the re-development) confirmed that the joint planning application for the re-development will be issued on the RBK website on 19th November. So, time is now very short.
There will be also an application for Conservation Consent to demolish No. Oakhill (Elmside). The case for its demolition in the interests of the whole site development (!!) is being made by Alan Baxter Associates, who are Heritage Buildings' consultants. The Victorian Society has sent a letter to Marcus Ballard objecting to the demolition of Elmside (No.1 Oakhill), suggesting it could be used as part of the school if that goes ahead.
The report from the Transport Working group needs to be part of the planning application. So the follow-up meeting to the one held at the beginning of this month will not be January but around 15 November.
The covenant issue relates only to a large area of land where the school is proposed. Ian Nixon of the NHS stated that there is no record of who owns the covenant presently. According to Marcus Ballard, someone needs to produce proof that he/she has inherited a covenant from anyone listed in the Land registry title deeds. If not, then the chain is broken and the covenant is not enforceable. At the moment, there is no evidence there is an unbroken chain. However, other information from legal sources seems to indicate that the covenant is on the land and cannot expire unless the Land Registry has received an application to extinguish it.
The plan of the site now shows soft grass and sand playing areas around the school at ground level and a cycle/pedestrian track where the position of Elmside is at the moment.
The number of parking spaces for the new hospital is now 69: only half are for long stay (1 hr), about a quarter medium stay (30 minutes) and about 20% short stay. There are also 2-3 bays for patient carrier vehicles and disabled transport.
Sunday, 24 October 2010
Planning Meeting - 3rd November
These are the planning applications which are up for review on the 3rd of November at the next planning meeting, 7.30 pm Dysart School 190 Ewell Road:
10/16343/FUL 178 Ewell Road
10/16094/COND Tudor Lodge, 8 Oakhill Road
10/16180/FUL 15-19 Langley Road
To check the details, go to: http://maps.kingston.gov.uk/isis_main/planning/planning_search.aspx
and then type in the first 2 parts of the reference, eg. 10/16343
We hope to see you there
10/16343/FUL 178 Ewell Road
10/16094/COND Tudor Lodge, 8 Oakhill Road
10/16180/FUL 15-19 Langley Road
To check the details, go to: http://maps.kingston.gov.uk/isis_main/planning/planning_search.aspx
and then type in the first 2 parts of the reference, eg. 10/16343
We hope to see you there
Petition for separate planning applications for the polyclinic and the school
A show of hands at the AGM showed that a substantial majority of residents attending wanted to see separate planning applications for the Poly clinic and School.
A petition has now been started, and doors are being knocked this week in our area to ask for signatures. If you are missed out and wish to sign, please use the "comment" facility at the bottom of this message to add your name and address.
Many thanks for your support with this issue,
OADRA Committee
To: The Worshipful the Mayor and Councillors of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames
Re: Planning Applications to build a Polyclinic and a Primary School on the site of Surbiton Hospital
We, the undersigned residents of Surbiton, while acknowledging the need for additional provision of Primary School places in Surbiton, petition the Council to treat the Planning Applications for these two buildings as separate issues on the grounds that:
- A polyclinic and a school are two completely separate uses for the site, to be carried on in two completely separate buildings, each raising planning issues proper to itself
- The addition of a 446 pupil school to a polyclinic will lead to increased traffic movements and congestion in Oakhill and South Bank Terrace, contrary to Policy S13 of the Unitary Development Plan, First Alteration, and
- Will thereby adversely affect the amenity of local residents contrary to Policy H1 of the UDP.
A petition has now been started, and doors are being knocked this week in our area to ask for signatures. If you are missed out and wish to sign, please use the "comment" facility at the bottom of this message to add your name and address.
Many thanks for your support with this issue,
OADRA Committee
To: The Worshipful the Mayor and Councillors of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames
Re: Planning Applications to build a Polyclinic and a Primary School on the site of Surbiton Hospital
We, the undersigned residents of Surbiton, while acknowledging the need for additional provision of Primary School places in Surbiton, petition the Council to treat the Planning Applications for these two buildings as separate issues on the grounds that:
- A polyclinic and a school are two completely separate uses for the site, to be carried on in two completely separate buildings, each raising planning issues proper to itself
- The addition of a 446 pupil school to a polyclinic will lead to increased traffic movements and congestion in Oakhill and South Bank Terrace, contrary to Policy S13 of the Unitary Development Plan, First Alteration, and
- Will thereby adversely affect the amenity of local residents contrary to Policy H1 of the UDP.
Friday, 1 October 2010
Agenda for AGM at 8pm Thursday 7th Oct at the Surbiton (New Life) Baptist Church in Langley Road
Draft agenda for AGM, 8 p.m. on Thursday 7th October 2010, at the Surbiton (New Life) Baptist Church in Langley Road. We aim to finish at 9.30pm.
Agenda
1. Introduction to the meeting & the NHS/Council representatives - 5 minutes 8.05 -8.10
2. Presentation and Q&A with the NHS/Council representatives - 30minutes 8.10-8.40
3. Introduction of interim committee and purpose of OADRA - 10 minutes 8.40-8.50
4. Financial position - 5 minutes 8.50-8.55
4. Election of Chairman/Vice Chairman/ Secretary/Treasurer/
Publicity/Webmaster/Road or Area Reps(some of whom would like
to serve on the committee - 20minutes 8.55-9.15
5. Areas of concern and actions for OADRA - 15minutes 9.15-9.30
- Surbiton Station maintenance
6. Meeting close and membership enrolment/subscriptions
Agenda
1. Introduction to the meeting & the NHS/Council representatives - 5 minutes 8.05 -8.10
2. Presentation and Q&A with the NHS/Council representatives - 30minutes 8.10-8.40
3. Introduction of interim committee and purpose of OADRA - 10 minutes 8.40-8.50
4. Financial position - 5 minutes 8.50-8.55
4. Election of Chairman/Vice Chairman/ Secretary/Treasurer/
Publicity/Webmaster/Road or Area Reps(some of whom would like
to serve on the committee - 20minutes 8.55-9.15
5. Areas of concern and actions for OADRA - 15minutes 9.15-9.30
- Surbiton Station maintenance
6. Meeting close and membership enrolment/subscriptions
INITIAL CONSTITUTION - DRAFT
OAKHILL AND DISTRICT RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION
INITIAL CONSTITUTION
DRAFT
1. The Association shall be known initially as the Oakhill and District Residents’ Association (OADRA), although this name could change as the area covered by the Association is more clearly defined
2. Area covered initially shall be that area enclosed by Kingsdowne Road (odd numbers): Ewell Road (even numbers) down to and including South Terrace: the side of the railway track at the rear of Surbiton Station and Upper Brighton Road (even numbers). This area seems to share many common potential problems. If any of the areas specified (e.g. Kingsdowne Road) already have a RA, they shall be invited to be associated.
3. The Objectives of the Association is to be non party political representative of the collective interests and concerns of the residents of the area covered and to act as a focus of these interests to Local Councillors, the Borough Council, the London Assembly, the Police, Planning Inspectorate on planning appeals etc. It will attempt to liaise with other like minded Residents’ Associations on items of Borough wide interest.
4. Membership will be open to any current resident within the area, without any discrimination.
The Committee can invite people to be Associate Members if they are not resident in the area, but whose interests are bound up with the Association e.g shop owners and businesses along Ewell Road, schools.
5. Membership fees will be set at the AGM of the Association
6. Committee will be elected at the AGM of the Association and will consist of Chairman: Vice Chairman: Secretary (and if necessary Minutes Secretary): Treasurer: a Representative from each road or area (large block of flats) Other members may be co-opted as required by the Committee; for example it may be desirable to have a Web Site Manager.
The initial Committee will be those members who have expressed an interest in the formation of the Association
7. Meetings. The Association will aim to meet about every eight weeks. All members of the Association are invited to attend, speak and vote on matters arising. Notification of future meetings will be given at the first meeting of the Association, which will be deemed to be the Annual General Meeting of the Association.
The committee will meet on a regular basis to be determined.
Local Councillors and service people may be invited to attend these meetings, if it is deemed by the Committee that they can assist the Association.
8. Revised Constitution will be drawn up by the new committee following the first AGM to be approved at an EGM
9. Rules of Procedure. With the exception of changes to the Constitution, all decisions taken at any meeting will be by simple majority of votes of those present and entitled to vote, with the Chairman, who will not normally have a vote, having a casting vote in the case of a tied vote. All motions should have a proposer and seconder.
Amendments to the Constitution should be given to the Secretary of the Association at least 7 days before the AGM or EGM at which it is to be proposed. This should be circulated, ideally by e-mail to all members. Any amendment to the Constitution will require a 75% majority of those present and eligible to vote
10. Finances An account will be maintained on behalf of the Association at a bank/building society approved by the Committee. Signatories to the cheques will be the Treasurer and one of any three other members of the Committee approved by it. Complete records of accounts will be maintained by the Treasurer and will be available in time for the AGM. All monies raised by the Association will be used solely for the use of the Association and as approved by the Committee.
11. Dissolution may be resolved at a Special General Meeting of the Association called for by at least 20 members of the Association. If the Association is so dissolved any funds residing in the Association will be donated to a charitable organisation chosen at that meeting
February 2010
Feel free to add any comments or questions
INITIAL CONSTITUTION
DRAFT
1. The Association shall be known initially as the Oakhill and District Residents’ Association (OADRA), although this name could change as the area covered by the Association is more clearly defined
2. Area covered initially shall be that area enclosed by Kingsdowne Road (odd numbers): Ewell Road (even numbers) down to and including South Terrace: the side of the railway track at the rear of Surbiton Station and Upper Brighton Road (even numbers). This area seems to share many common potential problems. If any of the areas specified (e.g. Kingsdowne Road) already have a RA, they shall be invited to be associated.
3. The Objectives of the Association is to be non party political representative of the collective interests and concerns of the residents of the area covered and to act as a focus of these interests to Local Councillors, the Borough Council, the London Assembly, the Police, Planning Inspectorate on planning appeals etc. It will attempt to liaise with other like minded Residents’ Associations on items of Borough wide interest.
4. Membership will be open to any current resident within the area, without any discrimination.
The Committee can invite people to be Associate Members if they are not resident in the area, but whose interests are bound up with the Association e.g shop owners and businesses along Ewell Road, schools.
5. Membership fees will be set at the AGM of the Association
6. Committee will be elected at the AGM of the Association and will consist of Chairman: Vice Chairman: Secretary (and if necessary Minutes Secretary): Treasurer: a Representative from each road or area (large block of flats) Other members may be co-opted as required by the Committee; for example it may be desirable to have a Web Site Manager.
The initial Committee will be those members who have expressed an interest in the formation of the Association
7. Meetings. The Association will aim to meet about every eight weeks. All members of the Association are invited to attend, speak and vote on matters arising. Notification of future meetings will be given at the first meeting of the Association, which will be deemed to be the Annual General Meeting of the Association.
The committee will meet on a regular basis to be determined.
Local Councillors and service people may be invited to attend these meetings, if it is deemed by the Committee that they can assist the Association.
8. Revised Constitution will be drawn up by the new committee following the first AGM to be approved at an EGM
9. Rules of Procedure. With the exception of changes to the Constitution, all decisions taken at any meeting will be by simple majority of votes of those present and entitled to vote, with the Chairman, who will not normally have a vote, having a casting vote in the case of a tied vote. All motions should have a proposer and seconder.
Amendments to the Constitution should be given to the Secretary of the Association at least 7 days before the AGM or EGM at which it is to be proposed. This should be circulated, ideally by e-mail to all members. Any amendment to the Constitution will require a 75% majority of those present and eligible to vote
10. Finances An account will be maintained on behalf of the Association at a bank/building society approved by the Committee. Signatories to the cheques will be the Treasurer and one of any three other members of the Committee approved by it. Complete records of accounts will be maintained by the Treasurer and will be available in time for the AGM. All monies raised by the Association will be used solely for the use of the Association and as approved by the Committee.
11. Dissolution may be resolved at a Special General Meeting of the Association called for by at least 20 members of the Association. If the Association is so dissolved any funds residing in the Association will be donated to a charitable organisation chosen at that meeting
February 2010
Feel free to add any comments or questions
Response to our questions on the proposed Polyclinic and school from NHS Kingston Communications
Response from NHS Kingston Communications to key questions raised by Oakhill and District Residents Association on the proposed Polyclinic and new Primary school
Why is a new school needed in Surbiton?
For the purposes of School Place Planning, Kingston is divided into four planning areas, based on the Royal Borough of Kingston’s Neighbourhood areas as follows:
• Kingston Town (encompassing central and north Kingston)
• Maldens and Coombe (Old and New Malden and Coombe)
• Surbiton (Surbiton, Berrylands and Tolworth)
• South of the Borough (Chessington and Hook)
In recent years, Surbiton (along with the north of the Borough) is an area where growth in demand for places has been particularly strong.
Demand for school places in Surbiton:
The number of school aged pupils resident in the Surbiton area has grown substantially in recent years. A rise in the birth rate, along with a range of other factors (including more families with young families moving into the area) has led to a greater proportion of the school aged population applying for a state school place.
There are currently 405 permanent primary places per year group in the Surbiton area. Since September 2008 this capacity has been insufficient.
As the Local Authority has a statutory duty to provide a school place to all resident children who require one, Kingston Council has sought temporary increases in the number of children admitted into reception year in a number of schools. This has been achieved through the provision of ‘bulge’ classes and temporary classrooms being placed at certain schools in September 2008, 2009 and 2010. These ‘bulge’ year groups will work their way through the seven years of primary school, thus continuing to need the additional temporary classrooms until the pupils transfer to secondary school in 2015, 2016 and 2017. Further additional 'bulge' year groups are also needed for pupils starting primary school in September 2011 onwards. The ‘bulge’ classes have been added to the following schools:
2008/09:
• Maple Infants – 30 places (transfer to St Andrews & St Marks Junior in 2011)
• Christ Church Primary – 30 places
2009/10
• Maple Infants – 30 places (transfer to St Andrews & St Marks Junior in 2012)
• Grand Avenue Primary – 30 places
• St Matthew’s Primary – 45 places
2010/11:
• Grand Avenue Primary – 30 places
• St Matthew’s Primary – 15 places
• Other additional places in schools close to the Surbiton area
Anticipating and addressing demand over the coming years:
Kingston Council subscribes to the Greater London Authority School Rolls Projection service and receives draft forecasts on population projections and numbers of children who will require a school place. This is complemented by examining live birth data from the Office of National Statistics and other information such as registrations with local GP’s, demand for early years places and popularity of local schools. Forecasts on numbers of places are produced from population projections for each of the Kingston Neighbourhood areas and these take account of all the above variable factors, including future housing developments. Kingston Council updates it pupil forecasts twice a year to ensure that they remain up to date and accurate taking into account all of the latest information.
This data indicates that over the next few years, in addition to filling the current 405 school places in Surbiton, there will be approximately 91 additional four year olds requiring a school place each year in the area.
Kingston Council is therefore planning to create an additional 105 permanent school places in the Surbiton area bringing the level of primary capacity from 13.5 forms of entry to 17 forms of entry. This will provide sufficient places for local children to attend a primary school in their local community.
2011/12
From 2011/12 there are proposals to formally expand Grand Avenue by 30 permanent places per year group and St Matthew’s by 15 permanent places per year group – which provides 45 of the anticipated 105 additional places needed. The other 60 additional Reception Year places will be provided through a further year of ‘bulges’ at 2 other Surbiton schools, with the cohort likely to transfer to the new Surbiton school in September 2014 at the end of Year 2 (age 7).
2012/13
The new primary school in Surbiton will provide 60 new school places per year group – providing 105 new permanent places in total in the Surbiton area.
2013/14 onwards
It is difficult to predict demand for primary places for children who have not been born yet, however based on general population growth in the Borough and the number of women of child bearing age living in the area, we forecast that the number of live births over the next 5-7 years will be sustained at a level consistent with the general 25 – 30% rise in the birth rate that has been seen between 2001 – 2009. Therefore, the projection of demand for the Surbiton area is that there will be a sustained need for the additional 105 new places per year group currently being introduced.
Catchment area for the new school in Surbiton:
The Local Authority is bound by the Schools Admissions Code and cannot set a defined catchment area for the school. However, for all new schools the Local Authority is required to establish an outline specification for the school - part of this will state that the school must provide places for children in the Surbiton area. Since we know that the demand for additional school places comes from children living close to Surbiton town centre we would expect, subject to the outcome of the School Competition process, that the majority of pupils will live within easy walking distance of the school – most within half a mile and all within one mile.
Alternative sites which have been considered in Surbiton:
A comprehensive Borough-wide search of potential sites for a new primary school was undertaken. In Surbiton this included: -
• King Charles Centre
• Allotments in Surbiton and Tolworth
• Surbiton Station
• Police Federation Site
• Newent House, Browns Road, linked with vacant land at rear (owned by health)
• Surbiton Tennis Club, backing on to Christ Church Primary
• Surbiton Station site, Glenbuck Road
• TA site, Portsmouth Road
• Paragon Place/Grove (several adjoining properties)
These sites were not appropriate because either:
• they are too small for a two-form entry primary school;
• planning policy designation mitigated against their development as a school;
• there was no possibility of delivering a new school within a reasonable timeframe.
The Surbiton Hospital site provides the only opportunity to deliver additional school places for September 2012 when additional capacity in the Surbiton town area is urgently required.
The Local Authority also discussed with St Matthew’s School a number of potential options for further expansion of the school – included extending it to three-form entry. The outcome of these discussions was agreement to consult on the proposal to expand the school to two-form entry. Subsequently a Public Notice to expand St Matthew’s to two-form entry has been published and a planning application submitted to create an extension to the school that will enable them to accommodate an additional 105 pupils (i.e. 15 per year group x 7 years).
It is worth noting that the Southwark Diocese does not currently have any all-through primary schools of three-form entry in its’ area (although the Diocese has worked with Kingston Council to support the expansion of St Pauls Junior school to 3fe).
There are limited other possibilities; Christ Church Primary is already two-form entry, and at Maple Infants the expansion options are limited due to current planning policy and government guidelines about space per pupil.
If the new health facilities are NOT built on the Surbiton Hospital site (given the Government cut backs and that a new Polyclinic is not necessarily a high priority) where then would a school be built?
NHS Kingston and the Local Authority are confident that recent government announcements will not have a detrimental impact on the deliverability of this project.
The new health facilities in Surbiton are, and have always been, focused on the needs of the local community and on putting GPs at the centre of the community healthcare provision. This is in keeping with the recent Health White Paper, which also specifies the need for future health services to be community focused and GP led.
At the heart of our healthcare proposals is the multi-benefit solution to:
a. re-provide the out-dated and under-utilised buildings at Surbiton Hospital, whilst retaining some of the history and heritage of the old buildings;
b. provide new premises for local GP practices - many of which have a substantial need for both expanded and modernised facilities;
c. bring a number of community health services together under one roof to provide a more cost-efficient and effective service to the local community.
The new development therefore continues to be a high priority for NHS Kingston.
However, should this project not proceed for some reason, the Local Authority would need to make some difficult choices in further exploring the limited alternative options for providing additional primary school places in the Surbiton area.
Details regarding the new school:
The new school in Surbiton will provide places for 420 primary pupils, across 7 year groups (Reception + Years 1-6), plus 26 places for pre-school nursery children each morning and afternoon.
1. What is the estimated number of cars that will be involved, twice daily, for this number of children?
Taking into account the likelihood that many pupils will live within very close proximity to the site (meaning the quickest way to access the site will be on foot) the current intention is that the new Surbiton Primary School will aim for a car modal share (the percentage of pupils who travel to school by car) of no more than 10%.
It will be our intention through the school travel plan and work with new parents from the admissions process onwards, to ensure that this 10% car usage is the worst-case scenario.
When the school is at full capacity of 446 children (420 primary and 26 nursery) this would amount to around 44-45 pupils travelling by car. Since many of these children will be travelling with one or more siblings, or via a child minding and / or lift share arrangement, the number of cars involved is anticipated to be more in the region of 30-35 cars, twice daily.
For those children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) attending the school it is likely that transport may be provided as part of their Statement of SEN. The site will have disabled parking available for the transport of these pupils and so their transport will not impact on the residential roads around the site.
For the remaining car trips, the transport team is currently working with the local community (via a transport working group) to establish the best solutions for managing this process. The focus of our work currently involves the possibility of setting up 3-4 park and walk sites, close to the various entranceways to the site. More details on this will be provided as part of the planning application submission and the statutory consultation that goes with it.
Since we are starting afresh with the new Surbiton school and will be able to work with parents to influence behaviour before any pattern becomes ingrained, we believe our 10% target is achievable based on the fact that the borough average (at April 2010) was 18% of pupils travelling by car.
Putting this into context with other local schools in Surbiton, the current car modal share at St Matthews Primary School is 20% - currently 67 cars on an average day. This school has a target to reduce car use to 16% by 2015. Already the school has been successful in decreasing car trips to the school by 8% in the last year and continues to work towards less car travel for the journey to and from school. It is also worth noting that as a Church of England School St, Matthews typically has a wider catchment than for Kingston Community schools.
It is likely that the catchment area of the school will be less than one mile as this is commonly the case within the Royal Borough of Kingston, indeed most primary children in the borough live within half a mile of the school they attend. This will put the school within a walkable distance for the majority of pupils and parents and through the travel plan an ethos of walking to school will be in place from the start. The benefit of this is that unlike St Matthews, were we are dealing with travel habits that are ingrained, at the new Surbiton Primary we will have the chance to engage with parents before those habits have begun. As the intake to the school will be staggered with just one additional year group each year we will have more time to devote to each group of parents in terms of assisting them with planning safe routes to walk and cycle to school.
As a new school with all the facilities that come with that, it is anticipated that it will be a popular choice with parents and this factor will also serve to keep the catchment area local, as a distance criteria will be implemented where places are over-subscribed. Until the provider of the new school has been selected it will be difficult to be more exact about the catchment or potential car traffic to the site, as faith schools such as St Matthews have wider catchment areas than Local Authority primary schools. Once the school provider has been agreed, a further analysis of travel behaviours at comparable schools will be undertaken.
2. Where will the entrances to the school be located and how will the traffic implications impact on these roads?
The main entrance to the school will be at heart of the site - meaning easy and convenient access from multiple approach points - via Ewell Road, Oak Hill, the woodland footpath from the station, and South Bank Terrace. All four routes will be car free at the point of access for children - although vehicle access into these areas will remain for residents of South Bank Terrace, no.2 Oak Hill (which also has vehicular access at the rear) and to the health building from Ewell Road.
3. Can parents driving their children to school use the entrance closest to Ewell Road, alongside the health facilities, to relieve pressure on residential areas?
Yes, the main entrance to the school will be accessible via a footpath leading directly from Ewell Road. Our Travel Plan is focused on putting in place a rigorous process to ensure that schools traffic around the entrance to the site is kept to a minimum and that the flow of vehicles to and from the site is effectively managed.
The transport team is currently working with the local community (via a transport working group) to establish the best solutions for managing this process.
The focus of our work currently involves the possibility of setting up 3-4 park and walk sites, close to the various entranceways to the site. More details on this will be provided as part of the planning application submission and the statutory consultation that goes with it.
4. What about playground space and sports facilities?
Some of the site plans have not made it clear where playground space has been allocated – and the option to incorporate social, curriculum and play space on the roof has raised concerns that there is insufficient outdoor space for 420 pupils + 26 nursery children. There is however a range of hard and soft surface play areas situated around the school for pupils to use at playtimes. An outdoor area on the roof would provide additional space for certain outdoor learning activities and / or break times (e.g. older pupils lunch area). This would be secure with an 1800m high safety glass secure fencing with a brick parapet around the perimeter of the roof.
The search of potential sites for a new primary school identified no sites that could have provided a new school with attached playing fields for Year 3-6 pupils. The Local Authority is required to ensure that there is a nominated playing field available for any school without on-site playing fields. There are a number of primary schools in the Borough that access sports facilities away from the main school site. Examples of these include Latchmere, Fern Hill, St Paul’s Junior, St Joseph’s and King Athelstan. Similarly, the new school in Surbiton could access other local playing fields, or there may be a possibility of accessing another school’s facilities although this will need to be the subject of discussions.
Details regarding the health facilities:
1. How many GP practices are likely to move to the new health facilities and what space will they occupy? Are GPs choosing whether or not to move?
Seven practices are looking to relocate to the new health building - including three currently located at Oakhill Health Centre. Lengthy discussions have taken place with all senior partners in Surbiton about whether or not they wish to move. An eighth practice has also expressed interest and a further three Surbiton GP practices have indicated that they do not intend to move. Approx 1,900 sq.m of floor space will be allocated to the seven GP practices (including corridors, wcs, offices, stores etc.).
2. How will the move of GP practices affect the travel time and ease of access for patients?
The three GP practices currently located at the Oakhill Health Centre represent 26,000 of the 39,000 patients registered with the seven practices planning to move. NHS Kingston has plotted point of origin maps for all patients relative to the GP practice they currently attend. This makes it clear that many patients are passing the Surbiton Hospital site to access their current surgery. The Needs Assessment studies used for planning new health services also make it clear that many patients are travelling out of the area to access GP services. While some patients may decide to move practice, an equal number are likely to decide to stop travelling out and register with a relocated practice.
3. Will patients be able to see the GP of their choice within an acceptable appointment time? What is considered acceptable?
Yes: this is about retaining individual practice identities whilst increasing the availability of appointments across the day and week and providing an extended range of services. There will, as a consequence be a reduction in the peak Monday and Tuesday activity caused by limited opening times and appointment availability.
4. What treatments and consultation services will be available? Has the whole range yet been identified as published?
Services will follow an ‘Integrated Healthcare Model’, where GP and community services, integrated social care teams, outpatient and consultant services are provided alongside each other in a co-ordinated and integrated way.
Services include:
• GPs and Practice Nurses
• Phlebotomy (blood tests)
• Diagnostics, including X-ray and ultra sound and visits by mobile unit for mammograms
• Community services – physiotherapy/podiatry etc.
• Community dentistry
• Outpatient and consultant lead services
• Minor operations
• Urgent Care – an alternative to going to Kingston A+E for minor illness
• Health Visitors and District Nurses
Details relating to both buildings / the community space:
It has been stated that there will not be any parking facility for staff. Is this really feasible? How will it impact on recruiting good staff?
Under revised designs for the site a small amount of staff parking has been accommodated and this is continuing to be reviewed as we work towards towards the final planning application. As part of staff recruitment a number of policies will be employed which will include:
• local recruitment where possible, particularly for part time positions
• promotion of season ticket loans for public transport (dependent on school provider / employer)
• promotion of tax free incentives to purchase bicycles
• a strong active travel policy has been shown in workplaces to act as an incentive to prospect staff and this is something that the school and health services will promote and encourage.
Are there any examples of where health facilities and a school have worked so close together? What research has been done on the implications of placing a school so close to a health building? What is the measure of the separation?
There are successful examples nationwide where a campus approach is taken to develop health facilities adjoining primary schools / children’s centres. This is most common when new housing is planned and the infrastructure is planned into the new estates - however, the management issues of the joint facilities are the same as will be present on the Surbiton site.
While the two building will share the same site at Surbiton, they will have complimentary needs in respect of walking, cycling and travel by bus. They will have discrete needs in terms of car trips: parking at the health building will be linked to scheduled activity (i.e. visits by appointment or arrangement) and flexibility in terms of unscheduled care (when someone just turns up). The Travel Plan will be key in managing the demand for and impact of unscheduled activity.
The current peaks in activity associated with health (due to several GPs operating surgeries during the same limited hours) will be smoothed as a result of extended hours of opening, a greater range of available appointments times and a one-stop services - where more aspects of each patients needs are dealt with in a single visit.
School and patient transport services (i.e. by pre booked taxi or minibus) can be managed through the barrier on Ewell Road. Car trips for the school will, by their nature, be limited to the morning and afternoon drop-off/pickup times. In the former case, the Travel Plan will see the school being able to receive children at agreed drop off points (by definition, those who drive are most likely to be in a hurry and seeking to complete a longer journey).
The healthcare facility and school will have separate entrances and be linked by a proposed community space. Secure pedestrian routes to the school will have no adverse implications for patients attending the healthcare facility.
How will the building plans incorporate the fact that the area is in a conservation area, which includes Victorian houses and many preserved trees?
A historic buildings adviser has been appointed and English Heritage consulted. Ecology and tree experts have surveyed the site and assessed how best to retain its valuable characteristics. The development must ‘preserve or enhance’ the character of the conservation area.
The important trees and mature boundary planting will be preserved. The Lodge and entrance gates on Ewell Road will be restored to their former high streetscape value. No.3 Oak Hill will be restored and converted back to residential use.
Since all buildings within the conservation area are viewed as heritage assets in the character of the conservation area, proposals that involve demolition should be considered in the context of possible ‘harm’ to that character (harm being the test for whether something ‘preserves’ character).
The loss of no.1 Oak Hill would not, in the opinion of the historic buildings adviser lead to demonstrable harm to the character of the conservation area. Well-designed buildings, set amongst the mature planting on the site would preserve the character of the conservation area. The value of a proposal in terms of public good is also relevant. Renewal of the hospital and provision of a primary school for the neighbourhood would be of high public value.
Have or will the Emergency Services been consulted about the ease of access to the school and the health facilities?
Liaison is via Transport for London and Kingston Council (as highway manager). Access for all blue light services is a priority. The Local Ambulance Service has been consulted about ambulances. No ambulances would be expected to visit the site except in an emergency relating to the site itself (i.e. off-site ambulance calls will be dealt with via Kingston Hospital). In an on-site emergency, either the main entrance barrier can be lifted, or access will be available via South Bank Terrance. Incidence of ambulance calls to a school or health building is rare. The site is accessible from three directions for police, fire and rescue services.
Will the Community use be free or chargeable? Currently community use in schools is quite expensive unless one is running a business.
We are using the current consultation to find out how the buildings could best be put to community use. How these plans are put in place will be the decision of the school and health practitioners who end up on the site, but we would not expect this to result in expensive fees.
The Surbiton Neighbourhood Committee will also continue to work with the eventual users of the site to assist in the process of managing the future relationship between the occupants of the building and the members of the community seeking to use it.
----------------------------------------------------
Feel free to add any comments or questions
Why is a new school needed in Surbiton?
For the purposes of School Place Planning, Kingston is divided into four planning areas, based on the Royal Borough of Kingston’s Neighbourhood areas as follows:
• Kingston Town (encompassing central and north Kingston)
• Maldens and Coombe (Old and New Malden and Coombe)
• Surbiton (Surbiton, Berrylands and Tolworth)
• South of the Borough (Chessington and Hook)
In recent years, Surbiton (along with the north of the Borough) is an area where growth in demand for places has been particularly strong.
Demand for school places in Surbiton:
The number of school aged pupils resident in the Surbiton area has grown substantially in recent years. A rise in the birth rate, along with a range of other factors (including more families with young families moving into the area) has led to a greater proportion of the school aged population applying for a state school place.
There are currently 405 permanent primary places per year group in the Surbiton area. Since September 2008 this capacity has been insufficient.
As the Local Authority has a statutory duty to provide a school place to all resident children who require one, Kingston Council has sought temporary increases in the number of children admitted into reception year in a number of schools. This has been achieved through the provision of ‘bulge’ classes and temporary classrooms being placed at certain schools in September 2008, 2009 and 2010. These ‘bulge’ year groups will work their way through the seven years of primary school, thus continuing to need the additional temporary classrooms until the pupils transfer to secondary school in 2015, 2016 and 2017. Further additional 'bulge' year groups are also needed for pupils starting primary school in September 2011 onwards. The ‘bulge’ classes have been added to the following schools:
2008/09:
• Maple Infants – 30 places (transfer to St Andrews & St Marks Junior in 2011)
• Christ Church Primary – 30 places
2009/10
• Maple Infants – 30 places (transfer to St Andrews & St Marks Junior in 2012)
• Grand Avenue Primary – 30 places
• St Matthew’s Primary – 45 places
2010/11:
• Grand Avenue Primary – 30 places
• St Matthew’s Primary – 15 places
• Other additional places in schools close to the Surbiton area
Anticipating and addressing demand over the coming years:
Kingston Council subscribes to the Greater London Authority School Rolls Projection service and receives draft forecasts on population projections and numbers of children who will require a school place. This is complemented by examining live birth data from the Office of National Statistics and other information such as registrations with local GP’s, demand for early years places and popularity of local schools. Forecasts on numbers of places are produced from population projections for each of the Kingston Neighbourhood areas and these take account of all the above variable factors, including future housing developments. Kingston Council updates it pupil forecasts twice a year to ensure that they remain up to date and accurate taking into account all of the latest information.
This data indicates that over the next few years, in addition to filling the current 405 school places in Surbiton, there will be approximately 91 additional four year olds requiring a school place each year in the area.
Kingston Council is therefore planning to create an additional 105 permanent school places in the Surbiton area bringing the level of primary capacity from 13.5 forms of entry to 17 forms of entry. This will provide sufficient places for local children to attend a primary school in their local community.
2011/12
From 2011/12 there are proposals to formally expand Grand Avenue by 30 permanent places per year group and St Matthew’s by 15 permanent places per year group – which provides 45 of the anticipated 105 additional places needed. The other 60 additional Reception Year places will be provided through a further year of ‘bulges’ at 2 other Surbiton schools, with the cohort likely to transfer to the new Surbiton school in September 2014 at the end of Year 2 (age 7).
2012/13
The new primary school in Surbiton will provide 60 new school places per year group – providing 105 new permanent places in total in the Surbiton area.
2013/14 onwards
It is difficult to predict demand for primary places for children who have not been born yet, however based on general population growth in the Borough and the number of women of child bearing age living in the area, we forecast that the number of live births over the next 5-7 years will be sustained at a level consistent with the general 25 – 30% rise in the birth rate that has been seen between 2001 – 2009. Therefore, the projection of demand for the Surbiton area is that there will be a sustained need for the additional 105 new places per year group currently being introduced.
Catchment area for the new school in Surbiton:
The Local Authority is bound by the Schools Admissions Code and cannot set a defined catchment area for the school. However, for all new schools the Local Authority is required to establish an outline specification for the school - part of this will state that the school must provide places for children in the Surbiton area. Since we know that the demand for additional school places comes from children living close to Surbiton town centre we would expect, subject to the outcome of the School Competition process, that the majority of pupils will live within easy walking distance of the school – most within half a mile and all within one mile.
Alternative sites which have been considered in Surbiton:
A comprehensive Borough-wide search of potential sites for a new primary school was undertaken. In Surbiton this included: -
• King Charles Centre
• Allotments in Surbiton and Tolworth
• Surbiton Station
• Police Federation Site
• Newent House, Browns Road, linked with vacant land at rear (owned by health)
• Surbiton Tennis Club, backing on to Christ Church Primary
• Surbiton Station site, Glenbuck Road
• TA site, Portsmouth Road
• Paragon Place/Grove (several adjoining properties)
These sites were not appropriate because either:
• they are too small for a two-form entry primary school;
• planning policy designation mitigated against their development as a school;
• there was no possibility of delivering a new school within a reasonable timeframe.
The Surbiton Hospital site provides the only opportunity to deliver additional school places for September 2012 when additional capacity in the Surbiton town area is urgently required.
The Local Authority also discussed with St Matthew’s School a number of potential options for further expansion of the school – included extending it to three-form entry. The outcome of these discussions was agreement to consult on the proposal to expand the school to two-form entry. Subsequently a Public Notice to expand St Matthew’s to two-form entry has been published and a planning application submitted to create an extension to the school that will enable them to accommodate an additional 105 pupils (i.e. 15 per year group x 7 years).
It is worth noting that the Southwark Diocese does not currently have any all-through primary schools of three-form entry in its’ area (although the Diocese has worked with Kingston Council to support the expansion of St Pauls Junior school to 3fe).
There are limited other possibilities; Christ Church Primary is already two-form entry, and at Maple Infants the expansion options are limited due to current planning policy and government guidelines about space per pupil.
If the new health facilities are NOT built on the Surbiton Hospital site (given the Government cut backs and that a new Polyclinic is not necessarily a high priority) where then would a school be built?
NHS Kingston and the Local Authority are confident that recent government announcements will not have a detrimental impact on the deliverability of this project.
The new health facilities in Surbiton are, and have always been, focused on the needs of the local community and on putting GPs at the centre of the community healthcare provision. This is in keeping with the recent Health White Paper, which also specifies the need for future health services to be community focused and GP led.
At the heart of our healthcare proposals is the multi-benefit solution to:
a. re-provide the out-dated and under-utilised buildings at Surbiton Hospital, whilst retaining some of the history and heritage of the old buildings;
b. provide new premises for local GP practices - many of which have a substantial need for both expanded and modernised facilities;
c. bring a number of community health services together under one roof to provide a more cost-efficient and effective service to the local community.
The new development therefore continues to be a high priority for NHS Kingston.
However, should this project not proceed for some reason, the Local Authority would need to make some difficult choices in further exploring the limited alternative options for providing additional primary school places in the Surbiton area.
Details regarding the new school:
The new school in Surbiton will provide places for 420 primary pupils, across 7 year groups (Reception + Years 1-6), plus 26 places for pre-school nursery children each morning and afternoon.
1. What is the estimated number of cars that will be involved, twice daily, for this number of children?
Taking into account the likelihood that many pupils will live within very close proximity to the site (meaning the quickest way to access the site will be on foot) the current intention is that the new Surbiton Primary School will aim for a car modal share (the percentage of pupils who travel to school by car) of no more than 10%.
It will be our intention through the school travel plan and work with new parents from the admissions process onwards, to ensure that this 10% car usage is the worst-case scenario.
When the school is at full capacity of 446 children (420 primary and 26 nursery) this would amount to around 44-45 pupils travelling by car. Since many of these children will be travelling with one or more siblings, or via a child minding and / or lift share arrangement, the number of cars involved is anticipated to be more in the region of 30-35 cars, twice daily.
For those children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) attending the school it is likely that transport may be provided as part of their Statement of SEN. The site will have disabled parking available for the transport of these pupils and so their transport will not impact on the residential roads around the site.
For the remaining car trips, the transport team is currently working with the local community (via a transport working group) to establish the best solutions for managing this process. The focus of our work currently involves the possibility of setting up 3-4 park and walk sites, close to the various entranceways to the site. More details on this will be provided as part of the planning application submission and the statutory consultation that goes with it.
Since we are starting afresh with the new Surbiton school and will be able to work with parents to influence behaviour before any pattern becomes ingrained, we believe our 10% target is achievable based on the fact that the borough average (at April 2010) was 18% of pupils travelling by car.
Putting this into context with other local schools in Surbiton, the current car modal share at St Matthews Primary School is 20% - currently 67 cars on an average day. This school has a target to reduce car use to 16% by 2015. Already the school has been successful in decreasing car trips to the school by 8% in the last year and continues to work towards less car travel for the journey to and from school. It is also worth noting that as a Church of England School St, Matthews typically has a wider catchment than for Kingston Community schools.
It is likely that the catchment area of the school will be less than one mile as this is commonly the case within the Royal Borough of Kingston, indeed most primary children in the borough live within half a mile of the school they attend. This will put the school within a walkable distance for the majority of pupils and parents and through the travel plan an ethos of walking to school will be in place from the start. The benefit of this is that unlike St Matthews, were we are dealing with travel habits that are ingrained, at the new Surbiton Primary we will have the chance to engage with parents before those habits have begun. As the intake to the school will be staggered with just one additional year group each year we will have more time to devote to each group of parents in terms of assisting them with planning safe routes to walk and cycle to school.
As a new school with all the facilities that come with that, it is anticipated that it will be a popular choice with parents and this factor will also serve to keep the catchment area local, as a distance criteria will be implemented where places are over-subscribed. Until the provider of the new school has been selected it will be difficult to be more exact about the catchment or potential car traffic to the site, as faith schools such as St Matthews have wider catchment areas than Local Authority primary schools. Once the school provider has been agreed, a further analysis of travel behaviours at comparable schools will be undertaken.
2. Where will the entrances to the school be located and how will the traffic implications impact on these roads?
The main entrance to the school will be at heart of the site - meaning easy and convenient access from multiple approach points - via Ewell Road, Oak Hill, the woodland footpath from the station, and South Bank Terrace. All four routes will be car free at the point of access for children - although vehicle access into these areas will remain for residents of South Bank Terrace, no.2 Oak Hill (which also has vehicular access at the rear) and to the health building from Ewell Road.
3. Can parents driving their children to school use the entrance closest to Ewell Road, alongside the health facilities, to relieve pressure on residential areas?
Yes, the main entrance to the school will be accessible via a footpath leading directly from Ewell Road. Our Travel Plan is focused on putting in place a rigorous process to ensure that schools traffic around the entrance to the site is kept to a minimum and that the flow of vehicles to and from the site is effectively managed.
The transport team is currently working with the local community (via a transport working group) to establish the best solutions for managing this process.
The focus of our work currently involves the possibility of setting up 3-4 park and walk sites, close to the various entranceways to the site. More details on this will be provided as part of the planning application submission and the statutory consultation that goes with it.
4. What about playground space and sports facilities?
Some of the site plans have not made it clear where playground space has been allocated – and the option to incorporate social, curriculum and play space on the roof has raised concerns that there is insufficient outdoor space for 420 pupils + 26 nursery children. There is however a range of hard and soft surface play areas situated around the school for pupils to use at playtimes. An outdoor area on the roof would provide additional space for certain outdoor learning activities and / or break times (e.g. older pupils lunch area). This would be secure with an 1800m high safety glass secure fencing with a brick parapet around the perimeter of the roof.
The search of potential sites for a new primary school identified no sites that could have provided a new school with attached playing fields for Year 3-6 pupils. The Local Authority is required to ensure that there is a nominated playing field available for any school without on-site playing fields. There are a number of primary schools in the Borough that access sports facilities away from the main school site. Examples of these include Latchmere, Fern Hill, St Paul’s Junior, St Joseph’s and King Athelstan. Similarly, the new school in Surbiton could access other local playing fields, or there may be a possibility of accessing another school’s facilities although this will need to be the subject of discussions.
Details regarding the health facilities:
1. How many GP practices are likely to move to the new health facilities and what space will they occupy? Are GPs choosing whether or not to move?
Seven practices are looking to relocate to the new health building - including three currently located at Oakhill Health Centre. Lengthy discussions have taken place with all senior partners in Surbiton about whether or not they wish to move. An eighth practice has also expressed interest and a further three Surbiton GP practices have indicated that they do not intend to move. Approx 1,900 sq.m of floor space will be allocated to the seven GP practices (including corridors, wcs, offices, stores etc.).
2. How will the move of GP practices affect the travel time and ease of access for patients?
The three GP practices currently located at the Oakhill Health Centre represent 26,000 of the 39,000 patients registered with the seven practices planning to move. NHS Kingston has plotted point of origin maps for all patients relative to the GP practice they currently attend. This makes it clear that many patients are passing the Surbiton Hospital site to access their current surgery. The Needs Assessment studies used for planning new health services also make it clear that many patients are travelling out of the area to access GP services. While some patients may decide to move practice, an equal number are likely to decide to stop travelling out and register with a relocated practice.
3. Will patients be able to see the GP of their choice within an acceptable appointment time? What is considered acceptable?
Yes: this is about retaining individual practice identities whilst increasing the availability of appointments across the day and week and providing an extended range of services. There will, as a consequence be a reduction in the peak Monday and Tuesday activity caused by limited opening times and appointment availability.
4. What treatments and consultation services will be available? Has the whole range yet been identified as published?
Services will follow an ‘Integrated Healthcare Model’, where GP and community services, integrated social care teams, outpatient and consultant services are provided alongside each other in a co-ordinated and integrated way.
Services include:
• GPs and Practice Nurses
• Phlebotomy (blood tests)
• Diagnostics, including X-ray and ultra sound and visits by mobile unit for mammograms
• Community services – physiotherapy/podiatry etc.
• Community dentistry
• Outpatient and consultant lead services
• Minor operations
• Urgent Care – an alternative to going to Kingston A+E for minor illness
• Health Visitors and District Nurses
Details relating to both buildings / the community space:
It has been stated that there will not be any parking facility for staff. Is this really feasible? How will it impact on recruiting good staff?
Under revised designs for the site a small amount of staff parking has been accommodated and this is continuing to be reviewed as we work towards towards the final planning application. As part of staff recruitment a number of policies will be employed which will include:
• local recruitment where possible, particularly for part time positions
• promotion of season ticket loans for public transport (dependent on school provider / employer)
• promotion of tax free incentives to purchase bicycles
• a strong active travel policy has been shown in workplaces to act as an incentive to prospect staff and this is something that the school and health services will promote and encourage.
Are there any examples of where health facilities and a school have worked so close together? What research has been done on the implications of placing a school so close to a health building? What is the measure of the separation?
There are successful examples nationwide where a campus approach is taken to develop health facilities adjoining primary schools / children’s centres. This is most common when new housing is planned and the infrastructure is planned into the new estates - however, the management issues of the joint facilities are the same as will be present on the Surbiton site.
While the two building will share the same site at Surbiton, they will have complimentary needs in respect of walking, cycling and travel by bus. They will have discrete needs in terms of car trips: parking at the health building will be linked to scheduled activity (i.e. visits by appointment or arrangement) and flexibility in terms of unscheduled care (when someone just turns up). The Travel Plan will be key in managing the demand for and impact of unscheduled activity.
The current peaks in activity associated with health (due to several GPs operating surgeries during the same limited hours) will be smoothed as a result of extended hours of opening, a greater range of available appointments times and a one-stop services - where more aspects of each patients needs are dealt with in a single visit.
School and patient transport services (i.e. by pre booked taxi or minibus) can be managed through the barrier on Ewell Road. Car trips for the school will, by their nature, be limited to the morning and afternoon drop-off/pickup times. In the former case, the Travel Plan will see the school being able to receive children at agreed drop off points (by definition, those who drive are most likely to be in a hurry and seeking to complete a longer journey).
The healthcare facility and school will have separate entrances and be linked by a proposed community space. Secure pedestrian routes to the school will have no adverse implications for patients attending the healthcare facility.
How will the building plans incorporate the fact that the area is in a conservation area, which includes Victorian houses and many preserved trees?
A historic buildings adviser has been appointed and English Heritage consulted. Ecology and tree experts have surveyed the site and assessed how best to retain its valuable characteristics. The development must ‘preserve or enhance’ the character of the conservation area.
The important trees and mature boundary planting will be preserved. The Lodge and entrance gates on Ewell Road will be restored to their former high streetscape value. No.3 Oak Hill will be restored and converted back to residential use.
Since all buildings within the conservation area are viewed as heritage assets in the character of the conservation area, proposals that involve demolition should be considered in the context of possible ‘harm’ to that character (harm being the test for whether something ‘preserves’ character).
The loss of no.1 Oak Hill would not, in the opinion of the historic buildings adviser lead to demonstrable harm to the character of the conservation area. Well-designed buildings, set amongst the mature planting on the site would preserve the character of the conservation area. The value of a proposal in terms of public good is also relevant. Renewal of the hospital and provision of a primary school for the neighbourhood would be of high public value.
Have or will the Emergency Services been consulted about the ease of access to the school and the health facilities?
Liaison is via Transport for London and Kingston Council (as highway manager). Access for all blue light services is a priority. The Local Ambulance Service has been consulted about ambulances. No ambulances would be expected to visit the site except in an emergency relating to the site itself (i.e. off-site ambulance calls will be dealt with via Kingston Hospital). In an on-site emergency, either the main entrance barrier can be lifted, or access will be available via South Bank Terrance. Incidence of ambulance calls to a school or health building is rare. The site is accessible from three directions for police, fire and rescue services.
Will the Community use be free or chargeable? Currently community use in schools is quite expensive unless one is running a business.
We are using the current consultation to find out how the buildings could best be put to community use. How these plans are put in place will be the decision of the school and health practitioners who end up on the site, but we would not expect this to result in expensive fees.
The Surbiton Neighbourhood Committee will also continue to work with the eventual users of the site to assist in the process of managing the future relationship between the occupants of the building and the members of the community seeking to use it.
----------------------------------------------------
Feel free to add any comments or questions
Tuesday, 28 September 2010
Questions we have raised with the representatives from the NHS and Council on the proposed Polyclinic and new Primary school
1. How is the Kingston area divided for the purpose of primary education?
2. In which area is the current suggestion for a new school placed?
3. What is the current demand within this area for school places and how many places are available?
4. Is there a current shortage and how is this being dealt with at the present time?
5. What is the current projection of demand for the next 5-7 years and on what is it based?
6. Is the catchment area for the proposed two form entry primary school the whole of that given in 2. above or is it a more precise area?
7. Given that a two form entry will be 60 youngsters for each year group, leading to about 420 for the school and an additional 41 if one includes the nursery and SEN provision, what is your estimate of the number of cars that will be involved twice a day? On what are these figures based? For examples how many cars are involved twice a day at St Matthew’s, a one and a half form entry school?
8. What alternative sites have been studied and what are the financial and time considerations compared with building next to a Polyclinic?
9. Are there any examples of where a polyclinic and school have worked so close together?
10. The assumption has been made that a school could be built on the Surbiton hospital site land adjacent to a new Polyclinic. Given the Government cut backs and that a new Polyclinic is not necessarily a very high priority, if the new Polyclinic does not proceed, the demand for school places will not have gone away, where then would a school be built?
11. Given that St Matthews is just increasing from a 1.5 to 2 form entry and given the extent of its land, could this be increased to a 3 from entry? Is there another school which could do the same? We understand that the Church Authorities are against further expansion on their site. Given the stated dire need would further discussions be helpful?
12. If a Polyclinic and school are built on the Surbiton Hospital site and referring to the published briefing document:
a) How will the plans incorporate the fact that the area is in a conservation area, which includes Victorian houses and many preserved trees?
b) Will the entrances to the school be in Oakhill how will the traffic implications raised in 7 above, impact on these road?
c) There is an entrance to the school on the plan via the Ewell Road adjoining the entrance to the Polyclinic? Can this be used for the main entrance, given that it is stated that very few children will come via by car. This will relieve the pressure on the residential areas?
d) It has been stated that there will not be any parking facility for staff. Is this really feasible. How will it impact on recruiting good staff?
e) Have or will the Emergency Services been consulted about the ease of access to the school and the Polyclinic?
f) The school is proposed to be built without any sports facilities and the playground facilities are o the roof. It has been stated that many schools (how many?) in the Borough have no sports facilities for football, rounders, short tennis, athletics. Surely this is bad planning to build such a school omitting items all vital in early day schooling. How secure is a playground on the roof and what is the access, especially for physically handicapped children and staff?
g) What research has been done on the implications of placing a school so close to a Polyclinic? What is the measure of the separation?
h) Will the Community use be free or chargeable? Currently community use in schools is quite expensive unless one is running a business.
13. Given that a Polyclinic is built:
a) How many GP practices will be moved to the new Polyclinic and how will this affect the travelling time and ease of access of patients wishing to see their GP’s Will GP’s have a choice whether they move or not?
b) What is the proportion of space that will be devoted to GP’s? It suggests the whole of the ground floor. How many practices will that hold?
c) Will patients be able to see the GP of their choice within an acceptable appointment time? What is considered acceptable?
d) What treatments and consultation services will be available? Has the whole range yet been identified as published?
2. In which area is the current suggestion for a new school placed?
3. What is the current demand within this area for school places and how many places are available?
4. Is there a current shortage and how is this being dealt with at the present time?
5. What is the current projection of demand for the next 5-7 years and on what is it based?
6. Is the catchment area for the proposed two form entry primary school the whole of that given in 2. above or is it a more precise area?
7. Given that a two form entry will be 60 youngsters for each year group, leading to about 420 for the school and an additional 41 if one includes the nursery and SEN provision, what is your estimate of the number of cars that will be involved twice a day? On what are these figures based? For examples how many cars are involved twice a day at St Matthew’s, a one and a half form entry school?
8. What alternative sites have been studied and what are the financial and time considerations compared with building next to a Polyclinic?
9. Are there any examples of where a polyclinic and school have worked so close together?
10. The assumption has been made that a school could be built on the Surbiton hospital site land adjacent to a new Polyclinic. Given the Government cut backs and that a new Polyclinic is not necessarily a very high priority, if the new Polyclinic does not proceed, the demand for school places will not have gone away, where then would a school be built?
11. Given that St Matthews is just increasing from a 1.5 to 2 form entry and given the extent of its land, could this be increased to a 3 from entry? Is there another school which could do the same? We understand that the Church Authorities are against further expansion on their site. Given the stated dire need would further discussions be helpful?
12. If a Polyclinic and school are built on the Surbiton Hospital site and referring to the published briefing document:
a) How will the plans incorporate the fact that the area is in a conservation area, which includes Victorian houses and many preserved trees?
b) Will the entrances to the school be in Oakhill how will the traffic implications raised in 7 above, impact on these road?
c) There is an entrance to the school on the plan via the Ewell Road adjoining the entrance to the Polyclinic? Can this be used for the main entrance, given that it is stated that very few children will come via by car. This will relieve the pressure on the residential areas?
d) It has been stated that there will not be any parking facility for staff. Is this really feasible. How will it impact on recruiting good staff?
e) Have or will the Emergency Services been consulted about the ease of access to the school and the Polyclinic?
f) The school is proposed to be built without any sports facilities and the playground facilities are o the roof. It has been stated that many schools (how many?) in the Borough have no sports facilities for football, rounders, short tennis, athletics. Surely this is bad planning to build such a school omitting items all vital in early day schooling. How secure is a playground on the roof and what is the access, especially for physically handicapped children and staff?
g) What research has been done on the implications of placing a school so close to a Polyclinic? What is the measure of the separation?
h) Will the Community use be free or chargeable? Currently community use in schools is quite expensive unless one is running a business.
13. Given that a Polyclinic is built:
a) How many GP practices will be moved to the new Polyclinic and how will this affect the travelling time and ease of access of patients wishing to see their GP’s Will GP’s have a choice whether they move or not?
b) What is the proportion of space that will be devoted to GP’s? It suggests the whole of the ground floor. How many practices will that hold?
c) Will patients be able to see the GP of their choice within an acceptable appointment time? What is considered acceptable?
d) What treatments and consultation services will be available? Has the whole range yet been identified as published?
Tuesday, 14 September 2010
Annual General Meeting - 8 p.m. Thursday 7th October 2010
OAKHILL & DISTRICT RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION (OADRA)
The Annual General Meeting will be held at 8 p.m. on Thursday 7th October 2010, at the Surbiton (New Life) Baptist Church in Langley Road
The previous meeting was held on 25th July and was attended by more than 40 people, representing many of the roads that OADRA aims to cover. We hope that many more people will come to our AGM, and be willing to become involved in events in our area. Your attendance will give us some idea if an Association is still required.
Since its inception, the interim committee has had several meetings and helped to represent local residents on:
• Planning enforcement at Tudor Lodge (on-going)
• Plans for a Polyclinic and Primary School on the Surbiton Hospital site
(OADRA will be represented on the transport study group)
• Refurbishment of Surbiton Station
• Plans for the Police Federation building.
There may be other local issues of importance to you, that OADRA could become involved with; but we need you let us know which issues affect you.
The email address to contact us on is: oakhilldra@gmail.com or oakhilldra@googlemail.com
We try to keep this website updated with our latest activities.
We now need to formalise the Association, and plan to elect the following officers to take it forward: Chairman, Vice Chairman, Treasurer, Secretary, Membership Secretary, Publicity Officer, Webmaster
We also need people who are prepared to represent their road or blocks of flats, when we need to distribute information, or to collect subscriptions.
We are proposing that the first year’s subscriptions will run until December 31st 2011, and thereafter all subscriptions will be from 1st January to 31st December. It was agreed at the last general meeting that subscriptions should be £5 per household. As you will understand, a modest amount of funding is needed in order for OADRA to function effectively.
If you could spare the time to be involved, either on the committee or as a helper, please let us know beforehand or at the meeting. Thank you.
Representatives from the NHS and Kingston Council will be present for ½ hour from 8pm to answer your questions and hear your comments on the proposed Polyclinic and new Primary school. So, if you are for or against the Surbiton Hospital site being used for:
- A Polyclinic
- A Primary School
- A Polyclinic and Primary School
Come along and let your views be known, so that your committee and key decision-makers will know what people in Oakhill and District would like to see built.
----------------------------------------------------
Feel free to add any comments or questions.............................
The Annual General Meeting will be held at 8 p.m. on Thursday 7th October 2010, at the Surbiton (New Life) Baptist Church in Langley Road
The previous meeting was held on 25th July and was attended by more than 40 people, representing many of the roads that OADRA aims to cover. We hope that many more people will come to our AGM, and be willing to become involved in events in our area. Your attendance will give us some idea if an Association is still required.
Since its inception, the interim committee has had several meetings and helped to represent local residents on:
• Planning enforcement at Tudor Lodge (on-going)
• Plans for a Polyclinic and Primary School on the Surbiton Hospital site
(OADRA will be represented on the transport study group)
• Refurbishment of Surbiton Station
• Plans for the Police Federation building.
There may be other local issues of importance to you, that OADRA could become involved with; but we need you let us know which issues affect you.
The email address to contact us on is: oakhilldra@gmail.com or oakhilldra@googlemail.com
We try to keep this website updated with our latest activities.
We now need to formalise the Association, and plan to elect the following officers to take it forward: Chairman, Vice Chairman, Treasurer, Secretary, Membership Secretary, Publicity Officer, Webmaster
We also need people who are prepared to represent their road or blocks of flats, when we need to distribute information, or to collect subscriptions.
We are proposing that the first year’s subscriptions will run until December 31st 2011, and thereafter all subscriptions will be from 1st January to 31st December. It was agreed at the last general meeting that subscriptions should be £5 per household. As you will understand, a modest amount of funding is needed in order for OADRA to function effectively.
If you could spare the time to be involved, either on the committee or as a helper, please let us know beforehand or at the meeting. Thank you.
Representatives from the NHS and Kingston Council will be present for ½ hour from 8pm to answer your questions and hear your comments on the proposed Polyclinic and new Primary school. So, if you are for or against the Surbiton Hospital site being used for:
- A Polyclinic
- A Primary School
- A Polyclinic and Primary School
Come along and let your views be known, so that your committee and key decision-makers will know what people in Oakhill and District would like to see built.
----------------------------------------------------
Feel free to add any comments or questions.............................
Friday, 30 July 2010
Stakeholders' meeting re Surbiton Hospital site
15 July 2010 14:20
To: OADRA
Subject: Stakeholders' meeting re Surbiton Hospital site
To Oakhill Residents.
I went to the stakeholders meeting at Surbiton Hospital on Tuesday regarding the proposed plans for the site. Below is a list of main points which I have gathered. Tracy Reader, who is the liaison person, is going to send me the meetings notes with questions and answers given at that meeting, which I will circulate on receipt.
1. The proposals for the polyclinic and the school is now a joint proposal.
2. The RBK executive committee approved the proposals at a meeting on 30 June. I spoke to Liz Green who is the Education for All councillor who was at that meeting and she said that this current consultation is about the building plans and not about whether a school is wanted or not - that was determined by the previous consultation in March - May which indicated that the majority of those who favoured school expansion wanted a school on the site. There was no data available to back this up.
3. Apparently, there has been a 30% rise in birth rate in the borough between 2003 and 2009 and in the last year an increase in 14% of 4 year olds.
4. The plan is that as this is a new school, the public will be 'educated' not to bring children to school by car as the catchment area ought to be within walking distance. There will be no parking for staff as the staff will be expected to walk, cycle or take public transport! Staff are not expected to carry marking and preparation material to and from school! The school will be an 'exemplar' school with these expectations from the start.
5. The polyclinic - all ground floor area will house 6-7 GP practices, with lifts to second floor for all diagnostic testing and treatments. List of these services yet to be clarified. Parking from the Ewell Road entrance only for polyclinic users.
6. A third traffic impact assessment is being carried out, working with TfL and the focus is to reduce impact of traffic.
7. Asked about the status of the project in the light of the proposed government cut backs and changes to NHS management, the cost will come from partly private sources and from within existing NHS funding, mainly from resources for existing services. A business case will be drawn up and presented by October but there is a commercial confidentiality legislation which makes it not possible to publish the detailed costs.
8. I asked Marcus Ballard who represents Lifco, the trust which is managing the development, about the future of No1 Oakhill (Elmside). He says it has a lower heritage status than No.3, which will be restored and used for flats. Therefore No.1 will be demolished "in the public interest" i.e. it gets in the way of getting the required area needed for a school.
9. The future of the Oakhill Health centre to be decided but use as a day care centre or sheltered housing has not been ruled out.
10. The playground and sports area will be on the roof of the primary school.
11. Note that the school is being built to accomodate 420 pupils. What has crept in is provision for a nursery area for an addition 80 pre primary age children, adding to the total of 360 primary (2 form entry, 30 each form = 60 x Years 1 - 6 =360).
On the consultation sheet, the first question asks about whether you approve or oppose the whole joint project. As most people agree with the polyclinic, saying you approve would indicate you support the building of a school as well, which for many people may not be the case. So this needs to be made clear in the comments box. The person who organised the document agreed that the question would lead to people inadvertantly agreeing to the school.
I have blind-copied this email as I don't want to assume that everyone is ok with email addresses being made public. I am sending this to OADRA committee, local neighbours and residents in my house, with a first copy to the OADRA email address.
Best wishes
Graham Goldspring
Acting Publicity Officer
To: OADRA
Subject: Stakeholders' meeting re Surbiton Hospital site
To Oakhill Residents.
I went to the stakeholders meeting at Surbiton Hospital on Tuesday regarding the proposed plans for the site. Below is a list of main points which I have gathered. Tracy Reader, who is the liaison person, is going to send me the meetings notes with questions and answers given at that meeting, which I will circulate on receipt.
1. The proposals for the polyclinic and the school is now a joint proposal.
2. The RBK executive committee approved the proposals at a meeting on 30 June. I spoke to Liz Green who is the Education for All councillor who was at that meeting and she said that this current consultation is about the building plans and not about whether a school is wanted or not - that was determined by the previous consultation in March - May which indicated that the majority of those who favoured school expansion wanted a school on the site. There was no data available to back this up.
3. Apparently, there has been a 30% rise in birth rate in the borough between 2003 and 2009 and in the last year an increase in 14% of 4 year olds.
4. The plan is that as this is a new school, the public will be 'educated' not to bring children to school by car as the catchment area ought to be within walking distance. There will be no parking for staff as the staff will be expected to walk, cycle or take public transport! Staff are not expected to carry marking and preparation material to and from school! The school will be an 'exemplar' school with these expectations from the start.
5. The polyclinic - all ground floor area will house 6-7 GP practices, with lifts to second floor for all diagnostic testing and treatments. List of these services yet to be clarified. Parking from the Ewell Road entrance only for polyclinic users.
6. A third traffic impact assessment is being carried out, working with TfL and the focus is to reduce impact of traffic.
7. Asked about the status of the project in the light of the proposed government cut backs and changes to NHS management, the cost will come from partly private sources and from within existing NHS funding, mainly from resources for existing services. A business case will be drawn up and presented by October but there is a commercial confidentiality legislation which makes it not possible to publish the detailed costs.
8. I asked Marcus Ballard who represents Lifco, the trust which is managing the development, about the future of No1 Oakhill (Elmside). He says it has a lower heritage status than No.3, which will be restored and used for flats. Therefore No.1 will be demolished "in the public interest" i.e. it gets in the way of getting the required area needed for a school.
9. The future of the Oakhill Health centre to be decided but use as a day care centre or sheltered housing has not been ruled out.
10. The playground and sports area will be on the roof of the primary school.
11. Note that the school is being built to accomodate 420 pupils. What has crept in is provision for a nursery area for an addition 80 pre primary age children, adding to the total of 360 primary (2 form entry, 30 each form = 60 x Years 1 - 6 =360).
On the consultation sheet, the first question asks about whether you approve or oppose the whole joint project. As most people agree with the polyclinic, saying you approve would indicate you support the building of a school as well, which for many people may not be the case. So this needs to be made clear in the comments box. The person who organised the document agreed that the question would lead to people inadvertantly agreeing to the school.
I have blind-copied this email as I don't want to assume that everyone is ok with email addresses being made public. I am sending this to OADRA committee, local neighbours and residents in my house, with a first copy to the OADRA email address.
Best wishes
Graham Goldspring
Acting Publicity Officer
Saturday, 12 June 2010
Meeting minutes from public consultation on need for an Oakhill & District Residents Association (OADRA)
Many thanks for attending our first Oakhill & District Residents Association meeting, it was a great success, information about the AGM will follow asap.
Here are the minutes from our first meeting, I will try to get hard copies out to those without email asap. It may take a week or two to arrange that, if you are talking to anyone who was at the meeting and didn't get this email.
Regards, Ciaran
Meeting: Public consultation on need for an Oakhill & District Residents Association (OADRA)
Date: 27.5.10, Location: Baptist Church, Langley Road
1. Introductions
- Robert Lewis introduced the interim committee, welcomed the new councillors Umesh Parekh, Malcolm Self and Neil Houston, and also the Surbiton Safer Neighbourhood team.
- Robert gave an overview of how the idea for an association came about. Approximately 48 people in attendance.
- The interim committee was introduced: Robert Lewis Chair, Ciaran Oates Secretary, Ian Wilson Treasurer, and Graham Goldspring PR & Publicity
- The Surbiton Safer Neighbourhood team introduced themselves (Sgt Eddie Armstrong and PCSO Khalil Saib). Sgt Eddie Armstrong gave an overview of their role in the area, and a summary of recent local crime statistics.
Their contact details are:
- Surbiton Hill Safer Neighbourhood Team, Surbiton YMCA, 49 Victoria
Road, Surbiton, Surrey KT6 4NG
- Telephone: 0208 721 2518
- Email: Surbitonhill.snt@met.police.uk
- Website: www.met.police.uk/teams/kingston/surbitonhill
2. Do we need an association?
- A show of hands showed a resounding YES!
3. AGM
- Robert advised that there will be an AGM soon, where a committee would be elected and if anyone would like to join the committee, to let us know at the end of the meeting. A date would be advised asap via email and the website http://oakhilldra.blogspot.com
4. Attendees were asked to give their name and where they live
- It was noted that we had a good representation of the whole Oakhill area, with most roads in the district represented
5. Copies of the draft constitution wascirculated
– No comments at this stage
6. Ellerton & Bond Road residents association was asked to give an overview of how they started and run
- Their representative gave an overview of how they started. The main points noted were:
- the association is good for getting Kingston council to do things
- that Oakhill will need local street reps because of size of Oakhill District
- Ellerton and Bond Road Association did not have a subscription system but relied on voluntary donations which meant they were very short of funds
- A point from the floor was made that we need OADRA to focus on big planning issues affecting quality of life in district
- The Southborough residents association representative provided some advice, the main points noted were:
- the association will need funds. £5 life membership is not enough to raise sufficient funds, and they advise £5 per year
- £5 per year works, 50% of residents in Southborough pay
- we should use email to communicate
- use bright coloured flyers that standout from junk mail
- 3-4 newsletters per year
- to purchase legal and planning advice when necessary
- 10 on their committee
Additional note: the interim committee would like to thank the EBRRA representatives (Mike Masey & John Tellick) for the time and support they have provided us
7. Robert thanked the Baptist Church for the use of venue and requested a donation to cover costs – flyers (£28) & hall
8. Funding
– A show of hands was asked for the idea of a having £5 per year membership, and this was again a resounding YES.
9. Robert asked the councillors to comment on the Evening Standard article to halt to Poly Clinics which have not signed contracts
- The councillors had no update and were asked to keep the association updated on any news
- Malcolm Self confirmed that a contract had not yet been signed for the Surbiton Polyclinic as it was still in the consultation stage.
The Public meeting dates re: Hospital site were provided by Graham:
• Mon 26th July, 2pm
• Mon 27th Sept, 2pm
• Mon 29th Nov, 2pm
Correction: The dates in Item 9 are not dates for public meetings for the Surbiton Hospital. They are the NHS Kingston public board meetings. The next public meeting/consultation/Open Day is planned for July, awaiting a date
10. Planning issues
- Graham Goldspring gave an overview of the plans for the hospital site development proposal
- It was noted that this was a big concern for those attending the meeting
- Ciaran Oates gave a brief overview of the plans for the Police Federation site
- The attendees were asked about the issues affecting area, the following issues were noted:
• Traffic was a big concern
• Poly Clinic/Hospital Site was the biggest concern
• New School planning application
• Bird Sanctuary on Oakhill
• Reinstate of air pollution monitoring
11. AOB:
• It was suggested to include crime stats in a newsletter
• Minutes to be sent by blind copy to protect people’s privacy
• It was agreed that minutes of the meeting would be circulated to attendees
The meeting ended at 9.45pm
Subsequent to meeting 11 attendees joined the Association and a number of others gave a donation. A donation was given to the Baptist Church
Contact details for Oakhill & District Residents Association (OADRA):
- email: oakhilldra@gmail.com or oakhilldra@googlemail.com
- website: http://oakhilldra.blogspot.com
Here are the minutes from our first meeting, I will try to get hard copies out to those without email asap. It may take a week or two to arrange that, if you are talking to anyone who was at the meeting and didn't get this email.
Regards, Ciaran
Meeting: Public consultation on need for an Oakhill & District Residents Association (OADRA)
Date: 27.5.10, Location: Baptist Church, Langley Road
1. Introductions
- Robert Lewis introduced the interim committee, welcomed the new councillors Umesh Parekh, Malcolm Self and Neil Houston, and also the Surbiton Safer Neighbourhood team.
- Robert gave an overview of how the idea for an association came about. Approximately 48 people in attendance.
- The interim committee was introduced: Robert Lewis Chair, Ciaran Oates Secretary, Ian Wilson Treasurer, and Graham Goldspring PR & Publicity
- The Surbiton Safer Neighbourhood team introduced themselves (Sgt Eddie Armstrong and PCSO Khalil Saib). Sgt Eddie Armstrong gave an overview of their role in the area, and a summary of recent local crime statistics.
Their contact details are:
- Surbiton Hill Safer Neighbourhood Team, Surbiton YMCA, 49 Victoria
Road, Surbiton, Surrey KT6 4NG
- Telephone: 0208 721 2518
- Email: Surbitonhill.snt@met.police.uk
- Website: www.met.police.uk/teams/kingston/surbitonhill
2. Do we need an association?
- A show of hands showed a resounding YES!
3. AGM
- Robert advised that there will be an AGM soon, where a committee would be elected and if anyone would like to join the committee, to let us know at the end of the meeting. A date would be advised asap via email and the website http://oakhilldra.blogspot.com
4. Attendees were asked to give their name and where they live
- It was noted that we had a good representation of the whole Oakhill area, with most roads in the district represented
5. Copies of the draft constitution wascirculated
– No comments at this stage
6. Ellerton & Bond Road residents association was asked to give an overview of how they started and run
- Their representative gave an overview of how they started. The main points noted were:
- the association is good for getting Kingston council to do things
- that Oakhill will need local street reps because of size of Oakhill District
- Ellerton and Bond Road Association did not have a subscription system but relied on voluntary donations which meant they were very short of funds
- A point from the floor was made that we need OADRA to focus on big planning issues affecting quality of life in district
- The Southborough residents association representative provided some advice, the main points noted were:
- the association will need funds. £5 life membership is not enough to raise sufficient funds, and they advise £5 per year
- £5 per year works, 50% of residents in Southborough pay
- we should use email to communicate
- use bright coloured flyers that standout from junk mail
- 3-4 newsletters per year
- to purchase legal and planning advice when necessary
- 10 on their committee
Additional note: the interim committee would like to thank the EBRRA representatives (Mike Masey & John Tellick) for the time and support they have provided us
7. Robert thanked the Baptist Church for the use of venue and requested a donation to cover costs – flyers (£28) & hall
8. Funding
– A show of hands was asked for the idea of a having £5 per year membership, and this was again a resounding YES.
9. Robert asked the councillors to comment on the Evening Standard article to halt to Poly Clinics which have not signed contracts
- The councillors had no update and were asked to keep the association updated on any news
- Malcolm Self confirmed that a contract had not yet been signed for the Surbiton Polyclinic as it was still in the consultation stage.
The Public meeting dates re: Hospital site were provided by Graham:
• Mon 26th July, 2pm
• Mon 27th Sept, 2pm
• Mon 29th Nov, 2pm
Correction: The dates in Item 9 are not dates for public meetings for the Surbiton Hospital. They are the NHS Kingston public board meetings. The next public meeting/consultation/Open Day is planned for July, awaiting a date
10. Planning issues
- Graham Goldspring gave an overview of the plans for the hospital site development proposal
- It was noted that this was a big concern for those attending the meeting
- Ciaran Oates gave a brief overview of the plans for the Police Federation site
- The attendees were asked about the issues affecting area, the following issues were noted:
• Traffic was a big concern
• Poly Clinic/Hospital Site was the biggest concern
• New School planning application
• Bird Sanctuary on Oakhill
• Reinstate of air pollution monitoring
11. AOB:
• It was suggested to include crime stats in a newsletter
• Minutes to be sent by blind copy to protect people’s privacy
• It was agreed that minutes of the meeting would be circulated to attendees
The meeting ended at 9.45pm
Subsequent to meeting 11 attendees joined the Association and a number of others gave a donation. A donation was given to the Baptist Church
Contact details for Oakhill & District Residents Association (OADRA):
- email: oakhilldra@gmail.com or oakhilldra@googlemail.com
- website: http://oakhilldra.blogspot.com
Saturday, 29 May 2010
Public meeting, Thurs 27th May
The public meeting went well, we had a good turnout, with lots of support to establish a residents association, more news very soon!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)