AGENDA ITEM 8 (1) Raynes Park Community Forum – 16 June 2008 Report of the Chair, Councillor Brian Lewis-Lavender The Forum met at Raynes Park Library Hall, Aston Road, Raynes Park, and was chaired by Councillor Rod Scott (as the Chair, Councillor Brian Lewis-Lavender was unable to attend). Ward Councillors Margaret Brierly, Richard Chellew, Chris Edge and Corinna Edge; and Cabinet Members, Councillors Diane Neil Mills and Linda Scott, were present. About 52 residents attended. Various Council officers, including as Lead Officer, Paul Whiteman, Manager - ICT, Business Support, Project Management (CSF Dept.), attended in response to the various issues on the agenda. 1. Introduction to the Raynes Park Community Forum The Chair outlined the reasons for introducing Community Forums based on town centres (in place of the previous Area Forums); and stressed that residents could attend whichever of the 5 new Community Forums they wished. The Chair referred to the Council’s aim of greater attendance and involvement from residents; and indicated that feedback from residents would be welcomed, especially regarding the topics they’d like to see discussed at future meetings. 2. Update on future proposals for Raynes Park (a) The Chair referred to a plan produced by Groundwork outlining possible priorities for Raynes Park; the involvement of local residents associations with the plan; and the production of a further plan by local architects, “Place Design”. Sue Tanton, Regeneration Partnerships Team Manager, advised that officers were preparing a Draft Action Plan, based on Groundwork’s plan; including costing of items and looking at resource implementations; that a meeting with Councillors, to discuss possible priorities, had been arranged; and that some items were already being progressed such as the Raynes Park Cycle Path. (See also later section below.) (b) Sue Tanton advised that the lead officers for the Draft Action Plan were Michael Owens (Head of Regeneration & Leisure) and Ged Lawrenson (Plans & Projects Manager), and she would also be involved; and undertook to check with the lead officers that the comments from the Residents Association of West Wimbledon and the Place Design’s report were being included. (c) A resident expressed concern at the lack of progress since Groundwork’s plan was produced in late 2007 and that the Action Plan lead officers weren’t present. The Chair undertook that residents would be kept informed of progress and referred to possible use of contact/mailing lists and a possible meeting of Raynes Park Association. (d) It was noted that any list of priorities included within an Action Plan would not override town planning requirements. 87 (e) A resident requested that the Groundwork report be made publicly available. The Chair undertook that officers would look at whether it was possible for the Groundwork report, the report from Place Design, and residents’ comments possibly to be all put on the web-site and also be available for inspection at Raynes Park Library. 3. Potential New Health Centre at 1-3 Lambton Road, Raynes Park (i) The meeting received a presentation from the architects, Devereux Architects Ltd, for James Fenner, UK Properties & Land Ltd, the site owners, on the proposals for this new health centre to replace two existing GP practices in the area. (ii) James Fenner indicated that 2B Worple Road (the ELF garage site), the previously proposed location for health centre had been sold. The architects’ brief overview included that the Lambton Road site was immediately behind Raynes Park Tavern; the proposals had been discussed with the PCT and doctors; there were ongoing discussions with Merton’s town planners; the proposals were for a three storey L-shaped building with ground level parking at the rear under part of the first and second floors; this parking would be for staff only but with a drop off point at the front for private cars or ambulances plus two parking bays for disabled persons also at the front; the primary entrance would be from Lambton Road, which would allow vehicles to enter the site from the north without going around the Raynes Park one-way system; the building would be set round an internal courtyard/garden; in addition to usual GP services; other proposed facilities might include a pharmacy, dentist service and a café; and the building might be made available for meetings of local community groups. Residents raised various issues, but perhaps the primary concern for residents at this stage was whether the dropping point at the front would be sufficient, especially having regard to the time needed to drop off or collect elderly or frail patients or persons with disabilities; and whether the car park at the rear should only be for staff. Other issues raised included security/access within the building, especially if there’s a pharmacy containing drugs and /or the building is used by outside community groups. The architects noted the comments made at the meeting and will need to have further discussions with Merton’s planners prior to the submission of a formal town planning application, in due course, after at least 3 months. The architects indicated that their current plans would be made available for inspection in Raynes Park Library; and they would be willing to come to a public meeting with residents to discuss their plans further, perhaps just prior to the submission of any planning application. Amity Grove premises: During discussions on the above, we were advised that the PCT envisages these premises closing, and health services currently housed there being re-allocated as appropriate to the new Lambton Road premises and the Nelson Hospital site. 88 4. Raynes Park Cycle Path Consultation – Summary of current position Pete Thomas, a Merton traffic engineer, outlined this scheme, full details of which could found on the agenda for the Street Management Advisory Committee, which was due to be consider the scheme the following night. Pete Thomas explained that– (a) the Raynes Park Cycle Path scheme comprised the provision of a segregated two-way cycle track north of the railway from 15 Station Buildings, Coombe Lane (east of Raynes Park station) eastwards to the skew arch, which would provide a link to the existing cycle path in Kingston Road, south of the railway; (b) the scheme involved cutting back the railway embankment and the construction of a retaining wall, so as to provide sufficient width for the cycle path and footway to be segregated; (c) there would be new replacement east/west pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities, immediately north of the Raynes Park railway bridge; (d) the main benefits of the scheme would be to enable cyclists travelling to/from Kingston Road to avoid having to use (i) the “cattle arch” (adjacent to Raynes Park station) which was well used by pedestrians; and (ii) the traffic lights on the south side of Raynes Park railway bridge, which were difficult to access, and many cyclists felt were unsafe; (e) there would be gap (outside the Raynes Park Station entrance in Coombe Lane) between the existing Coombe Lane Cycle Path and the proposed Raynes Park Cycle Path scheme; and proposals to deal with this would be looked at in future; and (f) the proposed Raynes Park Cycle Path scheme would be part of the Raynes Park Cycle Path scheme proposed London Cycle Network (LCN) of about 900 km, of which 600/700km was already completed; most of the LCN cycle routes that remained to be implemented tended to be more difficult and expensive ones; and the cost of proposed Raynes Park Cycle Path scheme was estimated as about £600/700k. Pete Thomas outlined the results of the consultation exercise on the scheme including 50% in favour of the proposed new cycle facilities, and 64% in favour of the proposed crossing facilities, immediately north of the Raynes Park railway bridge; and that the biggest issue for objectors was the loss of trees on the embankment. There was also recognition that the cyclists would need to be diverted on those days when the skew arch was used for a proposed farmers market. The issue of possibly deferring the scheme, for various reasons was raised. Pete Thomas advised that funding for the cycle path came from TfL and there was no guarantee that funding for this would be available at a later date. The concerns raised by residents at our meeting included (i) the loss of trees on the railway embankment; and the amenity value of these trees; 89 (ii) the loss of trees as an acoustic screen; and the inadequacy of the proposed replacement fencing and planting, including shrubs and possibly small trees; (iii) the small number of cyclists using the cycle-ways didn’t justify the cost or the loss of the trees; (iv) there would continue to cycle/pedestrian conflict outside the Raynes Park Station entrance in Coombe Lane as the scheme provided no solution to this; and (v) HGV’s possibly going on the pavement at the new pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities, immediately north of the Raynes Park railway bridge A straw poll at the end of our discussions revealed the overwhelming majority of those present opposing the scheme, with only 4 in favour. The Chair undertook that he would try to ensure that the strength of feeling at this Forum meeting would be made known at the Street Management Advisory Committee. 5. Planning Matters No planning officer was able to attend the meeting, but the Chair read out officer updates on the following planning issues:- (a) 213 Worple Road – Officers will seek a building that fully utilises this corner site and is of high standard of design. (b) Kings College Sports Ground (Kingsway, New Malden) – Proposed new pavilion and all-weather pitch.