Notice Board

I am forwarding an email at the request of Marie Curie Cancer Care from Emma.Segal@mariecurie.org.uk

Ian Elvey

Chairman WPRA

Hamptons - options for final phase.

A packed Development Control Committee Meeting on 3 December boosted the barrage of 300 letters of objection to St. James's Homes Application to enlarge the Hamptons by residents and ward councillors' insistent concerns about traffic congestion and overloading local services and infrastructure.  The cosmetic green veneer failed to mask the consequential impact of extra CO² emissions and traffic.  The Minutes of DCC summarised the objections raised by WPRA.

• The overall increase in the number of dwellings on the site since the grant of the original outline application.
• The proposal would lead to overspill car parking near the access routes.
• Boscombe Road should not become a 'through' road.
• Flooding in the area would be worse because of the density of the proposed development.
• The proposed development did not include sufficient family accommodation of affordable dwellings for key workers.
• It was doubtful that the 'section 106' provision would meet the projected shortage of secondary school places in the area.
• It was doubtful that the 'section 106' provision would be sufficient to meet local health needs.

However the question remains as to what will be acceptable for the final phases of the development.  Over the years, St. James's Homes have pursued loopholes in local and regional policies to build at higher densities than originally approved in the Outline agreed in 2002.  So that already all but 37 of the original total of 480 are now to be squeezed into just under two thirds of the site.  To fill the remaining third with 185 dwellings proposed in the Rejected Application, enlarging a 480 dwelling development to 645, would have an unacceptable impact on our locality.

Local residents demand that proper consideration is given to the range of local housing needs, sustainability of the site, impact of extra traffic, parking and pollution, and scope for providing extra services to match increased population.

Cheam North and Worcester park Local Committee - Update

1. Provision for youth and prevention of anti-social behaviour are recurring topics.  A presentation from students from Glenthorne School made a welcome contribution of youth insight into some of the issues.
2. Take part Take Pride Week in July is for residents' participation.  Please pass your suggestions to WPRA.  Options to consider include a clean-up of areas in need of attention, outdoor events or themed walks.
3. Notice board at Green Lane is in dire need of attention.  Also a suggestion was made for a Community Notice Board to promote events, and to offer a focus for a communications project for Take Part Pride Week.
4. GP provision in Worcester Park is a deepening concern for residents, ward councillors and our MPs alike.  Residents are requested to report any problems experienced in getting a GP.
5. Trafalgar, Clarke's and Langley Avenues traffic / parking issues.  It was agreed to request an options report following consultations between council officers, ward councillors and the Safer Neighbourhood Team. 
6. Road gulley blockages were raised by a member if the public  [Please advise WPRA if there are blocked drains in your road].

• Worcester Park Ward - anti-social behaviour in Central Road (near KFC) and at Hamptons (by entrance) and graffiti across the ward.  (WPRA and Hamptons RA are members of the Worcester Park Ward.).
• Nonsuch Ward - youth activity in Fairlands Park, Church Hill Road area and Cuddington Rec, (New fencing work is planned Fairlands park)

Central Road - Safety & Bus Priority Measures

• The Lynwood Drive Residents' Petition resulted in suspension of a right hand turn ban pending a full report to the Local Committee.
• WPRA and Worcester Park Traders Association representations helped save Parking/Loading Bays essential for local trade.

WPRA members participated in a Council-run pre-Consultation workshop in January, and we held our own in-house workshop in February.

One of the Consultation Documents that has caused concern and possible misinterpretation was the Site Policies Consultation Document.  Local Councils were required by government to identify potential sites for redevelopment.  Four sites were identified in WP for consultation: the ex Gleesons site on Stonecot Hill, Ridge Road Library, the Old Vic corner block and Cheam baths.  Possible options for these sites favoured mixed developments and in the case of the Gleeson site to include small commercial units.  there is already a planning application for redevelopment of the Old Vic block but the depth of the foundations has made demolition uneconomic.  At the Local Committee it was confirmed that there were no plans to dispose of North Cheam Baths.

WPRA remains adamant that considerations of impact of additional demands on infrastructure and services should be integral to housing policies and decisions. Also we question where extra dwellings could be absorbed.  for Worcester Park, Creating a Sustainable Suburb must mean preventing any loss of our stock of family-sized houses and gardens.  Meanwhile debates and decisions about housing density directives rage within the sphere of national and regional politics.

Nonsuch mansion and Park - 18 months of uncertainty ended

Thanks to a petition of nearly 5000, support from our MP and a deputation of over 200 at County Hall on 25 March, at last Surrey County Council has responded to our local concerns.  A 125-year lease (subject to small print) is to be signed over to Sutton and Epsom & Ewell councils on a peppercorn rent to allow a joint Management Committee to administer the park and Mansion, and also to make up the loss of income caused while the property has remained empty.

• Home | Notice Board | Notice / page 2 | News / Issues | Meetings | Directory | Contact Us
• Link to Sutton Council Home Page