Agenda and minutes

Sutton South, Cheam and Belmont Local Committee
Wednesday, 19th September, 2007 7.30 pm

Venue: St. Dunstan's CofE Primary School. Anne Boleyn's Walk, Cheam

Contact: Andrew Horrod, Area Co-ordinator te. 020 8770 5115 

No. Item




The Chair welcomed everyone to the first meeting of this new local committee.   Apologies were received from Councillors Paul Newman, David Pickles and Barry Russell.  




            Resolved:  That Councillor Pamela Picknett be appointed Vice-Chair of the Committee for 2007/08. 



Minutes of the Cheam and Worcester Park Area Committee meeting held on 27 June 2007

Minutes of the Sutton Area Committee meeting held on 25 July 2007



The Minutes of the Cheam and Worcester Park Area Committee meeting held on 27 June 2007, and the Sutton Area Committee meeting held on 25 July 2007, were approved as correct records, and signed by the Chair. 




Verbal report by Ian Kershaw, Locality Lead Officer.   The draft committee work plan is an ENCLOSURE.


Ian Kershaw, Locality Lead Officer, outlined the arrangements for the new committee.   The four area committees had been replaced by six local committees and this one would cover the wards of Cheam, Belmont and Sutton South.   The committee could consider most issues in its area, notable exceptions being licensing and planning applications.


The committee would have a public realm budget to spend over two years.  The money could be spent on capital projects that improved the lives of people who lived, worked and pursued leisure activities in the area.  In addition, Section 106 monies from planning agreements would be available and the local committees would have a say in how they should be spent.  Further detail of both of these issues would be included in the presentation later on in the meeting. 


Ian Kershaw emphasised that a primary aim of the new committees was to involve local people, including businesses, in decision making.   As Locality Lead Officer he would be the main point of contact for the public and act as a link with the committee members.   There was information about the new arrangements on the Council’s website and this included the e-mail address where the public could direct queries relating to this particular Committee. 


The Chair said that the introduction of the new committees was an indication of the willingness of both political parties on the Council to give local people a greater say in matters affecting them.  He expected this committee to be listened to and that any differences with the Council could be resolved by negotiation.  He confirmed that there would be the opportunity for the public to ask questions.  For items that were not on the agenda he asked that questions be submitted by noon on the Monday before committee.  Residents could still submit questions up until the start of the meeting but they may well not get a detailed answer that evening.   He intended to allow 15 minutes for such questions initially. 


The Chair permitted a question from Matthew Connolly under this item:


“In terms of the re-provision for people with learning disabilities at Orchard Hill, other than Cheam Day Centre have any other sites within the physical boundaries of this committee been identified as possible options for new community homes?”


As there was no one present who was able to answer the question, Ian Kershaw would arrange a reply to be sent to Mr Connolly.


The committee considered the draft work plan that had been circulated with the agenda.   It was noted that a number of supplementary planning documents had been included, which were considered to have Borough-wide impact.  The Chair said that he was prepared to receive such documents on the agenda only as information items.


The Committee agreed that the following items should be included on the work plan for the next meeting:


  • Low emission zones – with reference to Alan Carroll’s letter to members regarding consultation by Transport for London (TfL);


  • Section 106 monies/capital projects. 


Councillor Peter Geiringer said that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 785.



Verbal report by David Stemp, Chairman of the Netley Close Residents Association, followed by discussion.   A briefing note on Netley Close is included as appendix 4 to the Cheam Park Management Plan – please see agenda item 6.


David Stemp, Chairman of Netley Close Residents Association, addressed the meeting at the invitation of the Chair.  Mr Stemp had compiled a dossier of evidence relating to flooding in Netley Close over a number of years.   The flooding had been repeated on 20 July 2007 when exceptionally heavy rain had fallen on the Borough.   In Mr Stemp’s view the Council and Thames Water had been blaming each other and it needed a joint effort to resolve the issue, and he hoped that this would involve the residents as well.   It was accepted that there was some water run-off from Cheam Park/Recreation Ground, which were the responsibility of the Council.   However large volumes of water went through the local drains and surfaced through a manhole on the Park boundary, for which Thames Water were responsible.   Mr Stemp suggested a survey and clearing of the drains.


Mark Dalzell, Parks Manager, said he had met with Mr Stemp on site.  The Thames Water drain was fed from two sources: road and footpath gullies in Tudor Close and a ditch that collected water run-off from the area around the tennis courts and bowling green in Cheam Park.   The system could not cope and water bursting through the manhole cover referred to by Mr Stemp was one result.   He had contacted Thames Water and whilst the person dealing with the matter was on leave at present, it was confirmed that the drains had been cleared before 20 July.  Thames Water were intending to reline the pipes but there were no plans to increase capacity.


Mark Dalzell said that the Council could extend the grass bank inside the Park to try to divert more surface water away from Netley Close.  It could not divert water escaping from the manhole cover because it was tight against the Park boundary fence.  He would contact Thames Water again and work with the residents to help to find a solution.  Councillor Tony Shields felt that a ditch could be dug and temporary soakaways put in, to provide a quick and cheap solution.  The relining of the pipes by Thames Water would reduce capacity.


The Chair summarised the discussion.  He thanked Mr Stemp for his excellent dossier and welcomed Mark Dalzell’s input, including his briefing note in the Draft Cheam Park Management Plan.  He asked that the Cheam Ward councillors be involved in meetings to progress the issue and Thames Water be invited.  All should be mindful of the impact of further development in the Netley Close area.  The committee agreed that it would be appropriate to have an update at its next meeting.


            Resolved: (i) To thank Mr Stemp and Mark Dalzell for their contributions;


            (ii) That Mark Dalzell contact Thames Water with a view to arranging a joint meeting involving the Netley Close Residents Association and local ward councillors;


(iii) That all proceed on the basis that there will be an update at the next meeting.



Discussion of the report and Management Plan (ENCLOSURES)


Dominic Aslangul, Assistant Parks Manager, briefly introduced the Draft Cheam Park Management Plan that was out for public consultation.   The Draft Plan had been circulated with the agenda and comments were invited.   The Plan would be reviewed annually to ensure current need and good practice.  The Council was aiming to achieve Green Flag status for Cheam Park in 2008. 


Various issues were raised during the discussion in which Alan Hyslop, Chair of Friends of Cheam Park and Brendan Williams, head of Cheam Safer Neighbourhood Team (SNT) participated.  One issue was the locking of the Park gates at night.  It was established that the gates were being locked, and this was included in the Plan, but people would always be able to get into the Park from the Cheam Village side.


Another issue was the condition and use of buildings in the Park/Recreation Ground.  The Lodge had been the subject of updates to the former Cheam and Worcester Park Area Committee.  The Police were still interested in using The Lodge as a base for the Cheam SNT; the main stumbling block had been funding the refurbishment although the Council had made some provision in its budget.  Mark Dalzell, Parks Manager, said that the old stable block was currently not a listed building and it was rarely used by the Parks Division.  The Council was trying to raise some money to carry out improvements.   Its use as a wildlife centre for children was suggested by one member.


There was discussion of use of the depot, Mr Hyslop suggesting that the large area of hard standing at the rear of the depot could be used as public space, perhaps as a cycle track.  An issue relating to the storage of materials was clarified.  The Chair invited Mrs Coker, local resident and parent, to address the Committee.  Mrs Coker outlined her idea that an area within a local park could be given over to a BMX bike track.  In some areas there was a shortage of facilities for young people and a secure area for them to gather and ride their bikes would be welcome; Cheam Park might be ideal.   In asking for help and support with the opening of a BMX track, Mrs Coker said she would be willing to run it.  The Committee welcomed this idea and the Chair suggested that Mrs Coker might like to join Friends of Cheam Park.  Mark Dalzell said that the Council would be willing to help, starting with acknowledgement of the idea in the Park’s Management Plan.  


Mr Connolly, local resident, asked about the toilet block on the Ewell Road/Park Lane corner that had been closed, and the toilets in the pavilion in the centre of the Park that were open but in a very poor condition.  Mr Hyslop had also mentioned the pavilion and had felt that its use by local football teams as a changing facility had gone down due to its poor state.  Officers said that this was a difficult issue to resolve;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 787.



Short discussion of issues arising from the reply to a question asked at Council on 23 July 2007 by Councillor Peter Geiringer.  Information included in the reply from Ade Adebayo, Executive Head of Construction and Property, is an ENCLOSURE.


The Committee had before them a breakdown of the budgets for gulley and soakaway cleansing for 2006/07 and 2007/08.   This information had originally been supplied to Councillor Peter Geiringer as part of an answer to a Council question.  The Chair said that he had placed the item on the agenda to highlight the issue in the context of the flooding that had affected the Borough on 20 July 2007, and to receive feedback on any particular problems within this Committee’s area.  Councillor Pamela Picknett said that she and Councillor Geiringer had drawn up a list of 25 blocked gulleys in Belmont Ward.  Her offer to pass this information on to Council officers was welcomed and photographs of some of these locations were circulated amongst members.   Councillor Geiringer understood that the Borough had only one ‘gulley sucker’ machine (although another was on order) and he felt that this was completely inadequate.   Councillor Tony Shields had calculated that of the amount of Council Tax collected from each resident (£1,300 was quoted), £1.10 was spent on gulley and soakaway cleansing, which he also felt was inadequate. 


Ian Kershaw, Locality Lead Officer, said that he had overseen the Council’s response to the 20 July flooding.  It was quite clear that the concentration of rainfall in such a short space of time had been exceptional, however lessons could be learnt.   He would be interested to hear from residents who had firm evidence of whether particular gulleys in their area had been able to deal with the volume of rainwater.  


            Resolved:   (i) That the list of blocked gulleys compiled by the Belmont Ward Councillors be passed to the appropriate officer for action;


            (ii) That a reference be sent to The Executive advising that this Committee feels that residents of its area are suffering from inadequate funding for gulley and soakaway cleansing, and it calls upon The Executive to consider an increase in funding for these services when setting the budget for 2008/09.



Presentation by the Economic Research Officer, followed by discussion.


Matt Keep, Economic Research Officer, gave a powerpoint presentation on investment.  There were three key areas:


1)     The use of public realm monies.  The Council had made available to local committees a total of £2 million, to spend over two years.  The money was divided by head of population and this Committee had approximately £315,000 for local projects.  Each project would involve a project initiation document (PID) to be completed by the locality lead officer. 


2)     Section 106 monies.  These were monies obtained as a result of agreements attached to the grant of planning permission.  They could be spent on strategic or local schemes but not on items outside of the agreements.  Local committees would have a say on how the monies could be spent in their area although decisions would be taken by The Executive.


3)     Locality profiles.  These profiles had been produced for each local committee and included statistical information and analysis of issues such as population and safer neighbourhood team priorities.   The profile for Sutton South, Cheam and Belmont was included with the agenda. 


There followed a brief discussion of issues including preparation of the PIDs and timesheets.  Copies of the presentation would be circulated to the committee and Keith Percy and Peter Mattey, local resident association representatives.


The Chair summed up the discussion, emphasising that the Committee needed to be positive, put forward schemes and be clear about what it was seeking. 


            Resolved:  To thank Matt Keep for his presentation and it be circulated as outlined above.



Verbal report by the Parks Manager on progress with the Strategy.


Mark Dalzell, Parks Manager, said that the draft tree strategy for the Borough was about 60% complete.  It would be the subject of consultation before being put to The Executive for approval.  The strategy was expected to be available for the January meeting of this Committee.   It had been noted earlier in the meeting that the item had been placed on the committee’s work plan. 


Councillor Tony Shields mentioned that the Sustainable Communities Scrutiny Committee (SCSC) was looking at tree maintenance and related issues as part of its scrutiny programme.  Mark Dalzell said that SCSC would be a good place for members to discuss issues before the tree strategy was finalised.  The Chair responded to a comment from Keith Percy about this item, saying it had been made clear on the agenda that a verbal report would be submitted.   Andrew Horrod, Area Co-ordinator, confirmed that the SCSC was due to consider the issue mentioned by Councillor Shields at its next meeting on 9 October.   Mr Percy would have the chance to comment on the tree strategy including at local committee.  However if Mr Percy was interested in having direct input to the SCSC discussion (as suggested by Councillor Shields) he would forward the request to the Chair.


Arising from a question from Councillor Peter Geiringer about removal of trees that were not replaced, the Chair referred to the tree maintenance programme document.  This was supplied to ward councillors and usefully identified the location of trees.  He outlined why the tree strategy was particularly important to councillors in this committee’s area.  It would be useful if Mr Percy could have a copy of the tree maintenance document if possible. 


Peter Mattey, Chairman of the Belmont and South Cheam Residents Association, said that the Association had produced a scoping document which he would pass to Mark Dalzell. 


            Resolved: (i) To note the update on production of the Borough’s tree strategy;


            (ii) That Andrew Horrod provide Keith Percy with details of the SCSC meeting and if Mr Percy is interested in addressing the meeting, pass the request on to the Chair;


            (iii) That Peter Mattey’s offer to provide his Association’s scoping document to Mark Dalzell be welcomed.



Report by the Head of Transport and Traffic (ENCLOSURE)


Alan Carroll, Head of Transport and Traffic, presented a report on the results of public consultation on Cheam CPZ.  In particular it dealt with issues affecting Anne Boleyn’s Walk and West Drive.  Members were asked to consider an objection received from Surrey County Council to extend the CPZ to the boundary of Sutton and Epsom and Ewell Borough Councils, in West Drive.    Surrey County Council was the highways authority for Epsom and Ewell.


            Resolved: That the Executive Head of Planning, Transport & Highways be authorised to:

            1) Carry out a Statutory Public Consultation under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and successive modifications, concerning the amended proposal for the Cheam CPZ parking controls in Anne Boleyn’s Walk as detailed on drawing no. T10033_04_02;

            2) Make appropriate Traffic Management Orders and implement the previously approved proposal to expand the Cheam CPZ to the borough boundary in West Drive, as detailed in drawing nos. T10033_01_A and T10033_01_B;

            3) Subject to receiving no material objections for item 1) above, make the appropriate orders.



Report of the Head of Transport and Traffic (TO FOLLOW)


The Head of Transport and Traffic presented his report that gave updates on STEPS zones 3, 6, 7 and 32.  Regarding Zone 3 the report referred to bringing the results of consultation to the 31 October meeting; this was the Cheam North and Worcester Park Local Committee.   As a small part of the Zone was in this Committee’s area, members would receive a similar report on 28 November.


The discussion included measures to improve visibility at particular junctions in South Cheam, within Zone 32.  It was accepted that mirrors affixed to street furniture were not the answer, for reasons that were reported, and Alan Carroll said he would look into finding a suitable solution.


Regarding Zone 7, it was hoped that this zone would be the first to include a wider look at the environment and the nature of the public realm. 


It was noted that this item had been brought forward by the Chair as urgent on the grounds that members required updates at this meeting, which would also inform the work plan.


            Resolved:  To note the following and agree that the Committee’s work plan be adjusted accordingly:


·        Zone 3 will be the subject of further reports as outlined above.

·        Zone 6 has not yet featured in submissions to Transport for London and will not be progressed until after 2009/10.

·        Zone 7 is included in this financial year’s programme and the initial work in collecting survey information for the stage 1 consultation is being undertaken.  This work will be concluded by the end of the financial year and so the Zone should be the subject of a report to the March 2008 meeting.

·        Officers intend to carry out the second stage consultation for Zone 32 in the next few weeks and therefore this will be the subject of a report to the next meeting.



Short presentation by the Heritage Manager.  The Strategy document is an ENCLOSURE.


John Phillips, Heritage Manager, introduced the Strategy for 2007/08 – 2009/10 that had been included with the agenda.  He reported that very shortly the Heritage Service hoped to become an accredited museum service and that they would have a new name to reflect that.  One of his main concerns was that the Service was not extending to as many parts of the Borough as staff would like, e.g. the northern and southern suburbs.  The Service had £200,000 of capital monies to refurbish historic houses including Whitehall, within this committee’s area.  It was also seeking funding from the Lottery Fund.  He confirmed that Sutton Lodge was not the responsibility of the Heritage Service.


Councillor Peter Geiringer welcomed the important role played by the Heritage Service.  He noted that there were no financial figures in the Strategy and asked if this could be corrected.  He also asked whether the extended Europa Gallery space at the Central Library could be used more, e.g. to display some of the 1,100 pictures mentioned in the Strategy.   Other local libraries could be used for temporary exhibitions.  The Chair asked whether the facilities offered by Whitehall could be used to publicise the heritage of the area beyond those buildings detailed in the Strategy.  John Phillips thought that this would be an achievable objective and he would consider the points that had been made; he agreed that the Service could do more regarding the suburban development of the south Sutton area.  


            Resolved: To thank John Phillips for his report.



Report of the Executive Head of Planning, Transport and Highways, for information  (ENCLOSURE)


Resolved: To note the submitted report and the arrangements for public consultation on the draft SPD. 



Report of the Executive Head of Planning, Transport and Highways, for information (ENCLOSURE)


Resolved: To note the submitted report and the arrangements for public consultation on the draft SPD. 



The next meeting will be held on 28 November 2007 starting at 7.30pm, venue to be confirmed.





The next meeting would be held on 28 November at the Civic Offices, Sutton, starting at 7.30pm.  [Note: this will now be held at St. Dunstan’s Primary School]




With the agreement of the Chair, Councillor Eleanor Pinfold reported on a further development to Surrey County Council’s Improvement Plan for Nonsuch Park, which had been drawn up several months previously.  She said, with reference to a current local newspaper article, that Chris Grayling, MP for Epsom and Ewell, was seeking talks with Surrey County Council to secure retention of public access to Nonsuch Mansion and Park.  Councillor Pinfold asked the Committee to support that action.


Arising, a member of the public said that the issue would be discussed at a local residents association meeting on 8 October.  The Chair said that he and his Cheam Ward colleagues were aware of the meeting and that Epsom and Ewell councillors would be attending; the association was outside Sutton Borough.  He invited the member of the public to talk to him about the issue immediately after this meeting.   Councillor Pinfold expected the matter to be discussed at the next meeting of Nonsuch Park Joint Management Committee on 18 October; she was a member of the Joint Committee.


It was noted that this item had been brought forward by the Chair for urgent consideration in view of the recent development concerning Nonsuch Park, and that the meeting of the Joint Management Committee in October was before the next meeting of this Committee.


            Resolved:  (i) That The Executive be informed that this Committee supports the move by Chris Grayling MP to hold urgent talks with Surrey County Council over the future of Nonsuch Mansion and endorses the public statements by the MP and the Chairman of the Friends of Nonsuch which seek to retain accessible public/community use of both the Mansion and adjacent parkland;


            (ii)  That copies of this Minute be sent to Chris Grayling MP; the Chair of the Nonsuch Park Joint Management Committee; and the Chairman of the Friends of Nonsuch.