Surbiton Hospital Redevelopment

Surbiton Hospital Redevelopment
12.0 Consultation Statement
Surbiton Hospital site redevelopment
Consultation Statement – November 2010
Contents
1. Executive Summary
2. Early consultation activities and outcomes
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
School consultation - Summer 2009
Health consultation - Autumn 2009
School consultation - March-May 2010
3. Joint pre-planning application consultation activities and outcomes
3.1.
3.2.
Overview
Consultation activities, promotion and reach - July 2010
3.3.
Consultation results
3.3.1. Summary of feedback
3.3.2. Specific feedback from questionnaires and public events
3.3.3. Further involvement activities since the consultation
3.4.
Our response to public feedback
3.4.1. Regarding parking, travel planning and traffic management
3.4.2. Regarding the location of the school
3.4.3. Regarding the scale of the development
3.4.4. Regarding conservation, heritage and the environment
4. Focused consultation with advisory bodies
4.1.
4.2.
4.3.
4.4.
4.5.
Urban Design London
Historic buildings advice and consultation
Surbiton Conservation Area Advisory Committee
Environment Agency
Transport for London
5. Next steps and future engagement
5.1.
5.2.
5.3.
5.4.
5.5.
5.6.
Further response to consultation feedback and ongoing engagement
Statutory Planning Consultation
Local resident engagement re. S.106 highway works
Consultation with patients with regard to GP practice moves
Local community engagement regarding the temporary move of services
Schools competition consultation
1 of 31
1. Executive Summary
As part of a programme to improve local health services for residents of Surbiton and South
of the Borough and to make better use of the currently under-utilised Surbiton Hospital site
(in response to public demand) NHS Kingston formed a partnership with Kingston Council to
redevelop the Surbiton Hospital site for the provision of health, education and other public
services that will be of maximum benefit to the people of Surbiton. This type of partnership is
needed to ensure that the health improvement plans are affordable.
Prior to and during the formation of the partnership, both organisations undertook separate
consultations with the local community to gather views on:
• initial options around expanding school places in the area (Summer 2009)
• initial health proposals for the site (Autumn 2009)
• more specific school proposals testing support for a school on the site (March-May 2010).
A joint pre-planning application consultation gathering feedback on building proposals for
both the health facility and the school, prior to submitting a planning application, was carried
out in July 2010.
To summarise the key outcomes of the consultations to date:
• The majority of respondents to the Summer 2009 school expansion consultation wanted
new schools to be built instead existing schools expanded.
• 93.3% of respondents to the Autumn 2009 health consultation supported the idea of the
Surbiton Hospital site continuing to be used for healthcare.
• 60.4% of respondents to the March-May 2010 schools consultation supported the idea of
the new school being based on the Surbiton Hospital site.
• Nearly 60% of respondents to the July 2010 joint pre-planning application consultation,
supported or strongly supported the overall development plans. Certain issues were raised
(as summarised below) and these are outlined in full later in this document, along with the
action taken to address them.
To summarise our response to the feedback:
Whilst the key consultation results do demonstrate overall support for the development,
some of the sub-question statistics and comments do highlight that parking and traffic
management; concerns about the location of the school; avoiding over-crowding of the site;
and respecting the nature of the conservation area are key concerns for local residents.
In response to this we have already:
-
set up a Transport Group to focus on the work that needs to be undertaken to ensure that
appropriate travel planning and traffic management measures are in place;
-
responded to concerns about the location of the school to highlight the thorough process
undertaken in assessing the need for school places in this part of Surbiton and evaluating
alternative sites for the new school
2 of 31
-
responded to concerns about over-development by reducing the size of the building and
increasing the outdoor space and green areas - particularly in regard to the school play
areas and in proximity to the north boundary where one household was concerned about
the new buildings encroaching on the views from their property;
-
appointed a historic buildings adviser in relation to the demolition of existing buildings and
employed ecology and tree experts to survey the site and assessed how best to retain its
valuable characteristics - as a result, we are committed to ensuring that the development
must ‘preserve or enhance’ the character of the conservation area;
-
set up a Heritage and Environment Involvement Group to help develop ideas to
incorporate memories and reflections of the existing site into the new development;
We will continue to:
-
Add to our travel plan as we progress our work with potential school providers and
prospective parents.
-
Involve residents who expressed an interest in the Transport Group and Heritage &
Environment Group with regular updates regarding our developing plans.
-
Continue to ensure that our conservation responsibilities are met, as per the
Conservation Area Report included with this planning application, and involve / update
local residents where appropriate.
-
Use the feedback regarding community space to determine how best to use this part of
the building / external areas.
2. Early consultation activities and outcomes
2.1.
School consultation - Summer 2009
Overview: In response to a rise in demand for school places in Surbiton since September
2008, Kingston Council has provided additional classes at Maple Infant, Grand Avenue, St
Matthew’s and Christ Church. Since population predictions indicated a continuing rise in
demand, the Local Authority began exploring potential permanent solutions in summer 2009
through an informal consultation on plans to increase the number of school places.
Activities: As part of a Kingston-wide schools expansion consultation a questionnaire was
distributed predominately to parents/carers asking them to state their preference for
expanding certain schools or providing new schools in their locality.
Feedback: The consultation generated approximately 1200 responses across the borough,
and showed a strong desire to provide, where possible, new primary schools instead of
expanding existing ones.
Outcome: The Local Authority commissioned independent land agents to identify potential
sites for new primary schools in the Borough, which needed to be able to be a minimum of 2
3 of 31
Forms of entry (420 places). This search identified no readily available sites, which would
meet the Local Authority’s requirements. A number of possible locations in the Surbiton area
were explored but none of these were suitable. The Surbiton Hospital site represented the
only opportunity for the Local Authority to provide a new 2 Form Entry primary school within a
reasonable timeframe and a realistic prospect of securing planning consent.
2.2.
Health consultation - Autumn 2009
Overview: Following approval from Kingston Council's Health Overview Panel in August
2009 regarding our plans to redevelop the Surbiton Hospital site, NHS Kingston held a
thorough public consultation concerning the health proposals between 1st September and
30th November 2009. The topic of consultation was “Better care systems and Surbiton
Hospital site redevelopment” and the aim was to gauge initial responses to the key principles
behind NHS Kingston's plans.
Activities / reach: Printed and online information was produced and publicised via libraries,
community centres and the local press – including flyers distributed to around 58% of homes
in the borough. Letters, leaflets and questionnaires were sent to 600+ local community
representatives and associations – plus 98 individuals who expressed an interest via the flyer
return slips. 128 individuals attended 10 consultation meetings. A further 380+ individuals
were reached via 5 council meetings (held in public); an NHS Kingston public board meeting;
a patient participation group meeting and a stand at an NHS Kingston Health Fair. A total of
104 questionnaires were returned. The results of various qualitative ‘Needs Assessments’
with seldom heard groups were also incorporated.
Key areas of feedback and responses
From the consultation meetings:
• Would the project have an adverse effect on Kingston Hospital? Answer - the aim of the
project is to reduce the strain on Kingston Hospital but not to adversely affect it.
• What do GPs think about the plans? Residents do not want to lose the local, personalised
and individual care currently received from GPs. Answer - we are committed to working
closely with GPs to ensure that the service levels currently provided by GPs are improved
and not detrimentally affected.
• Attendees who expressed an opinion generally liked the idea of more modern facilities on
the Surbiton Hospital site (but disliked the name ‘polyclinic’). Response - our development
plans will enable the deliver of more modern facilities and it is now unlikely that the name
polyclinic will be used.
• Key concerns were around parking and transport – especially for elderly, disabled and
those with children. Response - our travel planning work with endeavour to provide
appropriate parking and transportation solutions to meet the needs of all areas of the
community.
4 of 31
From the questionnaires: (some percentages total over 100 as responders able to make multiple
suggestions)
• 93.3% of responders supported the idea of the Surbiton Hospital site continuing to be used
for healthcare (with 0.9% opposing and 5.8% abstaining).
• The top three most commonly requested uses for excess land were green spaces, a
garden or outdoor recreational facilities - 28.8%; parking (free or paid for) - 19.2%; and a
school - 11.5%. All of these are being provided (to some degree) by the proposed
development.
• Of 11 service areas suggested as "could be provided in your area" 40.4% of responders
wanted urgent care, 35.6% wanted diagnostics and 29.8% minor procedures. All of these
are being provided by the proposed development.
• The most commonly suggested areas for improvements were for more tests, treatments,
‘hospital-like’ and community services to be available in Surbiton / other suburbs (26%);
more out of hours care (12.5%); and more choice / flexibility / assistance around when and
how appointments can be booked (9.6%) - especially advanced booking with GPs. Again
all of this is being proposed.
• The most frequently mentioned positive aspects of the current service to be preserved
were easy access to good GPs (19.2%) and caring, high quality staff (18.3%).
Full report at: www.kingstonpct.nhs.uk/have-your-say/Care-closer-to-home.htm
Outcome: In February 2010, NHS Kingston announced its plans to proceed with the
development of a planning application and business case to redevelop the Surbiton Hospital
site to enable the delivery of better healthcare service for local people. In order for the
business case to be robust and financially viable, NHS Kingston needed to partner with
another organisation that would help with the redevelopment costs and provide financial
return, either through the sale or lease of part of the site. It is proposed that this financial
return be realised by leasing land for a new primary school.
2.3.
School consultation - March - May 2010
Overview: In line with school organisation regulations, and further to their first phase of
consultation, the Local Authority carried out a statutory consultation on a proposal to provide
a new Primary School on the Surbiton Hospital site from Monday 15 March to Monday 10
May 2010. The consultation form was circulated to 9000 addresses located within half a mile
of the site, to all parents/carers of primary and pre-school aged children, via local doctors
surgeries, libraries and through usual statutory Local Authority consultees such as council
members, MP’s and key partners.
Feedback: In total, 326 responses were received in response to the proposal to establish a
new primary school on part of the Surbiton Hospital site. This showed a clear majority
supporting the strategy and in favour of establishing a new school in Surbiton. It also showed
a clear majority of respondents (though slightly lower than those in favour overall) in support
of the school being 2 Form Entry and being based on the Surbiton Hospital site. The full
results are as follows.
5 of 31
i. Do you agree with the Kingston Primary Strategy to provide an additional 13.5
Forms of Entry (405 places) across the Borough from September 2011?
Yes
No
Undecided
Total
80.4% (254)
9.2% (29)
10.4% (33)
316
ii. Do you agree that as part of the Strategy, a new Primary School should open in
Surbiton in September 2011?
Yes
No
Undecided
Total
78.5% (249)
11.4% (36)
10.1% (32)
317
iii. Do you agree that the school should be two form entry (60 pupils per year
group)?
Yes
No
Undecided
Total
70.7% (224)
15.8% (50)
13.6% (43)
317
iv. Do you agree that the school should be based on the Surbiton Hospital site?
Yes
No
Undecided
Total
60.4% (191)
25% (79)
14.6% (46)
316
Full report published at:
http://www.kingston.gov.uk/browse/education/schools/school_expansion/primary_expansi
on_consultation.htm
Outcome: Kingston Council's Executive decided on 30 June 2010 that a competition
notice should be issued by May 2011 when greater certainty regarding the deliverability
of the project will be in place. It is anticipated that the competition process will
commence in line with this deadline in order to ensure that the school is able to open in
time to receive a first cohort of pupils in September 2012.
6 of 31
3. Joint pre-planning application consultation, promotion and reach
3.1.
Overview
In accordance with guidance from planning officers, NHS Kingston and Kingston Council
carried out a joint pre-application consultation in July 2010 to gather public views on the
planning application proposals, before submission.
A range of approaches were used to gather feedback and views from local people, including
the use of ongoing stakeholder meetings established through previous stages of
consultation, a leaflet drop to 36,000 homes, a press release, website coverage, creation of a
briefing document and Q & A, a questionnaire in hard copy and online, creation of exhibition
materials to displaying the building designs, seven public meetings and exhibitions, targeted
meetings for specific stakeholder including the Oakhill and District Residents Association,
Southbank House Mental Health Service Users, a Transport Involvement Group and a
Heritage Involvement Group.
The joint project team has since responded to the feedback from this consultation and
incorporated a number of changes to the relevant sections of the planning application
submission.
3.2.
Consultation activities, promotion and reach
Stakeholder meetings prior to public consultation
• Stakeholder meetings were held on 18 March 2010 and 13 May 2010 with health providers,
local council staff, councillors, patient and local community representatives. Details of
previous health consultation and forthcoming schools consultation were discussed and a
general project update provided. Focus Groups were formed (as follows) to involve
relevant stakeholders in different areas of the project:
o
Care providers
o
Patient representatives
o
Wider community representatives
o
Education, parent/carers and pupil representatives (yet to be formed)
Public and stakeholder consultation events
At the following events, representatives from NHS Kingston, Kingston Council and (in some
cases) architects firm Roberts Limbrick were available to discuss the discuss the site design
proposals and answer questions from stakeholders and the public. Hard copy
questionnaires were given to all visitors to the events.
o
Special meeting for local councillors - Mon 12 July, Surbiton Library
o
Special meeting for all stakeholders - Tues 13 July, Surbiton Hospital
7 of 31
• Neighbourhood Meetings (exhibitions held before the start of Kingston Council's regular
Neighbourhood Committee Meetings):
- Weds 14 July 2010, 6.30pm - Christ Church Primary School, Pine Gardens, Surbiton
- Weds 21 July 2010, 6.30pm - Southborough School, Hook Road, Surbiton
• Drop-in Exhibitions:
- Mon 19 July to Tues 27 July 2010 - Surbiton Library, Ewell Road (unstaffed)
- Mon 19 July to Tue 27 July 2010 - Hook Centre, Hook Road, Chessington (unstaffed)
- Thurs 22 July 2010, 10am-12pm, 3pm-5pm - Surbiton Library, Ewell Road (staffed)
- Tues 27 July 2010, 1pm to 8pm - The Hook Centre, Hook Road, Chessington (staffed)
- Thurs 29 July 2010, 1pm to 9pm - Surbiton YMCA, 49 Victoria Road, Surbiton (staffed)
• Special meeting for Oak Hill and District Residents Association - Tues 27 July,
Surbiton Hospital. See Appendix C for responses provided to this group. We also
proposed that ODRA residents take part in the Transport Working Group (see below).
• A Mental Health Re-provision Steering Group was also formed with South West London
and St George's Mental Health Trust, NHS Richmond, NHS Surrey and various staff and
patient representatives regarding the re-provision of mental health services currently
provided within the Surbiton Hospital site at South Bank House. MP Edward Davey has
been involved with this Steering Group and following a successful meeting in September
2010 the group is continuing to work with South Bank House staff and patient
representatives to progress and review ideas for the re-provision of services in line with the
Individual Needs Assessments carried out in Summer 2010. Meetings have also been held
with carers and service users, and a bespoke briefing and Q & A document was shared
with carers and service users to help address key questions and concerns.
Promotion and reach
• From 1 July 2010 - emails and letters containing full details of the consultation were sent to
key stakeholders, plus over 100 local community groups and organisations including
residents associations, charity and voluntary groups, patient groups, faith groups, black
and ethnic minority groups, young people’s groups and nursing homes.
• 2 July 2010 news items appeared on the home pages of Kingston Council and NHS
Kingston websites with links to further information, the full briefing document and an online
or printable consultation questionnaire.
• From 2 July 2010, articles appeared in local newspapers Surrey Comet, Kingston Guardian
and Kingston Informer providing details of the public exhibitions and web information.
• From 5 July 2010 - a 4-sided A4 leaflet entitled 'Give your views on proposals to redevelop
the Surbiton Hospital site' was distributed to 36,000 homes in Surbiton and South of the
Borough and copies left in libraries, train stations and supermarkets. The leaflet included:
o high-level information about the proposals;
o website details for obtaining the briefing document and consultation questionnaire;
o details of public exhibitions where site plans could be viewed, questions asked and
questionnaires obtained.
• Target reach = 20% of 36,000 households in Surbiton and South of the Borough - achieved
via letterbox distribution to 36,000 homes (anticipated 80% penetration / 25% attention
rate) = approx 7,200 homes.
8 of 31
3.3.
Consultation results
Approximately 180 people attended the events and 121 questionnaires were returned indicating that around 2% of those people expected to have received the information, acted
upon it. This is in keeping with typical response rates for this type of public consultation.
Summary of feedback:
From the consultation questionnaire 58.1% of respondents supported or strongly supported
the overall development plans.
In relation to health - 78% agreed or strongly agreed with the proposed health services to be
included in the new building, 53% agreed or strongly agreed that the design of the health
buildings were appropriate for the service being proposed (36% didn't know), 43% agreed or
strongly agreed with the work being done around travel planning for the health services (16%
didn't know and 42% disagreed) and 69% agreed or strongly agreed with the work being
done around conservation and the environment.
In relation to the school - 41% of people agreed or strongly agreed with the design of the
school buildings (34% didn't know and 25% disagreed or strongly disagreed), 40% agreed or
strongly agreed with the travel planning work (11.5% didn't know and 48.5% disagreed or
strongly disagreed) and 40% agreed or strongly agreed with the plans for outdoor space and
possible use of the roof area (18% didn't know and 42% disagreed or strongly disagreed).
In relation to community use - 63% agreed or strongly agreed with our plans.
Our response to the consultation has therefore focused on improving our development
proposals to address these areas of concern regarding the school and regarding the health
travel planning - and the ways in which we have done this are detailed below.
Detailed feedback from the questionnaires and consultation events:
The most frequently occurring areas of feedback across all four sections of the questionnaire
(general, health, school and community space) and through the consultation events can be
summarised as follows. A full breakdown of the statistics and the comments received via
both the questionnaires and the public events is included in Appendix C.
Key
•
•
•
•
•
areas of positive feedback:
Support for the provision of more / improved health services closer to home
Welcoming the development of new spaces for community use
Support for building a new school rather than expanding existing schools
Welcoming the idea of modern facilities and a new, vibrant centre for public services
Appreciating the opportunity to review and discuss the proposals with the project team
Key
•
•
•
•
•
areas of negative feedback:
Parking, travel planning / access to the site and traffic congestion
Concerns about the school proposals
Overcrowding on the site
Concerns about the rooftop play area
Inadequate consideration of the conservation area
9 of 31
3.4.
Our response to public feedback:
Whilst the key consultation results do demonstrate overall support for the development,
some of the sub-question statistics and comments highlight that parking and traffic
management; the location of the school and the proposed roof top play area; possible overcrowding of the site; and respecting the nature of the conservation area are key concerns for
particular local residents and stakeholders.
The project is therefore focusing its efforts on overcoming these specific concerns in a range
of different ways as detailed below.
Further local community engagement since the July consultation:
o Attended the Oakhill and District Residents AGM on Thurs 7th October to give a
presentation and answer questions regarding the development. See Appendix C for the
responses provided to their questions.
o Provided an update to key stakeholders and local residents regarding the work being
done as a result of feedback from the July consultation. This included details of how
people could input to the Transport Involvement Group and the Heritage and
Environment Involvement Group (as follows).
o Held a Transport Workshop on Monday 4th October and follow-up meeting on
Wednesday 10th November 2010 to involve local residents in the work around traffic
management and travel planning. (Notes included in the consultation response section
below.)
o
Held a Heritage and Environment Involvement Group meeting on Tuesday 26th
October, where the project team met with key stakeholders and local residents discuss
ideas for preserving the memory of the existing hospital buildings and creating a pleasant
and welcoming environment for visitors to the redeveloped site. (Notes included in the
consultation response section below.)
o
Attended a meeting with the Surbiton Conservation Area Advisory Committee on
Tues 9th November where the committee were able to review proposals for the site
redevelopment. Some concerns were raised at the meeting and documented in the
notes sent out by the committee. The project team's response to those meeting notes
were providing in a letter to the Surbiton Conservation Area Advisory Committee on
Thursday 25th November and this letter is (included in section 4 of this document).
3.4.1. Response regarding parking, travel planning and traffic management
This project has long recognised that these transport related elements of the redevelopment
of the Surbiton Hospital site would prove the most challenging, so it is no great surprise that
the consultation has uncovered these areas of concern.
10 of 31
One area of our proposals that we have changed as a result of the consultation feedback is
the addition of 12 additional parking spaces for health staff and 6 for school staff (including 2
disabled spaces in each case) for use via a controlled access gate by key staff members
who are unable to travel to the site via other means. Despite this, it is still our intention to
minimise staff car usage for both health and school staff through our travel planning work
and incentive schemes detailed below.
In order to demonstrate our commitment to the process of creating robust and practical traffic
management arrangements, with exemplary and sustainable travel planning goals and
appropriate parking arrangements, we have set up a Transport Working Group (of internal
officers and transport consultants) and a Transport Involvement Group (of local residents and
stakeholders) to ensure that our travel planning process is rigorously scrutinised and
continuously improved.
The first meeting of the Transport Involvement Group was held on Mon 4th October in order
to involve local residents in the work being undertaken by the Transport Working Group. The
outcomes of this meeting include:
o Clear identification of the issues and concerns of local residents in regard to potential
transport issues expected to arise from the redevelopment.
o A commitment to revisit the Traffic Impact Assessment studies and ensure that the
appropriate measures are being developed to minimise the future impact of increased
travel to and from the site.
o A commitment to better explain the Traffic Impact Assessment studies carried out to date
and our travel planning solutions and initiatives that we intend to implement as the project
moves forward.
o A commitment that a rigorous programme of Travel Planning implementation will form a
strong part of our future planning in regard to this development.
The full notes from this meeting are included in Appendix D and have been used to inform
the next stage of work being undertaken by the Transport Working Group.
A further meeting took place on Wednesday 10th November following a request to present
the work being carried out in relation to traffic management and travel planning. At this
meeting the key details of the Transport Impact Assessment carried out by Jacobs
Consultants were presented along with the school and health travel plans. See Appendix D
for the presentation, the questions raised at the meeting and our responses. The Transport
Impact Assessment and the school and health Travel Plans can be found within the planning
application.
The key point to highlight in response to the concerns around parking and drop-off
opportunities (particularly for the school) is that the easier it is for people to bring their cars to
the site, the more this will encourage car usage and discourage walking. Our key area of
focus therefore remains to minimise car usage in relation to the school - particularly for
health and teaching staff, and for fit and able local patients - whilst ensuring that sufficient
parking is available for those who need it in connection with the health facilities.
A strong feature of our forward planning is therefore the continuing development of a
progressive and innovative Travel Plan that will evolve and expand as we work with potential
school providers, prospective parents, healthcare providers and patients. This will enable us
to address the widely faced problems of transport congestion - which are not simply caused
by this redevelopment project, but experienced in most London suburbs such as Surbiton.
11 of 31
Key elements of our Travel Plans are focused around providing incentives for those people
willing to demonstrate sustainable modes of travel to and from the site. For example,
incentives for teaching staff willing to utilise modern curriculum ideas which rely on low paper
used (e.g. single sheet of paper homework assignments, instead of books) and timetable
planning using computers and memory sticks in order to enable them to travel to and from
work via public transport instead of by car. Similarly, season ticket loans, pool cars and
bicycles schemes can also be used to help staff to access sustainable modes of transport.
Key elements of the still evolving health travel plan proposals are:
There are 70 spaces (including 5 disabled) for patients/visitors in the main car park off Ewell
Road. However, it is planned to allocate 2 of these spaces staff for pool cars. The following
describes the proposed arrangement for management, operation and control of the health
facility car park.
Appointment booking – when an appointment is made, confirmation will be sought as to
whether a car parking space is required for the patient. This is a key first step in ensuring the
car park demand is matched to the available supply.
Entry – the preferred arrangement is to use the ‘Dragon teeth’ method with no entry barrier.
Upon entering the car park, the vehicle drives over the ‘Dragon teeth’ and finds the first
available parking space.
Ticket – a ticket will be taken from one of several ticket issuing machines situated in/around
the car park. The ticket will comprise two pieces (separated by tearing along perforations)
with one piece remaining in the car for display on the window/dashboard (for the purposes of
verification by the parking attendant) and the second piece being retained by the
patient/visitor for validation after their appointment and for use at the exit barrier. The entry
and exit time will be printed clearly on both parts of the ticket (exit time to be in larger/bolder
print).
Parking spaces – apart from the reserved parking spaces for disabled people, staff (e.g.
pool cars) and patient transport, all other parking spaces will not have any designation (e.g.
according to stay duration), as this is likely to be confusing, lead to delays in finding a space
and create a negative first impression of the health facility. Hence, this means that a
patient/visitor drives in and finds the first available parking space, as mentioned above.
Ticket validation – to allow exit from the car park, via the exit barrier (the ‘Dragon teeth’
preventing exit via the entry point), the parking ticket must first be validated. It is crucial that
ticket validation takes place in an area situated away from the main entrance to avoid
misuse. Once validated, the patient/visitor is permitted approximately 10 minutes to exit the
car park.
Community use after hours – depending on the car park usage once the actual pattern of
arrivals is known, consideration will be given to allowing use of the car park for
educational/community use.
Staff – staff entry to and exit from the car park will be by way of a swipe card or key code.
Visitors/Servicing – entry for regular visitors and servicing should be the same as for staff.
12 of 31
Car Park Supervisor - a ‘roaming’ car park supervisor/attendant will be required to oversee
the operation of the car park, check that vehicles are parked in the correct areas (e.g. vehicle
displays a Blue Badge if in disabled space), that the ticket is valid and to assist people with
any related queries/problems.. This is particularly necessary during the opening phase of the
health facility (e.g. first few weeks). Following the opening period it is expected that the car
park supervisor/attendant will only need to be on-site during AM and PM peak hours, and
during school start/end times, to monitor car park use and check tickets etc.
Emergency contact – the contact details of an engineer or equivalent for the entry/exit
barrier system should be made available to reception staff, duty site/facilities manager or
other persons a appropriate.
Extended appointment - in case of a stay duration in excess of 60 minutes, e.g. due to an
extended appointment time, need for additional consultation, visit to pharmacy etc., a
token/code will be provided to the patient, by reception staff, for use at the exit barrier – the
patient will need to show their appointment card, in order to verify their personal /
appointment details.
Overstay after appointment – the need to validate the car park ticket at the end of the
consultation, before leaving the health facility building, will avoid the possibility of people
using the remaining time (i.e. within the 60 minutes) for personal benefit (e.g. shopping).
Once the ticket is validated, the patients must leave the car park within 10 minutes.
Unauthorised use – the requirement to validate the car park ticket in a ‘secure’ way will
prevent people (e.g. parents of school children) parking in the health facility car park and
validating their ticket ‘surreptitiously’.
Penalty/Fine – it may be appropriate to introduce a system of warnings (verbal, written)
culminating in a monetary fine, as a last resort, for persistent offenders. If the reason for the
overstay is dubious, then the vehicle details including registration details can be requested /
observed and the situation monitored.
Key elements of the still evolving school travel plan proposals are:
•
Pedestrian priority access via 3 evenly distributed compass points around the site to
ensure visitors have access to the site via the shortest possible walking route (thus
reducing car usage).
•
Minimising vehicular access in the close vicinity of these pedestrian access points to
ensure that school children and their parents are encourage to either walk to the site or, if
car usage is essential that they "park and walk" in permitted areas away from the site.
•
‘Walking bus’ or buses from suitable drop-off points around the site (from which school
staff can, at set times, safely escort groups of children arriving on foot or by car onto the
school premises).
•
Although feedback has suggested a belief that people will bring their cars anyway - the
easier it is for cars to access the school (e.g. by direct drop-off points or underground
parking) the more likely it will be that people will come by car. Therefore, if we were to
13 of 31
introduce more on-site parking or direct vehicle drop-off, this would not only serve to
increase car usage and congestion, instead of reduce it, but would also be prohibitively
expensive and impractical within the realistic boundaries of the rest of the project.
•
A commitment to strive for car usage from just 10% of pupils, or fewer (420 primary + 26
nursery pupils = 446 children x 10% = 44.6 children, subtract those travelling with siblings
or childminders, or via pre-arranged transport / taxis connected with special educational
needs = approx 34 cars per day).
•
A commitment to achieve car usage of 10% of pupils or fewer through the close working
with school senior team, governors, teachers and parents. (Note: this has been achieved
in other primary schools in the borough - as illustrated below,)
•
Since this is to be a brand new school (and not a redeveloped one) we can begin this
process from the very start of the school's development - before habits have been
formed, precedents set in terms of it being acceptable for people to drive their children to
school and before any children are granted a place at the school without being able to
demonstrate the ability to travel via sustainable means.
•
The project will especially seek to engage with working parents who may wish to drop
children to school on their way to work - however, many of these working parents will be
making their own journey to work via public transport - so due to the proximity of the site
to the train station and good bus links will serve to make the journey easier that it would
be from school situated in other locations.
•
As part of staff recruitment a number of policies will be employed to minimise car usage
and these will include:
• local recruitment where possible, particularly for part time positions
• promotion of season ticket loans for public transport
• 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.
Other local primary schools demonstrating that car usage of 10% or less is possible:
•
•
•
•
•
•
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%
Measures to minimise the impact of service vehicles on residential streets
Further feedback regarding traffic concerns related to the increase in services vehicles for
deliveries and waste collections causing a nuisance for neighbouring local residents.
This will be minimized as part of the joint development by NHS Kingston and Kingston
Council creating a combined waste storage site for use by both buildings at the back of the
14 of 31
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.
3.4.2. Response regarding the location of the school
The most frequent comments made in relation to the school proposals expressed dis-belief
around the need for additional school places in this part of Surbiton and / or doubt that other
sites around the area had been adequately considered. In response to this the following
statement has been prepared to reassure people that the figures used to assess the need for
school places in this part of Surbiton are robust, and that sufficient effort has been made in
the search for alternative sites.
School proposals - why a new school is needed in central Surbiton
Demand for school places is forecast bi-annually by neighbourhood area (Kingston Town,
Surbiton, Maldens & Coombe and South of the Borough). These forecasts indicate a continued
need for more school places in Surbiton than are currently available. Kingston Council use a
rigorous process to produce these forecasts. This involves using the Greater London Authority
School Rolls Projection service and draft population projections, complemented by examining
local information such as live birth rate figures, GP registrations, demand for early years places
and the popularity of local schools to produce the forecasts.
In Surbiton, there are currently 405 primary school places. From 2008 this has been insufficient,
resulting in 'bulge' year groups and temporary classrooms in several Surbiton schools. Current
forecasts indicate that on top of the 405 existing places, an additional 91 four year olds in Surbiton
will need places, each year, for the next 5-7 years.
In Surbiton a comprehensive search of potential sites for a new primary school 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
15 of 31
*
*
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.
Kingston Council recognises the challenges involved in managing the introduction of a new school
in this area and is working hard with local residents, councillors, transport and town planning
advisors, architects and (subsequently) potential new school providers - to ensure that the impact
on local residents and the surrounding area is minimised. This process will take time and local
people will be able to participate in our work at various times - the next opportunity for this is as
part of the planning application consultation (expected in November) which will be led by the
planning department. We will provide details to key stakeholders nearer the time.
Kingston Council has a statutory duty to provide a school place to all resident children who require
one and the work we are doing is satisfying that need for many members of the public.
Concerns were also raised about how a school would change the character of the local area
due to the increased noise and activity on and around the site. The following measures have
been carried out in response to these concerns.
o
Careful studies of the site by architects and surveyors have been carried out to assess
the possible impact of noise from the site on local residents. The precise positioning of
the school was chosen deliberately to make use of the dense natural enclosure provided
by the wooded area at this end of the site - and in keeping with the wider desire to protect
the rich foliage all around the site, there has been a further commitment to preserve this
tree screening at the boundaries of the site as a way of absorbing and dissipating the
noise that will naturally occur from the school.
o
New measures are also included in the proposals to increase the landscaping in the strip
between the school boundary and number 2 Oak Hill and to replace the current 1.2 metre
high fence with a 1.8 metre fence right along this boundary.
3.4.3. Response regarding the scale of development on the site
It has always been the intention of the project to retain a strong feeling of space around the
site and to protect elements of its rural nature by preserving the views between the buildings
and the rich foliage at the boundaries. As a result the buildings have deliberately been set
well back from the edges of the site by well over 10 metres in most areas.
It is believed that the public concern expressed in this regard has a lot to do with the fact that
local people perceive the site to be smaller than it actually is - as much of the site is hidden
from street views and includes a considerable amount of space at the back and centre of the
site, which people may not be aware exists.
Currently 20.5% of the site footprint is taken up with buildings - this includes the main
Surbiton Hospital building, No.1 Oakhill (Elmside) and South Bank House. In the revised
16 of 31
proposals, the building footprint has increased by just 3.5% to 24.0% of the site.
In designing the new development the aim has always been to minimise the impact of the
buildings on the footprint of the site, to create better movement around the site and to
maximise the value of the external areas by creating larger areas of space and light at the
front and back of the site. This is in contrast to the current hospital layout, which has smaller
pockets of poorly utilised external space and excess land hidden away at the centre/rear of
the site - this can be illustrated by the following diagrams.
Despite feeling confident that the site has not been over-developed, the project team has
responded to public concerns in this area by agreeing a way to further scale back the overall
size of the health building whilst retaining all the important internal spaces - particularly for
GPs etc. Notably the perimeter of the building has been cut back alongside the northern
boundary - moving it away from the site perimeter from 8 metres to 15 metres and reducing
the height of the building where it runs from south to north along the eastern edge of the site
from 3 storeys to 2 storeys. This has been done in direct response to the owners of a
neighbouring property expressing concerns about the views from their garden. The updated
diagrams above, and those provided in the planning application reflect this charge.
A further key change has been made to reduce the footprint of the school at the front of the
building in order to create more space in the main playground and entrance plaza. Careful
internal space planning has been carried out to ensure that the elements of the building that
were removed have been gained back by better utilizing excess space elsewhere.
Outdoor play space and roof top play
Some of the consultation feedback expressed concerns as to whether there was enough
outdoor play space for use by 420 primary + 26 nursery school children. Some of this
concern may have arisen from the small scale of some of the site plans used during the
public consultation making it hard to see the playground areas.
There is however a range of hard and soft surface play areas situated around the school for
pupils to use at playtimes and one of these areas has been increased in size in response to
the consultation feedback.
The lack of space for playing fields on the site was also raised through the consultation
feedback and this is regrettable aspect of the development, since the search of potential
sites for a new primary school identified no sites that could have provided a new school with
17 of 31
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.
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 feedback from the pre-planning applications 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. From a safety aspect, the perimeter of the roof top play
area will be surrounded by a 2 metre high brick-rendered parapet which will also help to
contain noise - and since these are set back from the edge of the rest of the building will not
be as imposing as an extra storey.
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.
3.4.4. Response regarding conservation, heritage and the environment
A historic buildings adviser has been appointed in relation to the demolition of existing
buildings. Ecology and tree experts have surveyed the site and assessed how best to retain
its valuable characteristics. As a result, we are committed to ensuring that 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 seen 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. 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.
Furthermore, through the setting up of a Heritage and Environment Involvement Group
the project team is working to ensure that local people are involved in the development of
pleasant and welcoming indoor and outdoor spaces, which reflect memories of the old
18 of 31
Surbiton Hospital buildings and respect the local environment. Notes from a recent meeting
of this group are as follows.
On Tuesday 26th October members of the project team met with 9 stakeholders (including
Kingston Link members and a Surbiton councillor) to discuss ideas for preserving the memory of
the existing hospital buildings and creating a pleasant and welcoming environment for visitors to
the redeveloped site. At the meeting the following points were discussed and agreed:
• Positive feedback was received regarding the identification and commitment to protect various
historical plaques and other items of architectural interest that had been done so far by the
architecture and estates teams.
• Concerns were raised regarding the proposed location of the memory garden (along the edge of
the site to the rear of the Lodge) suggesting that this was not a sufficiently prominent area of the
site and that any seating area so close, yet slightly hidden from the Ewell Road may attract
undesirable use particularly at night.
• A preferred location for the memorial plaques and features was identified as being the courtyard
garden and internal waiting areas, so as to preserve the memories from the past at the very
heart of the new building. Action for Project manager: to assess feasibility of moving the
location of the garden
• Agreement was also strong for echoes of the style of the old building to be featured at various
locations around the new site. A popular example of this included the round brick plant holders
currently located either side of the main entrance to the hospital.
• Discussion took place around ideas for internal memory features which could include
photographs of the old hospital - it was also suggested that an appeal be made via the local
press for people to come forward with pictures and poems to be included in the waiting areas.
• Agreement was also reached regarding the use of proposed memory garden area alongside the
Lodge in that this could be used for attractive planting - perhaps roses and scented planting for
the visually impaired - so long as seating was not included.
• It was deemed more appropriate to have benches dotted around the other parts of the site for
seating - some of which could be purchased by individuals in dedicated memory of loved ones.
• The sensory garden at Tolworth Hospital was referenced as an exemplar space that could be
reviewed and imitated somehow in the new Surbiton Hospital site. Action for project manager:
to arrange for the architecture and estates team to visit this at the appropriate time.
• There was a strong desire to retain the use of the name 'Surbiton Hospital' in particular so that
the existing art deco signage could be used. Other group members felt that this name was
misleading due to the fact that the word 'hospital' suggests in patient beds, which will not be
featured in the new health facilities. Action for group members: to seek examples of other
hospitals where no inpatient beds are available.
4. Focused consultation with advisory bodies
4.1.
Urban Design London
On 25th June 2010 the architectural design team took the plans for the new primary school
to the Urban Design for London Panel. The following bullet points are the direct feedback
from the UDL and the indented paragraphs in italics illustrate what the design team have
done in response to this feedback.
Feedback from Urban Design London (UDL) Surgery - 25 June 2010
Panel: Fred Manson; John Waldron (Architect, ‘Spaces for Learning’), Chris Wilderspin (van
Heyningen and Haward Architects) and Esther Kurland (UDL)
19 of 31
Surbiton Hospital: Paul Gooderson & Aled Roberts (Robert Limbrick Architects) presented
the scheme. Marcus Ballard and Donald Farquharson (representing the Royal Borough of
Kingston) also attended.
•
For a so called pedestrian-based scheme, priority appears to have been given to the car – it does
not say ‘non-reliance on the car’! For example, the footpath is deflected off the access road at
the main site entrance, whereas the pedestrian desire line is likely to be straight ahead along the
access road. People who walk, travel the furthest! Design layout is dominated by sight lines and
car parking. Might be better to aim for a more informal shared surface arrangement.
Roberts Limbrick has realigned the footpaths on either side of the approach from Ewell Road
to a) smooth the flow of the footpath on the southern boundary, and b) move the northern
footpath to flow directly across the middle of the site to the health building. This has been
achieved using zebra-crossing style pedestrian pathways to create a safety focused
pedestrian-priority environment with low-speed vehicle movement around the car park.
•
Not enough design emphasis on what is the school entrance, i.e. unclear where the main
entrance is located and footpath routes to it lack clarity and are too circuitous and ‘tortuous’.
School lacks identity and can’t be seen from Ewell Rd.
The architects have opening up the design of school building to create a large pedestrian hub
/ plaza-style concourse at the centre of the site where all pedestrian routes join. As a result,
the school entrance is now more prominently feature at the centre of the site.
•
Suggest getting rid of ‘arm’ of building adjacent to polyclinic and opening out the piazza area in
front of school to create a stronger, more attractive focal space, which will give more prominence
to the 'Tree Protection Order' (TPO) lime trees. This would give the school building and the main
entrance more ‘presence’.
This extra 'arm' has been removed as suggested and the school entrance and piazza are
given more prominence which will maximise the visual benefit / line of sight to the tree lined
boundaries.
•
Concern about depth of classrooms. Overhanging balconies will restrict daylight into ground floor
classrooms. Balconies are never very successful outside teaching areas and are expensive to
provide. Concentrate instead on creating wider, more prominent staircases and wider, more
useable central break-out space in the middle of the main block i.e. increase width of building in
place of building ‘arm’.
This has been achieved by extending the width of the building to recover floor space lost from
the extra 'arm' and reconfiguring the classrooms to become squarer. The first floor balconies
have been removed and replaced with a transparent canopy overlooking the ground floor.
•
Need to bring community areas into tighter use. No need for double height reception area.
Robert Limbrick has redesigned the community areas and removed the double height
reception area as suggested.
•
Level of ambition excellent, but relationship to landscaping is of key importance. Should aim for a
much simpler/less fussy and more ‘relaxed pavilion in the woods’ building design form. Given only
likely to catch glimpses of the school, no need for fussy architectural features, e.g. cladding,
which are likely to be dropped anyway on cost grounds when the building is commissioned.
20 of 31
The building has been simplified down in light of this comment, with greater focus being
placed on the how the building sits as a simple addition to a carefully designed and
considerately maintained woodland environment.
•
Need to prioritise the main entrance and make the other entrances work with it. Not convinced
about need for separate nursery entrance or about its location at furthest point from the polyclinic.
Need to make more of internal central space and suggest putting entrance in middle of building
with direct south-north route through to South Bank Terrace with reception area off, instead of
currently proposed convoluted arrangement. This would allow more controlled external play
space opportunities.
This has been addressed with the afore mentioned redesign of the central plaza and main
playground areas, with the entrance to the school now at the centre of the site - making it
more easily accessible from the northern pedestrian entrance whilst being equally accessible
from the south and east pedestrian routes. A new arrangement for the nursery entrance has
retained the client's desire for a separate entrance whilst providing a best of both worlds
solution which enables access to / from the nursery from the main school when needed.
•
Too many circulation spaces and bits of left over spaces that aren’t achieving anything useful e.g.
on South Bank Terrace frontage – better used to widen building. Need for a path between the
school and the polyclinic is not convincing and given shortage of outside play area, this space
needs to work harder and be used more effectively. However, agree covered play area for
nursery needs to be retained.
The redesign of the central area between the school and health building - and the realignment
of the main playground and location of the internal reception area has made better use of
these 'left over' spaces whilst enabling the covered play area for the nursery to be retained.
•
Proposed use of roof of building “unlikely to happen”
This proposed use of the roof area as an additional external space has been included (despite
concerns about the costs involved) due to the high degree of desire expressed locally for
ample outdoor space to be included.
•
Hard and soft play areas designed too much in the form of a landscape scheme, rather than of
practical value.
These areas have been redesigned by the landscape architects to improve their practical
benefit as play spaces, rather than for aesthetic design.
In summary, the design team have incorporated virtually all of the suggestions made by the
Urban Design panel.
4.2.
Historic building advice and consultation
Whilst none of the historic buildings on the Surbiton Hospital site have been marked as listed
buildings, the site is in an area that was designated by the Royal Borough of Kingston as The
Oakhill Conservation Area in 1988. The Conservation Area covers a substantial area and
includes over 400 buildings - 18 of which are listed.
In the Council report to committee which led to the designation of the Oakhill Conservation
Area - no.s 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 Oak Hill are recognised as 'mid-nineteenth century buildings of
architectural and townscape significance (also refered to as Buildings of Townscape Merit).
No.1 Oak Hill - known originally as Elmside - forms part of the Surbiton Hospital. There is no
21 of 31
reference in the report made to the existing hospital building, despite it being the largest
building in the area.
Because of the significance of the site as part of the Conservation Area, NHS Kingston and
the Royal Borough of Kingston have employed a historic building advisor to advise them in
their decisions regarding the future use or demolition of the old buildings currently occupying
the Surbiton Hospital site.
Following our July pre-planning application consultation, local residents contacted the
Victorian Society in regard to the demolition of Elmside, or No.1 Oak Hill.
The Victorian Society made contact with the project team through a local councillor and
subsequent telephone conversations and emails were exchanged between the project
team's estates advisor and Alex Baldwin of the Victorian Society.
This included an email to the Victorian Society, which described some of the steps that had
been taken in considering the impact of the demolition of key buildings.
The team has undertaken a number of assessments before attempting to reach any conclusion these include:
·
Thorough survey and assessment of the site characteristics and policy relating to it
(architect/planning consultant/landscape consultant, etc.)
·
Survey and assessment of the buildings by a historic buildings expert
·
Survey and assessment of the surrounding area and, in particular the conservation area
·
The potential of the primary school brief to be satisfied by retaining Elmside
·
A review of the primary school proposal with the London Design Panel, particularly to
establish that the development would meet the standards of design excellence expected of such
an opportunity
·
Restoration of Newlands (no.3 Oak Hill), which is a detached house of similar age and style
occupying a prominent corner site, and to bring forward a contemporaneous planning application
to this effect
·
Proposals for redevelopment of Oak Hill Health Centre in a way that would preserve or
enhance the conservation area
The team has always been aware that the proposals would be judged by their quality and impact,
whether the loss of Elmside could be said to cause harm to the conservation area, whether they
could be said to preserve and enhance the conservation area and whether the benefits of
development were of sufficient significance.
I have spoken to Robert Thorne of Alan Baxters, our historic buildings adviser and am happy to
send you his initial scoping report for Elmside and plans, responding to the London Design Panel
initial report. It all represents work in progress, which, ultimately will be taken back to the planners.
I am not sure quite how much detail you would like to see on the proposals but the team is very
clear that its responsibility is to create a scheme that is in the public benefit and preserves or
enhances the conservation area.
As we discussed, these are matters of judgement. Please let me know if you would like any further
information or if it would be helpful to meet or visit the site.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Regards
Marcus
22 of 31
In response to this correspondence, a letter was received from the Victorian Society
expressing their views, as follows.
Dear Marcus
1 Oak Hill, Surbiton, Kingston upon Thames: Demolition as part of proposal to redevelop
site for Surbiton Hospital and new school
Thank you for sending me the information regarding the proposed demolition of 1 Oak Hill. As
promised I discussed the plans with our Southern Buildings Committee and I now write with their
views.
1 Oak Hill is an attractive Italianate villa within the Oak Hill Conservation Area. The building is in
keeping with the character of this part of the conservation area and has been singled out by Royal
Kingston as being a mid-nineteenth century building of architectural and townscape significance.
It is one of only a handful of buildings illustrated in the council’s Conservation Area information
sheet.
Local and national planning policy sets out a presumption in favour of retaining such buildings and
strong justification is required for their demolition.
1 Oak Hill is proposed for demolition to make way for a primary school. The demolition of the
building is justified on the grounds of the public benefits that will be created by the new school.
While we acknowledge that there are public benefits associated with the new school we think that
the same public benefit could be produced if the existing building were retained and used as part
of the new school. As the building is in a conservation area and not listed there is plenty of scope
to adapt the building to meet the needs of the school. Reuse of an existing building is both more
environmentally sustainable and provides a more sensitive response to Surbiton’s historic
environment.
We have not seen any evidence to suggest that the public benefit brought about by the demolition
of 1 Oak Hill could not be provided in another manner, such as the one we have suggested above.
Without stronger justification we would have to object to an application for Conservation Area
Consent to demolish the house.
Yours sincerely
Alex Baldwin
Conservation Adviser
Whilst the development team accept the opinions of the Victorian Society it is felt that the
public value of the redevelopment of the site, and the fact that the project will enable the
restoration of No.3 Oak Hill, will out-weigh the detrimental aspects of demolishing No.1 Oak
Hill.
This is in keeping with the advice received from historic buildings advisor Robert Thorne, of
Alan Baxter Associates in the Heritage Statement, which forms part of the planning
application. This document references a number of publications, Planning Acts and
clarifications from English Heritage which explain the considerations that should be
undertaken when evaluating whether demolition of designated heritage assets should or
should not occur and whether or not the proposed designs for new buildings constitute
23 of 31
respect for the local area. These reports and clarifications have been considered by Robert
Thorne and have led to the conclusions made within the Heritage Statement, which include
the following:
• The Borough did not refer to the significance of the 1930s hospital buildings when the Conservation
Area was designated in 1988 … the architect Wallace Marchment is not regarded as one of the
major figures of his time. The main hospital and rear buildings are good examples of their type but
are not outstanding or unique … it has been subject to many alterations that have eroded its
character. It is therefore not significant, nor are the subsidiary buildings including South Bank House
… That being so, the demolition of the hospital will (in the terms set out in PP55, para. HE9.4)
constitute a "less than substantial harm" to the designated asset, i.e. the conservation area.
• The replacement healthcare building will sit in the heart of the conservation area … the new building
has been designed to a height and massing, which respects its setting and views within the
conservation area. Thus it will have neutral impact.
• The lodge, entrance gates and associated laterns, with Art Deco lettering and a memorial plaque
form an ensemble that is better preserved than the main building and is a familiar element in the
Conservation Area … are an important part of the streetscape … the retention of these features is a
positive benefit. Other measures are also being taken to preserve the memory of the existing
hospital.
• No.1 Oak Hill matches no.s 2, 3 and 5 Oak Hill. The group is not complete and No.1 is set slightly
apart from no.s 2 and 3 and is not directly on the street frontage as they are.
• One of the options considered was for the retention of No.1 Oak Hill and its use as a nursery
(ground floor) and administration / staff accommodation (first floor). This analysis showed that the
result was a school building of much greater bulk and a less appropriate layout. Other options
demonstrated that the demolition of No.1 Oak Hill would allow a much better planned school,
attuned to the site in a more sensitive way. The guidance in Planning Policy Statement 5 allows for
a proposal to be justified as "necessary in order to deliver substantial public benefits that outweigh
that harm or loss". The proposed primary school will be indisputably a major public benefit,
especially in a borough where the number of permanent school places is failing to meet demand. It
having demonstrated that No.1 Oak Hill cannot be incorporated as part of the school, it can be
argued that this is clearly a case where the school, as a public facility should take priority.
• The Oakhill Conservation Area as a whole covers a large area and includes over 400 buildings.
Seen in that context the loss of one house will not result in a fundamental change to the area.
However as one of a group with neighbouring buildings, mostly of about the same date, it helps
define the character of the area. That character will be changed though not destroyed by its loss.
• That leaves the question of the impact of the Primary School building on the rest of the conservation
area … The fact that it is a modern design, which does not seek to imitate its neighbours, is less
important than the fact that it will be partially concealed in views up Oak Hill and its massing and
height respect neighbouring buildings … The design for the new primary school shows respect for
the setting and thus will have no major impact on the conservation area.
• All conservation areas experience incremental change, which, if properly managed, can result in a
gradual improvement of the area in questions.
• Although the site is at the heart of the conservation area it offers the possibility of redevelopment
because it is slightly isolated from the rest of the area.
• The completion of the application proposals will sustain the long-term life of the conservation area,
to its overall benefit.
24 of 31
In summary, the redevelopment team have concluded that the possibility of retaining the
existing Surbiton Hospital building would not be of significant value, and that retaining No.1
Oak Hill would have too many negative implications in terms of the amount of useful space
that would be provided within the existing building. Instead, it is considered preferable to
deliver a more efficient use of space through a new school building, with the land currently
taken up by No.1 Oak Hill being used both to provide an additional access point for the new
school and additional playground space.
For further clarification on this is provided in the Heritage Statement, included as part of the
planning application.
4.3.
Surbiton Conservation Area Advisory Committee
On Tuesday 9th November, key project team representatives met with 9 members of the
Surbiton Conservation Area Advisory Committee and presented the details of the proposed
redevelopment. In response to the comments returned from the committee in their meeting
notes the following letter was sent to the group on Thursday 25th November. The comments
received are included in the letter below as section headings shown in bold.
24th November 2010
Dear Vanessa
Re: Surbiton Hospital Redevelopment
I would like to thank you and your members for allowing myself and the team to attend your
meeting last month to present the proposed Surbiton Hospital scheme to you in advance of our
planning application. I have been sent a copy of the minutes for the meeting and wanted to take
the opportunity to respond to some of the concerns of the group.
Concern that the Hospital and School plans had been combined in one application
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 who strongly recommended that a joint
planning application be submitted. We have been informed that the Unitary Development Plan
identifies this as a single development site (Proposal Site 39b), and that it would be inappropriate
to seek to deal with it as two, or more, separate elements for planning purposes, due the many
common and interdependent issues that will need to be evaluated as material considerations
when a decision is taken. 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);
25 of 31
•
•
•
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.
Serious concern that future of the current medical centre is being covered separately
The future use of Oakhill clinic and the timetable for its redevelopment has yet to be decided and
therefore it was not possible to include it within the planning for this development. However the
survey data collected for this scheme, especially that relating to transport, will be used to inform
the development of Oakhill surgery and Newlands going forward.
Why is this area not being considered as an amenity space/sports area for the School?
There is sufficient play space on the proposed site to meet the needs of the school and off site
sports fields will be provided nearby for key stage 2 pupils. While it would be a wonderful bonus to
the school to have extra land as a permanent sports field it would not be financially feasible to
procure this site within the project budget.
It was noted there was a loss of trees and lack of landscaping
We are working closely with the borough Tree Officer to minimise the impact of the development
on the trees which contribute to the character of the site and have designed the buildings (most
notably the school) to incorporate the trees and make them a feature. Those trees being removed
are being replaced on a 2 for 1 basis else where on the site. I enclose the proposed landscaping
plan for you reference, in redesigning the site the team have sought to maximise the landscaping
providing a pedestrian and cycle corridor through the site and gardens for the public and staff.
The projects will cause over-development of the site (both buildings and the hard standing)
The same architects and project team have designed the site as a whole to ensure the best use of
space and a joined up approach. Currently 20.5% of the site footprint is taken up with buildings in
the proposed scheme this increases to 24.0% an increase of 3.5%.
In designing the scheme we have striven to minimise the impact of the buildings on the foot print
of the site, to create better movement around the site, to maximise the value of the external areas
(by creating larger areas of space and light at the front and back of the site, in contrast to the
current hospital layout which has smaller pockets of poorly utilised external space and excess land
hidden away at the centre/rear of the site).
Whilst this is hard to visualise from some of the illustrations provided at the meeting, the design
team is confident that the above measures will avoid the site appearing over developed. The
design also incorporates careful use of landscaping and porous surfaces to protect the water table
balance - and includes some areas of green roof finishes.
The new buildings have been designed to follow the basic footprint of the existing buildings, set
back from Ewell road and away from the site boundaries keeping below the level of the trees
which line the site and creating a pedestrian and cycle corridor through the site which connects
both buildings to Ewell Road and Oak Hill providing better access to bus and train services. This
can be seen in the following diagrams:
26 of 31
Current building foot print
Proposed building foot print
The parking and traffic management were felt to be insufficient for staff and visitors
We have carried out extensive and detailed traffic modelling and surveys and worked closely with
the borough Traffic Engineers, residents and Transport for London to ensure that our proposals
will not have a negative impact on surrounding area. Our modelling shows that there is sufficient
capacity within the health car park to accommodate anticipated demand and should the demand
be greater than anticipated this can be addressed by spreading the scheduling of appointments
(through the new GP consortia partnership approach) to ensure a steady flow of people into the
site, so there should not be any reason for people to park in the neighbouring streets.
Our advisors have also developed a robust car park management system to ensure that
unauthorised vehicles do not use the health car park - for example strict (but free) exit ticket
authorisation via the health facility reception, the use of CCTV number plate monitoring and
dragon teeth entry to ensure smooth flow of cars into the car park whilst preventing unauthorised
vehicles using the entrance way to avoid the exit barrier. We are confident that our targets for
school car travel are achievable as there are a number of other Kingston Schools who are
achieving under 10% car use and as a new school we are not trying to change existing habits.
Due to local need the school will have a small catchment area with families living within half a mile
of site.
There was lack of amenity space for the children – and very little play/games area for them
The school has been designed to maximise the space available and provides adequate space in
accordance with the government guidelines.
A covered cycle space should be provided and should be at least 5 times larger than
shown
There is space for 40 bicycles at the school plus scooter racks and a further 40 at the health
facility, this in line with recommended guidance and our travel plan targets. If the need is greater
further provision will be provided in the future.
No consideration being given for caretaker accommodation
It is not proposed for the school to have a live on site caretaker, as is standard with modern
schools. Site-wide security / maintenance will be shared with the health facility.
A Section 106 contribution to improve the footpath link to the station and to manage the
deterioration of the adjacent Bird Sanctuary site was felt essential
The project team are working closely with the borough planners and traffic engineers to scope out
S.106 works associated with the site and local residents will be consulted during the process
regarding any street works, the foot path is one of the areas which we will be discussing.
27 of 31
The overall design does not compliment or enhance the Conservation area
We are sorry that this was the impression you were left with, it has been the aim of the design
st
team to create a scheme which will meet the needs of the community in 21 century, state of the
art accommodation making the best use of the space and improving movement around the site for
all.
In designing the buildings we have kept the height below the existing tree level, in keeping with the
surrounding area and to minimise any impact on the sites neighbours. In the overall design we
have drawn upon the current 1930’s buildings and other local Art Deco influences such as
Surbiton Station and are retaining and enhancing the entrance lodge and main gates which face
Ewell Road.
The memorial plaques and benches and distinctive planters are being maintained and will form
part of the memory garden at the heart of the health building which has been designed with input
from local residents. The improved access and landscaping will provide a positive contribution to
the area and especially enhance an area of Oakhill which has been dominated by derelict
buildings for many years with facilities which will benefit the community for generations to come.
If you would like any further information on the scheme or have any questions please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Beth Revell
Joint Project Manager
NHS Kingston & Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames
4.4.
Environment Agency
On 21st October 2010, on behalf of the Royal Borough of Kingston, Civil and Structural
Engineering firm Thomasons contacted the Environment Agency via telephone and email to
seek feedback on the Flood Risk Assessment document that had been produced in relation
to the proposed redevelopment of the Surbiton Hospital site. The following response was
received:
Mr Calum McSorley
Thomasons
528 High Road Leytonstone
London
E11 3EE
Our ref:
Your ref:
SL/2010/107717/01-L01
Surbiton FRA
Date:
12 November 2010
Dear Mr McSorley
Proposal :
Site:
Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a two storey primary
school and a two/three storey polyclinic
Surbiton Hospital, Ewell Road, Surbiton, KT6 6EZ
Thank you for consulting the Environment Agency on the above proposal which we received on
9 November 2010 with Flood Risk Assessment, reference C10366, dated October 2010.
28 of 31
If you are minded to submit a planning application to the local authority, we would have the
following comments: The Environment Agency has no objections to the proposed development
subject to the following planning condition being imposed requiring the following drainage
details.
Condition Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based
on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological
context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the
approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall also inc lude details
of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion.
Reason To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve
habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance.
I trust this is satisfactory, but if you have any queries, please contact Neil Landricombe on 01276
454382 or email planning.se@environment-agency.gov.uk
Yours sincerely
Ms Bernie Lewis
Technical Assistant
In response to this feedback from the Environment Agency, the Flood Risk Assessment
document has been revised as per the advice above, and this version of the document has
been included in the relevant section of the planning application.
4.5.
Transport for London
The following meetings have taken place with Transport for London in order to inform the
development of our traffic, transport and travel planning work.
Date
Type
14-Oct-10
Meeting
01-Jun-10
Meeting
28-Oct-10
Meeting
01-Nov-10
Site Visit
Subject
TfL Land-Use Planning:-Preliminary engagement and discussions
about project; whether need to refer application to Mayor/GLA.
TfL Forward Planning:-Discuss SATURN Traffic Modelling approach +
K4 Bus Route.
TfL Forward Planning:-Discuss SATURN Traffic Modelling work,
results and Travel Plan Targets.
TfL London Buses:-Review site entrance & possible highway works
and bus stop relocation.
Notes from the above meetings have been included in Consultation Statement - Appendix E
and all items of advice from Transport for London have been included in the transport
sections of the planning application.
29 of 31
5. Next steps and future stakeholder / community engagement
5.1.
Further response to consultation feedback and ongoing engagement
We are continuing to respond to the feedback receive via the consultation process through
the work we are doing to inform the public of the changes made to our proposals - and to
support the planning authority in publicising the existence and public availability of the
completed planning application.
Through our existing and growing stakeholder network we will continue to engage and
update those members of the public who have expressed a continuing interest in our
redevelopment activities.
This will include future engagement work with families with young children who are likely to
become prospective parents for the new school. This will be done through engagement with
the Surbiton Children's Centre and the various nursery schools in the area.
5.2.
Statutory Planning Consultation
Further public consultation will take place in the form of the statutory planning consultation,
which will be led by the Planning Authority. This will start 1 week after the submission of the
planning application, once the application has been validated. Letters will be sent to local
residents living within 0.5 miles of the redevelopment site.
5.3.
Local resident engagement re. draft S.106 highway works proposals
In conjunction with the statutory planning consultation, the project team will contact residents
in the streets in the immediate vicinity of the site to invite them to a meeting in January 2010
to discuss options for the S.106 highways works.
These discussions will be based around the draft proposals for S.106 that have been
included in the planning application. The outcome of this meeting will then shape the final
proposals for S.106, which will be reviewed by the Development Control Committee meeting
in March 2010.
5.4.
Patient engagement with regard to GP surgery moves
As soon as the planning application is submitted, we will begin engaging with staff and
patients through the surgeries that are planning to move to the new building, if planning
permission is granted. This will include the following stages:
• Stage one - posters and leaflets in surgeries explaining that a planning application has
been submitted, which references the fact that the practice has signed its intention to move
to a new health facility proposed for development at the Surbiton Hospital site.
• Stage two - once planning permission has been granted, updated posters and leaflets will
be provided in surgeries.
30 of 31
• Stage three - once the building has been completed and the date for moving has been
confirmed a further stage of patient communications will be undertaken to confirm details of
the move.
Communication routes will include:
For staff
• Meeting for practice staff (to be managed by practices)
• Q and A for staff (to be managed by practices with support from NHS Kingston)
For patients
• Posters for surgery (poster can be provided on NHS Kingston template or text used and
adapted by practices)
• Leaflets for surgery (to be supplied on word template by NHS Kingston – adapted as
necessary by practices)
• Possible letter to patient list (agreed not suitable at this stage)
• Q and A for patients (template to be provided by NHS Kingston)
• Comments box/slips in surgery (to be managed by practices)
• Information on practice websites (to be managed by practices using information supplied)
• Supported by information on NHS Kingston website (to be managed by NHS Kingston)
• Email address for feedback
5.5.
Local community engagement regarding the temporary move of services
At such time as planning permission is granted, details of the proposed approach for moving
the services currently provided at Surbiton Hospital will be published.
Staff will also be involved in the planning of the move, through a series of meetings with their
line managers.
Local residents living close to the temporary location for those services will also be
communicated with at that time.
5.6.
Schools competition consultation
The competition process commences with a notice published inviting prospective providers
of the school to put forward their proposals to run the school. This runs for a minumum of 4
months. During this time the Local Authority may put forward its own bid to run the school
and/or work with other prospective providers.
At the end of the ‘invitation to bid’ phase a second notice is published along with a proposals
summary document produced which is widely circulated in the local community. This
provides interested parties with six weeks to make comments/representations on the
proposals. During this time there will also be at least one public meeting held which will allow
local people to hear more about the proposals to run the school.
If the Local Authority has submitted a proposal to run the school, the Office of the Schools
Adjudicator will make the decision on the successful provider.
31 of 31
Surbiton Hospital site redevelopment
Consultation Statement – November 2010
APPENDIX A
Pre-planning application consultation - questionnaire response statistics
1 of 4
2 of 4
3 of 4
4 of 4
Surbiton Hospital site redevelopment
Consultation Statement – November 2010
APPENDIX B
Pre-planning application consultation - detailed feedback
Summary of discussions at consultation events
As part of the July 2010 pre-planning application consultation, approximately 180 people
attended a range of public meetings and drop-in exhibitions. The following paragraphs
summarise the verbal feedback obtained at those events. (Notes compiled by the project
team representatives attending the events and talking to the public.)
Positive comments:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Support for more healthcare services being provided in Surbiton
Support for better / state of the art facilities
Support for regeneration of the site for the public good
Support for improved facilities for GPs providing an increased range of services
Support for new school places being provided by a new school rather than expanding
more schools
Support for community space being included on the site
Support for garden areas being included, including courtyard garden to hospital.
Support for memorial features being included
Support for the provision of flexible buildings which can accommodate change of use
over time
Support for retention of The Lodge and entrance gates and restoration of heritage
townscape on Ewell Road
General support for use of ‘green’ technologies and for use of daylight in School (via
atrium) and Hospital (via courtyard)
Support for number of trees within the development (retained and new)
Benefits of new community facilities that will be provided
Support for use of local materials (brick/render)
Liked the ease of access into and through the site
Felt that the people involved in the project were working hard to get things right
Support for café location in Hospital close to school. Good for school drop off/pick-up
times and for parents to socialise before/after.
Liked potential of out-of-hours use of school facilities for Hospital use.
General comments / ideas:
o
o
o
o
The occupants of the new buildings need to be good neighbours to the local businesses
and residents in the surrounding area
Suggestion to include a covered area in main plaza for parents/carers while dropping off /
collecting children from the school.
Suggestion to redirect existing local bus services to run close to the site
Suggestion for a hopper bus to serve the site
1 of 7
o
o
o
Suggestion to create a parent drop off area away from the site, with a walking bus
organised by the school to accompany children onto the site
Can rear access to Italian restaurant on Ewell Road be provided?
Some people commented that they were pleased to have the opportunity to come and
see the plans and talk to people about them.
Negative comments / concerns:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Belief that traffic would increase on Ewell Road due to increase in health service
provision and introduction of a new school
Belief that traffic and congestion would increase in Oak Hill, Oak Hill Road, Oak Hill
Crescent, South Bank Terrace due to parents insisting on dropping children off by car
(despite encouragement not to)
Buses stopping at the bus stop can block access to the site and to adjacent businesses.
Belief that Travel Plan to discourage journey by car will be either unsuccessful or not be
maintained and managed
Feeling that this is not a good location for a school
Feeling that other possible sites for the school have not been adequately considered
Lack of parking for health service and teaching staff will make recruitment difficult and
hinder staff in their work
Lack of parking for people attending health appointments (due to healthcare staff filling
up the car park) will make it difficult to access services or discourage attendances
Construction traffic / noise during the redevelopment work
Integration of several GP surgeries leaving some parts of Surbiton poorly served by close
local GPs
Questions whether some people would have to travel further for GP appointments
40 cycle racks insufficient number to serve both the school and the health building
Concern about use of too much cladding.
Concern at location of plant ‘out-building’ along eastern boundary (flues etc)
New health buildings having a second / third storey and being closer to the edge of the
site causing loss of light / views for neighbouring properties /privacy.
Concern that road and parking to rear of buildings (via South Bank Terrace) will disturb
peace and quiet of adjacent residential gardens.
Concern that the increase height and angle of the new health building at the rear will
obscure light / views to The Bell House property.
Concerns around the impact on local pharmacists due to the introduction of a pharmacy
within the new healthcare building
Concerns over demolition of a heritage building (1 Oak Hill) within a Conservation area
location
Crowded and overdeveloped site with a lack of external play space for the school
Concern about lack of funding available in current climate to deliver the project
Concern over full pedestrian access from all directions – wanting to make sure the site is
fully accessible
Concern about how it can be ensured it will be local children that get first priority to a
place at the school
2 of 7
Summary of all comments made via the questionnaire
In response to the July 2010 pre-planning application consultation 121 questionnaires were
completed either online or on paper. People were asked to express whether they agreed or
disagreed with the current proposals via 9 tick box questions, grouped into four subject areas
– general, health, school and community use. Each section also allowed space for
comments. Of the comments received:
89 were in the general comments section
64 in the health section
75 in the school section
63 in the community uses section
These comments have been analysed and grouped into the following categories and subcategories. Each comment - and its various sub-points - has been counted into one or more
categories, to illustrate the key themes arising from the questionnaire feedback.
Colour code
Orange
Green
Blue
Pink
Yellow
Turquoise
Relating to:
Transport
Education
Health
Community use
Architecture / design
General project
* If a respondent made the same point several times in one section of the questionnaire, it has been
counted once. However, if respondents made the same point in different sections of the questionnaire
(general, health, school or community-use) it has been counted again in each section it was repeated.
Thus the comment totals below often show a higher number than the actual number of individuals
expressing that opinion, but should appropriately represent the strength of opinion found.
Comment category
(sub-point comments shown in brackets = figures included in the overall category
total, but not indicative of it; i.e. some made multiple sub-points, others made none)
Concerns around insufficient parking / stressing the need for adequate parking
(Specific mention of inadequate parking for health facilities = 31)
(Specific mention of inadequate parking for the school = 10)
(Specific mention of inadequate parking for staff = 19)
(Specific mention of disabled parking / esp. close to entrance = 7)
(Suggest more short stay spaces for taxis / drop-off + assist inside = 4)
(Suggest underground parking to solve parking issues / create more space = 4)
(Parking too tightly packed esp. for elderly = 1)
(Suggest parking for mobility scooters = 1)
Concerns around travel planning work / deemed unrealistic / inadequate
(Specific mention of inadequate vehicle access / drop-off for school = 34)
(Inappropriate for sick people to stop using cars / 50% target unrealistic = 11)
(Unrealistic to expect 'majority of pupils will walk or cycle' = 11)
(Other schools - St Matthews + Christchurch illustrate insistence on car use = 4)
(Need better access / drop-off zones for health facilities = 3)
(Specific mention of need for cycle lane / cycle racks = 4)
(Parents will use health entrance / parking for school drop-off, causing chaos = 2)
(Bus access poor for much of Surbiton = 2)
(Traffic survey carried out at the wrong time - winter is the peak period = 1)
(No detail on how 'careful planning of appointments' would work = 1)
(Deliveries access looks poor = 1)
3 of 7
Total times
comment
made*
55
54
Concerns around traffic congestion in the local area
(Specific mention of Ewell Road traffic = 25)
(Specific mention of congestion / parking problems in local side roads = 19)
(Specific mention of traffic linked to child safety = 4)
(Specific mention of construction traffic on side roads = 2)
(Traffic problem doubled by school and health being on same site = 2)
Support for health proposals
(Support health proposals, but oppose school proposals = 17)
(Support for tests on site to reduce travel to Kingston Hospital = 3)
(Support for walk in / urgent care centre = 4)
(Support for GPs to move from Oakhill = 1)
Questioning or opposing the school proposals
(Oppose due to traffic / parking = 12)
(Recognise school needed but want it located elsewhere = 8)
(Oppose due to noise from school for neighbours / patients = 7)
(Question need for school in this area / so close to others - thus fear larger
catchment area / more car usage = 6)
(Suggest swapping primary school with adult ed. at King Charles Centre = 5)
(Suggest it better to extend other schools elsewhere = 3)
(Oppose as do not want to loose mental health facilities on school site = 2)
(Concerned school is too big for young children, will lead to school phobia = 1)
(Concerned school will not attract pupils if they have to walk / cycle = 1)
(How will disabled children access the upper floors? = 1)
(Russell Court will become even more of a thorough fare for school children = 1)
Overcrowding on the site / site too small for proposed uses
(Request more space for school / more outdoor play + sports facilities = 26)
(Request more green space on site generally = 9)
(Use Oakhill Health Centre for phase 2 school expansion to free-up space = 4)
(Surbiton is not / should not be treated as an inner city area = 4)
(Suggest reducing size of both buildings = 3)
(Request more space for health = 3)
(Request more space for parking = 1)
(Suggest increasing height of buildings = 2)
(Suggest leasing outdoor space from Hillcroft College for school sports etc. = 1)
(Two form entry school in Tower Hamlets has 1.4 acres = 1)
(Where is the nursery outdoor play area? = 1)
(Space between buildings looks too small for fire engines etc. = 1)
(Suggest reducing space for health = 1)
Support idea of community space
(Adult education classes / tertiary education = 7)
(Youth clubs / activities for teens / early twenties = 7)
(Keep fit, yoga, pilates, tai chi, dance etc. = 7)
(Local clubs / skills - inc. singing, cookery, bike proficiency maintenance = 6)
(Request use of community space = 5
(ME support group = Richmond & Kingston ME Group)
(Disability Group = Young & Disabled and Positively Artistic - YADAPA)
(Art classes = Surbiton Arts Group)
(Legal Advice = SW London Law Centres)
(Meeting space = Newspaper for the blind)
(Computer classes / internet cafe = 4)
(Non-profit advice services / citizens advice = 4
(Providing adequate parking / traffic management = 3)
(Residents association / patient group meetings = 3)
(Older persons get together activities = 3)
(Local information point / access to council services and facilities = 3)
(Faith groups, including mix faith + community church = 3)
4 of 7
42
40
38
36
29
(Sports facilities, e.g. badminton = 3)
(After school + holiday clubs / childcare for working parents = 2)
(Open the school playground in the holidays = 2)
(Carers club = 2)
(Pre-natal, antenatal + parenting classes inc. info on teaching methods etc. = 3)
(Need large hall space to replace Claremont + Assembly rooms as church halls like
St Andrews not suitable for certain uses = 1)
(Plenty of nice garden seating = 1)
(Business networking activities = 1)
(Health education classes = 1)
(Joint parent / child activities = 1)
(Crèche = 1)
(Bridge / other card clubs = 1)
(Amateur dramatics = 1)
(Camera club could use wall space in general areas to exhibit photography = 1)
(Regularly tuned piano = 1)
(Cashpoint = 1)
(Must ensure school / PTA have priority usage of school space = 1)
(Must not come at the expense of future health expansion = 1)
(Especially if Library Hall is due to close to be used for housing = 1)
(Community space is needed during the day not just after school = 1)
Concerned about or oppose roof top play area
(Too dangerous = 8)
(Highlights lack of space on site = 4)
(No good in bad weather / would need extra roof / cover for shelter / shade = 2)
(No substitute for playing fields = 1)
(Don't want ugly roof [like those in US where caged in for basketball use = 1)
(Priority for roof space should be solar panels, insulation, rain water capture = 1)
(What have other schools done? = 1)
Support for school proposals
(Support the school, but oppose health facilities = 5)
Inadequate consideration of conservation area
(Over-development / buildings not in-keeping with the local area = 12)
(Poor tree preservation / care / damage to water table by over development = 2)
Question / oppose idea of community space
(Questioning the need / deemed unnecessary due to other local facilities = 5)
(Opposed due to lack of space on the site, esp. re. children's play = 4)
(Opposed due to lack of funds / waste of money = 3)
(Believe the community space idea is a bribe to elicit support for the project = 2)
(In patient beds should be included instead of community space = 2)
(Opposed due to lack of parking / traffic congestion = 1)
(Opposed due to noise disturbance in the evenings = 1)
(Opposed as these areas often little used or used as a dumping ground = 1)
Unattractive buildings / poor design
(Oppose block style buildings / flat roof = 5)
(Too industrial looking / factory / office like = 3)
(White render likely to become dirty like Surbiton Station = 1)
(Suggest more attractive sky line / none square windows = 1)
(Short term building design / felt buildings would need replacing in 25 years = 2)
Generally support the proposals
(Support proposals, but with concerns = 7)
Oppose so many GP surgeries being co-located / better spread around community
(Centralising will cause more not fewer car journeys = 2)
Viability of community facilities relies on careful management
(Affordable room hire fees / pay-as-you-go classes = 5)
(Adequate parking = 3)
5 of 7
23
21
20
17
14
13
11
10
(Adequate cleaning / maintenance / security / well lit pathway from transport = 3)
(Adult sized furniture = 1)
Support travel plans / partially support plans
(But stress that hard to enforce / need concerted effort / budget = 6)
(Support for walking to school bus agreed by parents at application = 1)
Inadequate / late consultation
(Local roads did not receive previous consultation or received very late = 4)
(Miss-leading question on survey states 2 form-entry but actually many more forms
when full capacity = 2) - partial misinterpretation as leaflet and briefing document
clearly state 2 form entry per year
(No question about whether we agree or disagree with having the school leads to
biased outcome = 1)
(Oppose joint plans as leads people to inadvertently support school, by supporting
health = 1)
(Suggest previous school consultation predominantly sought parents views = 1)
Question or oppose the health proposals
(Question need for new health services / GP accommodation as already good
accessible services at Oakhill Health Centre = 5)
(Suggest health moves elsewhere to make more room for the school = 2)
Question or oppose co-siting of school + healthcare
(Due to security risk = 4)
(Due to infection = 3)
(Due to extra congestion in a single area = 1)
Request adding facilities / inpatient beds for elderly care / convalescence / rehab.
Questions / concerns regarding plans for Oakhill Health Centre redevelopment
Oppose demolition of 1 Oak Hill
Oppose the size of development / height of the buildings / impact on neighbours
(Suggest 3 storey aspects should be away from neighbouring properties = 3)
Improved public transport / bus service would be good
(Suggest re-route K4 + add Sunday service = 1)
(Suggest shuttle service to station = 1)
Too early or not enough information given on travel plans, building design or health /
community usage to comment on
Support co-siting of school + health facilities
Support heritage plans / retaining the lodge / other items / involving local people
Concerns around financial viability of plans / ability to continue to adequate spec.
Concerns about general noise / effect of such a busy development on neighbours
Remember access needs of disabled, elderly, mothers + children
More sustainability / ground-source heating / solar power (not wind or photovoltaic) /
rain catching to help water plants / trees / to flush toilets
Support for roof top play area (some with questions / provisos)
(Would it overlook neighbouring properties / further limit privacy = 1)
(Would need some roof covering / shade / shelter = 1)
Question or oppose café due to other local food businesses
Increase height of buildings to reduce footprint
(Increase height at SW corner = 1)
More should be done to preserve more of the historical buildings / design aspects
Request for more local input on project - eg local architects / contractors etc.
Request for permeable paving to preserve water table
Request to preserve bus lane
Support for conservation work
(Providing plans include regular care of trees / planting = 1)
(Support for fishpond = 1)
Concern re. local pharmacists
What about elderly care / need to consider more support for longer life expectancy
6 of 7
10
9
8
8
8
8
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
Suggest bike racks + improve cycle lanes, esp. on Ewell Road which are not continuous
Suggest hopper bus right to health facility entrance / re-route K2 hopper bus
Support for pedestrian priority access to site
Question number of / too many parking spaces
Suggest more leisure facilities / swimming pool / hydrotherapy / kids teaching pool
Support for the introduction of a café
Concern over what will happen to existing health services during redevelopment
Suggest pedestrian area should be under cover
Concern that local covenant regarding land usage is being broken
Concern around bus stop move / congestion for local business / residents
Question need for traffic calming in Oakhill
How far are GP surgeries moving / can people still walk to their GP?
Trust Oakhill not closing until new facilities open?
Ensure GPs on ground floor
Why are people referred to Kingston so often as many services already at Surbiton?
Concerned by the suggestion that 'health services elsewhere' means not enough space
for health - this is a misunderstanding as quote relates to the temporary move
Pedestrian crossing needed outside hospital to access bus stops
Difference between walk-in urgent care / A&E too confusing for patients
Excess trees over play areas will prevent grass growth due to heavy use
Is the school hall big enough for whole school assemblies?
Two storey school layout forgets that Year 6 pupils need more space than Year 2
How will you ensure places go to local kids who can walk to school?
Not enough time in school day for children to walk off-site to sports fields / facilities
Would like to see a church school in the area
Support for non-classroom zone in school
Disagree with separate space for special needs children - should be integrated
School canteen (if inc.) + café could be joined to serve both buildings / save space
Community hub space looks very small
Do these plans suggest the closure of Kingston Hospital?
Conflicting info. given re. retention of lodge and consultation with local pharmacist
Health facilities and classrooms should be slightly separated from one another
Suggest private hospital or elderly care home instead of school
Opportunity to integrate health/social care + reduce mental health / dementia stigma
Want to see combined activities for children and the elderly (e.g. song concerts)
Suggest all weather atrium in health building for indoor garden, café, shop
Committee approach to project thought to be ineffective / needs more leadership
Suggest pollarding trees to allow them to thicken to create shelter
Concern over government health plans with no PCT / too much GP control
(Profits out-way best choice of clinical service / patient choice reduced = 1)
Health services to inc. pharmacy, dentist, optician, chiropody (NHS + private), mental
health + dementia, support club for carers
Add ME specialist services to health provision
Where is mental health?
Expand physiotherapy services
Believes that another local hospital will be needed soon
Need to remember separate washing facilities for men / women (esp. Muslims)
Where are the bins going?
Suggest future alterations are in-keeping with original materials
Family planning clinic would be useful
Consider door access for disabled / minimising germ transfer / rotating to retain heat
Will the toilets be near the waiting rooms?
All elements of the environment / design should reflect / support health + wellbeing
7 of 7
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Surbiton Hospital site redevelopment
Consultation Statement – November 2010
APPENDIX C
Response to key questions raised by Oakhill and District Residents
Association - July 2010
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
1 of 11
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 57 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
2 of 11
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 extra
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 twoform 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.
3 of 11
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
4 of 11
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
5 of 11
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 onsite 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
6 of 11
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.
7 of 11
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. Welldesigned 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.
8 of 11
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.
Response to Further Questions Raised by ODRA - 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;
9 of 11
•
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 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
10 of 11
•
•
•
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, details will be sent out shortly.
11 of 11
Surbiton Hospital site redevelopment
Consultation Statement – November 2010
APPENDIX E
Notes from Transport for London consultation meetings
(contained on subsequent pages)
1 of 1
K ing s to n P o ly s y s te ms P ro g ramme – S u rb ito n H o s p ital S ite
N o te s o f M e e ting
W e d ne s d ay 8 th O c to b e r 2 0 0 9
T rans p o rt fo r L o nd o n
P re s e n t:
L e e C a m p b e ll
T fL
A u d re y B o w e rm a n
T fL
P a u l D e a rm a n
R BK
V in c e n t G a b b e
G VA
P e te r B a rtle tt
J a c o b s C o n s u ltin g (J C )
M a rc u s B a lla rd
N H S K in g s to n (P C T )
C o p ie s to :
1.
C liv e N a ttra s s
P ro g ra m m e D ire c to r (P C T )
R o b D ic k s o n
D ire c to r o f E n v iro n m e n ta l S e rv ic e s (R B K )
A n n e R e d p a rth
D ire c to r o f E d u c a tio n a n d L e a rn in g (R B K )
T ra c y R e a d e r
C o m m u n ic a tio n s D ire c to r (P C T )
P a t L o x to n
R B K P a n n in g
M ic h a e l J o h n s o n
R B K P la n n in g
M B o u tlin e d th e p ro je c t: th e P C T is in tro d u c in g P o ly s y s te m s in lin e w ith th e
D a rz i R e p o rt a n d fo r th is p u rp o s e , p la n s to d e liv e r p o ly s y s te m s in fo u r lo c a litie s
a c ro s s th e b o ro u g h . T h e p o ly c lin ic a t S u rb ito n w ill b e th e s e ttin g fo r th e
re p ro v is io n o f c u rre n t G P s e rv ic e s a t O a k H ill a n d th re e o th e r p ra c tic e s in th e
im m e d ia te v ic in ity a n d th e re p ro v is io n o f c u rre n t c o m m u n ity s e rv ic e s a t
S u rb ito n H o s p ita l + re p a tria te d o u tp a tie n t/ d ia g n o s tic /th e ra p ie s s e rv ic e s fro m
K in g s to n H o s p ita l, in lin e w ith D a rz i’s p ro p o s a ls fo r th e p ro v is io n o f s e rv ic e s
lo c a lly w h e re v e r p o s s ib le . S in c e th e th ru s t o f th e c h a n g e is to d e liv e r s e rv ic e s
th ro u g h a p o ly s y s te m s a p p ro a c h c lo s e to h o m e , th e p o ly c lin ic w a s e x p e c te d to
g e n e ra te fe w e r trip s in th e a re a , w h e re th e c a re p a th w a y u n d e r a p o ly s y s te m
s e e s a s s e s s m e n t, d ia g n o s tic s , m e d ic a tio n a n d fo llo w u p o c c u rrin g in th e s a m e
s e ttin g in o n e v is it. A ll p re s e n t w e re fa m ilia r w ith th e D a rz i R e p o rt a n d its a im s .
In a d d itio n , R B K is s e e k in g to d e v e lo p a d d itio n a l ‘fo rm e n try ’ in th e b o ro u g h
a n d h a d id e n tifie d th e p o te n tia l s u rp lu s la n d a t S u rb ito n H o s p ita l a s m e e tin g
th e n e e d fo r a n e w s c h o o l. T h is w o u ld b e c o n s is te n t w ith b o th p la n n in g a n d
e d u c a tio n P o lic y . T h e n e w s c h o o l w o u ld b e a t th e h e a rt o f th e a re a o f n e e d a n d
th u s w o u ld b e e x p e c te d (a n d p la n n e d ) to h a v e a v e ry tig h tly d ra w n c a tc h m e n t
a re a a ro u n d it, w ith in w h ic h th e re w o u ld b e lo w d e m a n d fo r c a r jo u rn e y s a n d
p re fe re n c e fo r w a lk in g o r s im ila r.
Chairman: D r N e s ly n W ats o n-D ru é e , M B E , F R CN , D U niv , F CG I
Chie f E x e c u tiv e : D av id S mith
T h e P C T a n d R B K w e re w o rk in g jo in tly th ro u g h a P P A to d e fin e fu tu re
in te n tio n s w ith re s p e c t to fu tu re d e v e lo p m e n t a n d a s s o c ia te d p la n n in g is s u e s
a n d a c tio n s . T h e P P A w o u ld a ls o p ro v id e d e fin itio n to o th e r p la n n in g is s u e s ,
s u c h a s th e fu tu re u s e o f th e a d ja c e n t O a k H ill H e a lth C e n tre a n d th e p ro v is io n
o f h o u s in g (in c lu d in g a ffo rd a b le h o u s in g ).
T im e s c a le s w e re v e ry tig h t: th e P C T p la n s to s u b m it its O u tlin e B u s in e s s C a s e
a t th e e n d o f D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 9 a n d m a k e a p p lic a tio n fo r p la n n in g p e rm is s io n in
th e s u m m e r o f 2 0 1 0 : a p la n n in g p e rm is s io n is n e e d e d to s u p p o rt its F u ll
B u s in e s s C a s e , w h ic h is to b e c o m p le te d b y a u tu m n o f 2 0 1 0 .
2.
T h e p u rp o s e o f m e e tin g w a s to e s ta b lis h th e e x te n t o f T fL ’s in v o lv e m e n t in th e
p ro p o s a ls . It w a s a g re e d th a t e n g a g e m e n t w o u ld n o t b e re q u ire d a t L C ’s
s tra te g ic le v e l, a s th e p ro p o s a ls w o u ld n o t b e re fe ra b le , b u t th a t it w a s th e rig h t
s ta rtin g p o in t, to u n d e rs ta n d T fL ’s fu tu re in v o lv e m e n t.
3.
L C c o n firm e d th a t it w o u ld b e R B K th a t d e c id e s if a n a p p lic a tio n is re fe ra b le .
4.
V G n o te d th a t R B K d o e s n o t b e lie v e th e p ro p o s a ls to b e re fe ra b le . V G to a s k
P a t L o x to n / M ic h a e l J o h n s o n a t R B K to c o n firm .
5.
L C n o te d s o m e o f th e m a in c rite ria fo r re fe rrin g a n a p p lic a tio n , a s s e t o u t in th e
T o w n & C o u n try P la n n in g (M a y o r fo r L o n d o n ) O rd e r 2 0 0 8 :
•
D e p a rtu re fro m p o lic y in v o lv in g d e v e lo p m e n t g re a te r th a n 2 5 0 0 s q m
•
G re e n B e lt / M e tro p o lita n O p e n L a n d
•
O v e r 2 0 0 c a r p a rk in g s p a c e s
G V A /R B K
6.
P D c o n firm e d th a t R B K is th e H ig h w a y A u th o rity fo r th e A 2 4 0 (E w e ll R o a d ) a n d
th a t T fL N e tw o rk A s s u ra n c e w o u ld n e e d to a p p ro v e c h a n g e p ro p o s e d to it. P D
w ill b e th e lin k to N e tw o rk A s s u ra n c e .
7.
It w a s c o n firm e d th a t T fL w o u ld n o t b e in v o lv e d in S .1 0 6 o r S .2 7 8 a g re e m e n ts ,
if th e d e v e lo p m e n t w e re n o t re fe ra b le .
8.
P D to s p e a k to T fL D e v e lo p m e n t P la n n in g w ith re s p e c t to a d v ic e a n d
re q u ire m e n ts o n m o d e llin g a n d d e s ig n
9.
It w a s a g re e d th a t it w o u ld n o t b e d e s ira b le to in tro d u c e a d d itio n a l tra ffic
s ig n a ls o n E w e ll R o a d , th is is s o m e th in g th a t T fL w o u ld g e n e ra lly w is h to a v o id .
10.
T h e re is a n e e d fo r a d ire c t b u s s e rv ic e b e tw e e n th e P C T s o u th lo c a lity
P o ly s y s te m a n d S u rb ito n H o s p ita l s ite : th e K 4 ro u te is p re s e n tly o u t to
c o n s u lta tio n . P D a g re e d to le a d o n th is .
R BK
11.
T h e P C T s h o u ld m a k e re p re s e n ta tio n s to th e c o n s u lta tio n d o c u m e n t it w o u ld
PC T
Chairman: D r N e s ly n W ats o n-D ru é e , M B E , F R CN , D U niv , F CG I
Chie f E x e c u tiv e : D av id S mith
R BK
JC
h a v e re c e iv e d . M B to fo llo w u p .
12.
P D w ill s p e a k to L is a L a b ru s s e , T fL N e tw o rk D e v e lo p m e n t w ith re s p e c t to
is s u e s a ffe c tin g th e b u s s to p .
R BK
13.
P D to c o n ta c t L o u is a G e n t (T fL T ra v e l P la n A d v is e r)
J C /R B K
14.
T h e P P A w o u ld n e e d to in c o rp o ra te k e y tra n s p o rt a n d tra v e l is s u e s .
G V A /J C /R B K
15.
P B to u n d e rta k e / o b ta in e x is tin g tra v e l d a ta : P D c o n firm e d th a t e x is tin g d a ta
s h o u ld n o t b e m o re th a n tw o y e a rs o ld . T h e n u m b e r o f tu rn s in to O a k H ill
C re s c e n t a n d th e h o s p ita l s h o u ld b e a s s e s s e d , a lth o u g h , in th e c a s e o f th e
la tte r, it s h o u ld b e n o te d th a t s o m e a c tiv ity h a s b e e n tra n s fe rre d to T o lw o rth
H o s p ita l a s a p re c u rs o r to re d e v e lo p m e n t.
JC
16.
P B to o b ta in T fL a d v ic e o n T A s , d o w n -lo a d a b le fro m th e T fL w e b s ite . H e w ill
th e n s c o p e th e T A , fo r c o m m e n t – it w a s s u g g e s te d th a t h e c o n ta c ts F ra n k
[H a in e ], w h o is lik e ly to a c t a s th e m a in c o n ta c t a t T fL re g a rd in g th e p ro p o s a ls
in th e fu tu re .
JC
17.
P D to s p e a k to R B K e d u c a tio n te a m fo r p a rk in g s ta n d a rd s fo r s c h o o ls –
p a rtic u la rly te a c h e rs . It w a s a g re e d th a t th e T A a n d tra v e l p la n s h o u ld b e th e
le a d d o c u m e n ts o n th is a n d n o t h is to ric ta b u la r a p p ro a c h e s .
R BK
18.
M B to o b ta in a c o p y o f K in g s to n H o s p ita l’s tra v e l p la n a n d c irc u la te fo r
in fo rm a tio n .
PC T
19.
T fL a s k e d w h a t th e p ro p o s e d p a rk in g p ro v is io n w o u ld b e . It w a s c o n firm e d th a t
th is h a d n o t y e t b e e n w o rk e d u p . T fL c o n firm e d a p re fe re n c e fo r re d u c e d le v e ls
o f p a rk in g p ro v is io n . It w a s a ls o n o te d th a t b a rrie r c o n tro l to th e s ite fro m E w e ll
R o a d m ig h t n e e d to b e c o n s id e re d .
20.
It w a s c o n firm e d th a t th e re is a n e x is tin g C P Z fo r th e a re a to th e w e s t o f E w e ll
R o a d , b u t n o t to th e e a s t o f E w e ll R o a d . P D c o n firm e d th a t th e C o u n c il is
im p le m e n tin g s o m e fo rm o f c o n tro ls fo r th e C o u n c il e s ta te w ith in th e a re a to
th e E a s t. B u t th is w ill n o t c o v e r a ll o f th e re s id e n tia l d e v e lo p m e n t e a s t o f E w e ll
R o a d . P D th o u g h t th a t a C P Z m ig h t n o t b e n e c e s s a ry , a lth o u g h th is n e e d s to
re m a in u n d e r c o n s id e ra tio n .
21.
It w a s s u g g e s te d th a t o n s tre e t p a rk in g s u rv e y s s h o u ld b e u n d e rta k e n in ro a d s
s u rro u n d in g th e s ite , in c lu d in g E w e ll R o a d a n d S o u th B a n k .
Chairman: D r N e s ly n W ats o n-D ru é e , M B E , F R CN , D U niv , F CG I
Chie f E x e c u tiv e : D av id S mith
Jacobs Consultancy UK Ltd
16 Connaught Place
London W2 2ES, UK
Tel: 020 7087 8700 Fax: 020 7706 7147
MEETING NOTES
: TfL Palestra offices
197 Blackfriars Road
London SE1 8NJ
Date/Time : 01 June 2010 / 10:00
Subject
: Traffic Modelling Scope
Participants:
Shreekant Patel (TfL)
Mark Day (TfL)
Marcus Ballard (Millbridge)
Paul Dearman (RBK)
Diana Babacic-Davis (JC)
Peter Bartlett (JC)
Lisa Labrousse (TfL)
Client : NHS Kingtson (PCT)
Project : Surbiton Hospital
Redevelopment
Ref.
: TfL Forward Planning MN1
Prep. By: P Bartlett
Location
Item
1
Action/Notes
Main meeting to discuss Traffic Modelling
SP gave a brief overview of the role of the TfL Forward
Planning team (previously Network Assurance which evolved
from the Traffic Directorate Network Performance).
MB explained that the purpose of the meeting was (following
initial discussions with TfL LUP team (Lee Campbell/Audrey
th
Bowerman) on 8 Oct 2009, to make TfL aware of the plans
for the re-development of Surbiton Hospital site in RB
Kingston for which planning permission was being sought
(application expected to be placed in September 2010). The
application proposed was a hybrid application consisting of a
full application for the proposed polyclinic and an outline
application for the proposed primary school, both occupying
the redeveloped land of the hospital.
MB outlined the key scope and details of the development in
terms of land area, expected levels of activity and project
timetable aiming for 2012 build and to be open in 2013 with
delivery of the project by a LIFTCO (SW London Healthcare
Partnerships). Also mentioned was the plans to incorporate
the existing OHMC into the new development, with an
alternative use for the OHMC site to be determined at a future
date through a separate planning application.
A discussion was also had as to whether the planning
application would be referable to the Mayor/GLA. It was not
expected to be referable.
SP outlined TfL’s likely concerns for the project in terms of its
traffic impact. These included:
Ewell Road (A240) congestion – that this was a major route
from the A3 through to Kingston town centre and that the
By Whom
When
MEETING NOTES (continued)
development may contribute towards increasing congestion
on the SRN, particularly during the peak periods, which could
lead to a degradation of the network performance.
Car park capacity – SP suggested that the main car park
capacity was too high and that the plans should seek to have
a reduce capacity therefore limiting car mode share.
Possible need to make changes/modifications to the Hospital
Access Road junction with Ewell Road by way of traffic
signals etc.
PB/DBD outlined the existing approach for the traffic
modelling exercise which focused on Ewell Road and the
junctions with Oak Hill Crescent and the hospital. PICADY
was proposed as the software for analysing the impact on the
junction, whilst SATURN was to be used for analysing the
congestion impact on the main Ewell Road.
SP/MD outlined their view that the geographical scope of the
proposed modelled area was too small. The key concern was
to understand whether there would be any significant rerouting on the SRN or other local roads due to the new
development. A discussion was had over the extent of the
study area with some debate as to whether an area the size of
the borough should be modelled, or a smaller area (but larger
than the initial proposals).
It was agreed that JC would re-define the proposed model
study area and discuss further with TfL and agree. Further
discussion and agreement was also needed on the modelling
tools to be used.
2
JC
11 Jun 2010
LB
14 Jun 2010
Meeting to discuss K4 Bus Route Issues
A follow-on meeting was also held with TfL (Lisa
Labrousse/Mark Day) to discuss the K4 bus route (from
Chessington via Hook, Surbiton to Kingston) and possible rerouting to serve the new development.
The benefit of this would be increased bus frequency to bus
stops directly outside the new development and also benefits
in making connections between the Merritt Medical Centre,
the proposed Surbiton polyclinic and Kingston hospital.
TfL’s concern about any possible re-routing would be the
potential number of broken links/journeys the re-routing may
cause. LB to extract current data from BODS survey and
report back.
Jacobs Consultancy UK Ltd
16 Connaught Place
London W2 2ES, UK
Tel: 020 7087 8700 Fax: 020 7706 7147
MEETING NOTES
: TfL Palestra offices
197 Blackfriars Road
London SE1 8NJ
Date/Time : 28 Oct 2010 / 10:30
Subject
: Traffic Modelling Revised
Methodology and Results
Participants:
Frank Hagan (TfL)
Mark Day (TfL)
Henry Cresser (TfL)
Marcus Ballard (Millbridge)
Paul Dearman (RBK)
Diana Babacic-Davis (JC)
Peter Bartlett (JC)
Client : NHS Kingtson (PCT)
Project : Surbiton Hospital
Redevelopment
Ref.
: TfL Forward Planning MN2
Prep. By: P Bartlett
Location
Item
1
Action/Notes
Meeting to discuss updated Traffic Modelling
The purpose of the meeting was to update TfL on the trip
generation and traffic modelling work that had been carried
out by JC in support of the Surbiton Hospital Redevelopment,
particularly following the initial discussion with TfL in June. A
number of tables/information was circulated (attached) for
discussion.
FH introduced his team and understanding of the project so
far.
MB outlined the plans for the development and project
timetable with the intention of submitting the full application by
19 November 2010.
Specific issue relating to the transport impact were discussed
including car parking spaces for patients (70 including) and
staff (12 for health facility and 6 for school inclusive of
disabled spaces), expected numbers of patients, trips to the
proposed primary school etc.
DBD presented the assumptions regarding the traffic
modelling including the agreed coverage of the geographical
area of the model, which was sufficient to allow the possibility
of re-routing; trip generation details for the health facility and
primary school, baseline traffic flows on Ewell Road.
Also presented were the traffic modelling results which
indicated a small impact on Ewell Road / Upper Brighton
Road etc. The analysis had showed that the health facility car
park was sufficient to accommodate the peak demand (based
on existing observed stay duration and arrival
profile/distribution.
By Whom
When
MEETING NOTES (continued)
PB presented the proposed Travel Plan targets and actions
for the Health facility. These were broadly welcomed by TfL,
subject to detailed review of the Travel Plan.
MB outlined the proposals for possible highway works,
particularly the cul-de-sacs of South Bank Terrace and Oak
Hill as well as change to the main entrance off Ewell Road.
PD explained the need to relocate the NB bus stop on Ewell
Road to a probable location further north. The reason for this
was that in the case of two buses arriving at the same time at
the NB stop, the entrance to the hospital site becomes
temporarily blocked, hence preventing entry/exit to the site.
PD also explained the possible relocation of the SB bus stop
on Ewell Road to a point further south beyond the pedestrian
crossing adjacent to Oak Hill Crescent. PD added that
discussion had been taking place with Andrew Nunney (TfL)
and that a site visit was planned for ‘tomorrow’ (29 Oct 2010)
to consider the potential highway works including possible bus
stop relocation.
It was agreed that JC would forward the SATURN model,
Transport Assessment and Travel Plan Reports to TfL for their
review and feedback.
JC
19 Nov 2010
TfL to review SATURN model, TA and TP and provide
feedback.
TfL
26 Nov 2010
Surbiton Hospital site redevelopment
Consultation Statement – November 2010
DRAFT - APPENDIX D
Questions / responses from Transport Group meeting held 10th November 2010
(notes of Transport Group meeting held on 4th October 2010 show below this)
Questions raised during the meeting
How can you suggest that there will be no new trips being made in connection with the
proposed development - 3 or 4 GP surgeries will be moving from other parts of Surbiton,
which will lead to people driving to the new centre instead of walking?
The GP practices moving to the new development are currently provided in nearby Surbiton
streets, no more than half a mile from the Surbiton Hospital site. For some patients this may
mean a slightly longer journey and for others a shorter journey. Whilst some patients may
need to use a car where they haven’t previously, this will be off-set by the reduction in car
trips being made to Kingston Hospital due to the new day patient treatment and diagnostic
services being provided at the new Surbiton health facility. Therefore no additional trips will
be generated, and those which are being diverted to the new facility can be accommodated
by the improved car park management system planned for the new development. This will
enable a smooth flow of cars onto the site and includes a strict process of preventing
unauthorised vehicles (including many of those which currently frequent the existing car
park) from using the new car park.
Has consideration been given to the previous suggestion that a Hopper Bus service should
be provided to drop people directly alongside the entrance to the new health facility - to
accommodate disabled visitors who are unable to walk the distance from Ewell Road bus
stops to the building entrance?
The project team have had discussions with Transport for London (TfL) regarding the
possibility of changing the current bus routes in the area, TfL have declined to make any
changes at this time, but indicated a commitment to review the situation once the facility has
been built and a need can be demonstrated. It is therefore our intention to raise this with
them again once this need can be demonstrated.
Are parents expected to pay to park their cars in the area around Oak Hill Road when
dropping their children off at the school?
Through travel planning we aim to reduce car usage to the school and encourage walking
and other forms of sustainable transport, however we acknowledge that some people will still
drive. The transport assessment shows that there is parking available in the surrounding
area to accommodate the anticipated car usage associated with the school and some of
these spaces are within pay and display areas. If parents park in these bays they will be
required to pay, which may in the long run encourage them not to drive to the site.
1 of 14
Will people have to pay to park their cars in the health facility car park?
It is currently proposed that patients will not have to pay to park at the health facility.
Can a Controlled Parking Zone be established in the roads to the east of Ewell Road, to
deter people from parking there in connection with new school and health buildings, as part
of the S.106 requirement for new developments?
The project team are working closely with the borough planners and traffic engineers to
scope out S.106 works associated with the site and local residents will be consulted during
the process regarding any street works. The need for extending the CPZ will be reviewed as
part of this and would only be implemented if the majority of residents were in favour.
Could the empty plot of land situated at the back of Newent House (in Brown Road) on the
corner of South Place and Warwick Grove provide a suitable location for a public pay and
display car park to services both the shops on Ewell Road and any potential overflow from
the new Surbiton Hospital car park?
The land on the corner of South Place and Warwick Grove is owned by South West London
and St George’s Mental Health Trust (MHT).
As the Community Mental Health Teams for Surbiton and Chessington in the building
adjacent to this land will be relocated shortly, the MHT is in the process of reviewing its
options on the future of these assets.
It has been asked of the MHT that in their review, they consider using the land as a pay and
display car park which might be useful for people wishing to use the shops in this part of
Surbiton. However planning restrictions on the use of the land may not allow such an option
to be given approval.
It is emphasised that no decisions have been taken and whatever option the MHT decides to
act upon, there is a process which it must follow to ensure compliance with the appropriate
governance arrangements and protocols. This includes statutory consultation for any
planning application that may be submitted such that the views of the local community can
be taken into consideration in determining the future of this site.
Can you provide an example of another development with a school and health facility
operating side by side?
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
2 of 14
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 are
working with the school to promote healthy living.
Are the any independent arbiters who are not being paid by the NHS or the Council that can
sense check the assumptions being made by the transport consultants as it appears that
those working on the project are biased towards proving that there will not be any traffic or
transport issues?
Yes, the transport assessment and proposals are being reviewed by Transport for London
and the neighbourhood traffic engineers who are independent from the project team. The
application as a whole will also be reviewed by the Greater London Assembly.
Also can the travel consultants prove that they are the right people to be taking on this
important piece of work - ie how good are they at their jobs?
Information about past projects carried out by Jacobs Consultancy and Emma Sheridan of
Sheridan Smith Associates is included at the end of this document.
Would it be possible for the transport group to see the Transport Impact Assessment
document before the planning submission?
The document is currently being revised with the latest survey data and will be finalised in
time for the submission of the planning application. The TIA will be available once the
application is submitted.
Questions raised via the feedback sheets
What mitigation measures are planned regarding the dispersal of traffic into neighbouring
streets - e.g. controlled parking zones, others? Will you canvas local residents in
neighbouring streets about introducing a controlled parking zone - if so when? (Angela Law)
As mentioned above the project team are in the early stages of discussing S.106
contributions with the planning authority and these discussions will continue in more depth
once the application is submitted and the traffic impact assessment and travel plans have
been reviewed. Residents will be consulted about proposed measures during the planning
consultation period which is expected to be December to January.
When and how will residents be informed which streets are planned to be designated 'park
and walk' streets? (Angela Law)
Streets will not be “designated” park and walk streets, rather, once the school staff have
been appointed and the schools catchment is mapped following the first years intake,
individuals who have a genuine need to drive for part of their journey to the school will be
advised of the best areas in which to park away from the school. This will ensure that no one
street is over burdened with school traffic with perhaps one or two cars in a given street
being related to the school. Suggestions will be made based on the direction from which
individuals are travelling. It is anticipated that this will amount to a very small number of staff
3 of 14
and parents travelling to the school and should not impact negatively on any one street or
area.
Your transport impact surveys for the school and hospital development are separate - why
are these not separate planning applications? (Stephen Glands)
The traffic impact assessment is for the whole site and is not separate, the travel plans are
separate documents as they target different users however they are co-ordinated with each
other and the traffic impact assessment.
What concerns do TfL have - can you make this known to us? (Stephen Glands)
The project team have been working with Transport for London (TfL) to date to confirm that
our approach and methodology meets their requirements and they have confirmed that it
does. The notes from the meetings with TfL will be provided in the Consultation Statement
which forms part of the planning application and will be made available to the transport group
once it has been completed. TfL will also be reviewing the TIA once the application is
submitted and their comments will be publicly available.
How will teachers carry their books? (Stephen Glands)
The books and other materials that may be carried by primary school teachers, especially in
the upper years are a manageable amount that can be carried or taken on public transport
and it is extremely common for teachers to do this. Modern teaching methods mean that it is
possible for individual sheets of paper or electronic storage devices to be used for homework
and marking – instead of the more bulky exercise books of the past.
The school and hospital both represent major development in their own right that will have a
major impact on the local area - why are there not individual planning applications for bother
the school and the hospital? The transport studies focus on either the hospital or the school
- why does the planning application not do this? (Stephen Glands)
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 who strongly recommended that a joint
planning application be submitted. We have been informed that the Unitary Development
Plan identifies this as a single development site (Proposal Site 39b), and that it would be
inappropriate to seek to deal with it as two, or more, separate elements for planning
purposes, due the many common and interdependent issues that will need to be evaluated
as material considerations when a decision is taken. 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;
4 of 14
•
•
•
•
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.
As discussed above the traffic assessment is a whole site document and the travel plans are
separate documents as they target different users however they are co-ordinated with each
other and the traffic impact assessment.
How many staff are there at present in the health centre, hospital and the lodge? How many
will there be at the new premises (including "sessional" staff)? How many parking spaces do
present staff require? How many are estimated for future staff? (Alan Percival)
There are 106 full time equivalent members of staff across all health and GP sites. The
same number is being planned for in the new health facility. This is based on the fact that
some staff numbers will be reduced due to improved working practices and new posts will be
introduced to deliver the new services, such as the urgent care centre.
There is currently no dedicated staff parking at Surbiton Hospital or Oak Hill Medical Centre although we are aware that staff do use these car parks. In the new development there will
be 14 parking spaces dedicated for staff use - 12 at the rear of the building and 2 in the main
car park for use by car pool vehicles being used by GPs and other health workers carrying
out home visits.
What is the planned peak (not average) arrival rate of patients and how is this calculated?
(Alan Percival)
The peak hourly arrival rate is expected to be c.180 patients (assuming 100% site
occupancy) which covers all modes of transport. This was calculated by applying existing
trip rates to the expected number of patients at the new health facility. The existing trip rates
were based on the patients' arrival profiles observed at Surbiton hospital and Oakhill Medical
Centre.
Health trips are largely existing trips - wrong - half the patients (of the 40,000 list) at present
travel to GP premises elsewhere so will have different journeys to a different destination.
(Alan Percival)
The GP practices moving to the new development are currently provided in nearby Surbiton
streets, no more than half a mile from the Surbiton Hospital site. For some patients this may
mean a slightly longer journey and for others a shorter journey. Whilst some patients may
need to use a car where they haven’t previously, this will be off-set by the reduction in car
5 of 14
trips being made to Kingston Hospital, due to the new day patient treatment and diagnostic
services being provided at the new Surbiton health facility. Therefore no additional trips will
be generated, and those which are being diverted to the new facility can be accommodated
by the improved car park management system planned for the new development. This will
enable a smooth flow of cars onto the site and includes a strict process of preventing
unauthorised vehicles (including many of those which currently frequent the existing car
park) from using the new car park.
Comments made via feedback sheets
The impact of staff and patient overflow parking in the neighbouring streets is still worrying,
particularly in relation to the health centre rather than the school. (Angela Law)
Our modelling shows that there is sufficient capacity within the car park to accommodate
anticipated demand, should the demand be greater than anticipated this can be addressed
by spreading the scheduling of appointment to ensure a steady flow of people into the site so
there should not be any reason for people to park in the neighbouring streets. The fact that
our travel planning work will continue well after the new health facilities are operational will
ensure that this process is managed efficiently on an ongoing basis.
Existing journeys are not the same - these are shorter and more dispersed. The new central
facility will mean more people will need to drive due to greater distance involved; they will
also be focused on one area. This will increase congestion on local roads including Ewell
Road. Your presentation suggests there will be no impact - I strongly disagree with this.
(Stephen Glands)
The GP practices moving to the new development are currently provided in nearby Surbiton
streets, no more than half a mile from the Surbiton Hospital site. For some patients this may
mean a slightly longer journey and for others a shorter journey. Whilst some patients may
need to use a car where they haven’t previously, this will be off-set by the reduction in car
trips being made to Kingston Hospital, due to the new day patient treatment and diagnostic
services being provided at the new Surbiton health facility. Therefore no additional trips will
be generated. The fact that future journeys will be focused on one area, instead of being
dispersed has been managed by the improved car park management system planned for the
new development. This will enable a smooth flow of cars onto the site and includes a strict
process of preventing unauthorised vehicles – including many of those which currently
frequent the existing car park – from using the new car park.
Your aim was to bring healthcare closer to home - on the contrary this centralised scheme
will mean longer journeys for patients - this is not an improvement for local people. (Stephen
Glands)
The development will bring health facilities which are currently not available in Surbiton –
such as urgent care and diagnostic services currently provided at Kingston Hospital - into
the heart of the Surbiton community in a location with excellent public transport connections.
The car park capacity will be insufficient for the hospital unless you can co-ordinate 7 GPs
appointments and change patients schedules:
• There is no plan as to how you will co-ordinate 7 GPs diaries
6 of 14
• Working people have very little flexibility with their schedules, this could result in
people not getting treatment or advice leading to bigger health problems further
down the line, eventually at a greater cost to them and the state.
(Stephen Glands)
There will be one centralised reception for the GP’s and we are working with them and IT
professionals to procure a system which will allow for the co-ordinated scheduling of
appointments and the capacity of the car park will factor into this. The health facility will be
open from 8am to 8pm and at weekends providing working people with greater opportunities
to access treatment and advice without having to miss work.
The projected figures for journeys to the school have been miscalculated. (Stephen Glands)
The figures are correct – the nursery changes over in the middle of the day so while there
are 52 children on role there will only be 26 in the morning and 26 in the evening. Even in
the middle of the day the morning pick-up with most likely be an hour earlier than the
afternoon drop-off.
Patients will often have to see different GPs who don't know their history in detail - this is also
relevant for home visits. (Stephen Glands)
The practices going into the health facility will retain their current patient lists and practice
ties so patients who wish to see their own GP will still be able to request this.
The transport plans do not account for the proposed and likely development of the present
Oakhill clinic into 40+ flats - this is a massive oversight. (Stephen Glands)
The future use of Oakhill clinic and timetable for development has yet to be decided and
therefore it was not possible to include it within the planning for this development. However
the data collected for this scheme will be used to inform the development of Oakhill going
forward.
I am not against EITHER a school or a hospital on the site, but I think the present plans
represent an over-development of the site. (Stephen Glands)
The same architects and project team have designed the site as a whole to ensure the best
use of space and a joined up approach. Currently 20.5% of the site footprint is taken up with
buildings in the proposed scheme this increases to 24%, an increase of just 3.5%. In
designing the scheme we have striven to minimise the impact of the buildings on the footprint
of the site, to create better movement, maximise external areas and to avoid the site
appearing over developed. The new buildings have been designed to follow the footprint of
the existing buildings, set back from Ewell road and away from the site boundaries keeping
below the level of the trees which line the site and creating a pedestrian and cycle corridor
through the site which connects both buildings to Ewell Road and Oakhill providing better
access to bus and train services. This can be seen in the following diagrams.
7 of 14
The site still seems too small for both the school and the health centre. (Margaret Harker,
representing Southborough Residents Association)
See answer to the question above. The school has been designed to maximise the space
available and provides adequate space to meet the educational needs of the pupils aligned
with the recommended building guidelines for external areas.
The idea of having a bus route from the Brighton Road side of Surbiton, direct to Ewell Road
either with a stop into or outside of the new health centre should continue to be pursued.
(Margaret Harker, representing Southborough Residents Association)
It is our intention to revisit this issue with Transport for London once demand can be
demonstrated.
Travel consultants' past experience
Sheridan Smith Associates - Emma Sheridan
Emma has worked in the field of sustainable school travel for almost 10 years. In that time
she has worked at Local Authority level in 3 London boroughs, regional level as the
Transport for London (TfL) School Travel Programme Manager and at national level both as
a Department for Transport Regional Advisor and as the Chair of Modeshift (the national
organisation representing, supporting and training school travel professionals).
Whilst at TfL Emma managed the development, growth and implementation of the successful
London School Travel Plan Programme, achieving a 6% decrease in school run car use
across the whole of London. During her five years in this role, amongst other projects, she
worked with the Walk to School Co-ordinator to develop and roll out the hugely successful
Walk On Wednesday campaign (which independent research has shown achieves on
average an 18% increase in walking levels at participating schools) , managed the
development of a wide variety of curriculum materials, helped to develop the Open University
Diploma in Travel Planning and the Loughborough University MSC in Sustainable Transport,
on which she continues to be a guest lecturer, and oversaw the growth of the London wide
School Travel Programme from £6m to £13.4m in just 4 years.
Emma has represented and advised the UK Department for Transport and Department for
Education in her role as London Regional School Travel Adviser and from June 2010 as the
Regional School Travel Advisor for the South East and South West regions. This included
the development of the national and London criteria for School Travel Plans and the national
8 of 14
guidance for Local Authorities on their School Travel Plan and Sustainable Modes of Travel
to School Strategies.
In addition, Emma is a member of the UK National School Travel Expert Panel which advised
government departments in this field of work.
About Jacobs Consultancy
Jacobs Consultancy is the technically based management consultancy arm of the Jacobs
Engineering Group, Inc. Jacobs Consultancy has 270 in UK full-time staff and includes highly
experienced economists, transport planners, modellers, railway planners, aviation
consultants, operational managers, financial analysts and business consultants. We provide
services to a wide range of clients in the public and private sectors, as well as international
financial institutions, in numerous areas including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Traffic Engineering including safety improvements, parking design, accessibility design
and design for sustainable transport;
Economic appraisal and business case evaluations of existing and new transport
infrastructure and service provision;
Local Safety Schemes involving safety audits of existing and proposed schemes and
design of safety measures for schools and local areas;
Computer simulation modelling covering all modes of transport as well as operational
planning, including pedestrian modelling;
Transport planning including physical planning and environmental assessment;
Financial planning including financial modelling, rates and charges analysis and airport
accounting and management information systems;
Project Management & Stakeholder engagement.
Corporate Transport Assessment / Travel Plan Experience
Project title: Loxbridge Health Centre, Redbridge
NHS Redbridge commissioned Jacobs Consultancy to develop a detailed integrated
transport strategy to support the development of the Loxford NHS Health Centre. The
transport strategy will be piloted at the Loxford site, which is the second of a number of
clinics being developed across Redbridge.
Project title: Houghton Regis Travel Plan and Environmental Statement
This project involved the production of a Traffic and Transportation chapter for inclusion in an
environmental assessment for a proposed residential development in a rural location. This
involved summarising the findings of a transport assessment previously undertaken by
Jacobs, giving further consideration to access by sustainable modes and the likely
construction and operational phase impacts of the proposals. This project also involved the
production of a travel plan for the proposed development to accompany the transport
assessment.
Project title: Sunderland City Council School Travel Planning
Jacobs manages a framework contract with Sunderland City Council to co-ordinate and
manage the school travel plan programme for 23 schools in the council. In some cases
Jacobs produces the travel plan, while providing support to all schools on the development,
implementation and monitoring. The school travel plans cover road safety engineering
9 of 14
measures, such as safe crossings and redesign of school entrances; and sustainable
transport measures such as cycle training and cycle parking, and walking school buses.
Other experience
Other experience of delivering Transport Assessments (TAs) and Travel Plans in support of
a range of prospective developments through the planning process, includes:
• A TA and travel strategy in support of a planning application at a mixed use residential
and commercial development located in Thanet and on behalf of the East Kent
Opportunities regeneration body.
• A Travel Plan to support the expansion of the Sheppey Prisons Cluster on behalf of the
Ministry of Justice.
• The production of a TA and Travel Plan for the Turner Contemporary Art Gallery in
Margate, east Kent.
• The production of a Travel Plan to BREEAM standards, for HMPYOI Warren Hill,
Suffolk.
• Further TAs and Travel Plans have been prepared for a range of land uses including the
Canterbury Park and Ride, Dungeness A Power Station and a Large Visitor Attraction on
the Isle of Sheppey.
Notes from Transport Group meeting held on 4th October 2010
Group 1 – Beth Revell
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Concerns that staff parking is not sufficient, especially at the school. Examples of this
failing include a new school in Macclesfield and Kew Riverside.
Lessons to be learned from these schools and demonstrated that research done
Kingston Hospital has been running a scheme to discourage staff driving to work – how
successful has this been, can we learn from this?
The closer public transport links are to the site the better for promoting its use, lots of
changes and walking distance puts people off.
To discourage commuters and parents using the hospital parking a ticket validation
system could be used so patients with appointments don’t have to pay as their ticket
will be validated at the desk – no need for an attendant and will not slow traffic entering
the site.
Bad weather strategy to be considered in travel plans
Breakfast clubs at the school would allow parents to drop off earlier spreading out drop
off times
Drop and walk zones would protect Oak Hill
Check that the correct number of DDA spaces ratio has been included at the healthcare
building
What is the council’s strategy for immobile parents to transport their children to school?
Could they come with the SEN children? To be included in school travel plan
The Oakhill practice closing will ease congestion on Oakhill road which may off set the
school traffic.
Good sign posting pedestrian routes encourages walking – example of how people
were driving from Oakhill to the station via Ewell Road because they didn’t know the
footpath cut through was there.
10 of 14
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Educating children to encourage their parents to walk them is important.
Strong support for walking buses. Noted works well in Merton where the bus stops at
peoples doors to collect children. A walking bus meeting at the station put forward as
an idea.
Could an area of the current Oakhill practice be used as a drop off zone?
Can the hospital car park be used by the school in the evenings when the building is
being used for clubs and activities (people less likely to walk in the evenings/late at
night)
How does Surbiton Library manage parking for their evening events? What can we
learn from this?
Presence of neighbourhood police officers would encourage walking (police officer on
our table noted they are facing cutbacks but local neighbourhood policing remains a
priority)
Surbiton Children’s centre has also been discouraging car use and drop off at their front
entrance. What can we learn for this?
Out of service busses pass the site on the way to Tolworth garage (57) could they stop
at site?
Discussed that Hollyfield and Surbiton High schools do not add congestion to the area
as majority of pupils use the bus
Group keen to see statistics relating to wet weather traffic impact
Proactive enforcement of parking and traffic violation (stick not just carrot) would
discourage bad practice such as cctv enforcement of the bus lane, mobile units and
wardens.
“I think it is very important to look at real examples of new local schools. I am
concerned that plans can look ok now on paper, but the real problems will emerge in
several years time, particularly re the school.” – Alan Manchester
Group 2 – Tracy Reader and Emma Sheridan
Key area of concern:
Traffic congestion in local side roads (particularly a road-block ‘loop’ around South Bank,
Glenbuck Road, Oak Hill Grove and Oak Hill Road, and blockages in Oak Hill, South Bank
Terrace and roads between Berrylands Road and Browns Road) caused by parents and
patients circulating these roads looking for parking places and subsequently abandoning cars
inappropriately – thus blocking access for residents and emergency vehicles.
Possible solutions discussed:
1. Suggestion that pedestrian access at Oakhill could be blocked to prevent vehicle drop-off
at that entrance – also questioned pedestrian access at South Bank Terrace.
2. Controlled residents parking zones might help – but only if the permit zone was different
to that Berrylands area.
3. Road widening in Oak Hill rejected as an option due to conservation area.
4. Yellow lines in Oak Hill and other roads suggested as an option – only deemed viable if
lots of parking wardens to enforce this.
11 of 14
5. Gated access at Ewell Road entrance with attendants preventing unauthorised access
would not be a good parking solution as queues would block the main road and thus
entrances to the side roads.
6. A walking bus starting a short distance away from the site and surrounding side roads
would be a possible solution. The station was considered a suitable location for this.
Other issues raised:
•
•
Limiting staff parking would cause problems for teachers and so make it difficult to attract
staff.
Introducing a new housing development with multiple units at the Oak Hill Health Centre
site would attract yet more traffic in the Oak Hill area.
Group 3 – Diana Babacic-Davis and Paul Dearman
The main conclusions drawn from the conversations with the local residents present at this
table were as follows:
1. Insufficient parking provision for the staff both at the health facility and the school.
Questioned provision of 10+2 (2 disabled) parking spaces for 106 staff at the health
facility, and 4+2 for 20-30 staff for the school. Local residents are extremely worried that
there will be overspill of staff parking on the street, particularly on already overly-utilised
streets east of Ewell Rd.
2. Suggestion that the parking bays for different lengths of stay are not representing a
realistic view of waiting times for appointments. How is 10 minute parking enforced?
What about appointments that last longer than 1 hour?
3. The map of school catchment area was not presented at the meeting. Can there be a
map of school’s catchment area presented on a map with catchment areas for other
schools. There is a concern that the new school will attract potential St Mathew’s pupils,
and therefore St. Mathew’s catchment area will expand as a result.
4. One of the residents raised enquiry about a site in Surbiton that was acquired by a
developer but never developed and is currently underutilised. This is the site next to St
Andrews School. If the borough needs more space for pupils, why not expand this
school?
5. Pupil drop off – there is a concern that parents may use the space outside garages of the
Melish court for parking and dropping off children, consequently blocking the garage
access for the residents
6. Pupil drop off – there was a mention of arrangement of special drop-off bays 5 to 10
minutes walk from the school. Where are those bays proposed to be located?
7. The overall conclusion by the residents present at this table was that the site was overly
utilised, especially for the fact that the pupil play area was located on the roof of the
school.
Group 4 – Antony Wedge and Karen Perry
Concerns discussed
1.
Conflict of interest / fairness of decision making process with the Council being both a
client and decision maker regarding planning permission for the school
12 of 14
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Impact on local residents of car-borne parents dropping children off in Oakhill Road
(which is already a busy road) and Southbank Terrace and issues of turning cars on
narrow roads.
Impact on local residents of increased activity relating to two different types of buildings
on site instead of one, therefore a doubling up of deliveries/collections, i.e. collection of
specialised waste materials from the hospital, meals being delivered to school etc,
Patient numbers will double from circa 28k to 42k expected, car trip reduced from 62%
down to 50% meaning there will not be enough parking spaces on site for them,
especially as most of the existing on-site spaces are used by staff.
How is parking going to be controlled in the health facility, through appointment system,
but how? Who will be responsible for managing it and deciding who is eligible for a
space, e.g. will it be via the main reception?
Mixed views on whether car parking charges should be imposed on hospital car park
i.e. some thought it a good idea, others did not.
Parking meters in Oakhill used to full capacity. Parents, patients and visitors to the site
will use metered parking spaces thus denying these spaces to local residents and their
visitors
Request for a list of comparable sites, i.e. with health facility and school to see how
they work! (Need examples that are on a main road, in a conservation area, have
access points off cul-de-sacs etc) so that predictions can be made within 95%
confidence limits that the traffic situation will be OK – ‘may’ or ‘should’ not good
enough.
Alternatives to driving, idea from USA journeys on bus free to patients.
Limited parking at school may compromise the quality of teaching employed. – inability
to drive to school may discourage good teachers living outside the catchment from
applying for jobs. Poor teachers lead to school getting a poor teaching reputation.
Teachers need cars to transport books home for marking – meetings after school , after
school clubs etc mean little opportunity to mark work at school.
Entrances to school discussed – would traffic lights will be needed at hospital junction
with Ewell Rd to ease congestion caused by cars dropping off patients and children via
Ewell Rd entrance? Response given that only SEN children would be dropped off via
Ewell Rd entrance - via mini buses taxis.
Bus stops positions discussed along Ewell Rd – could be moved to ease congestion,
but depending on location could block access to car parking areas to r/o shops on west
side of Ewell Rd.
Cars used when it rains therefore more congestion.
Adequate crossing points across Ewell Rd for children.
Residents living on hospital side of Ewell Road did not get letters inviting them to attend
this meeting – not good enough after complaints about this same problem in May
Travel plan - how effective to control, restrictive parking near site, so spill out to larger
area, limited parking but free.
What is the planned future use for Oakhill Health Centre and Newlands House? Has
this been factored in to the site development as a whole with regard to parking/traffic
issues?
13 of 14
18.
19.
20.
21.
Small surrounding roads and cul-de-sacs were discussed, not suitable for possible
increases in traffic and parking congestion, drop off/pick up times were discussed,
mornings ok, more of a problem in the afternoon pickup time.
Concern around displacement of traffic from Ewell Rd to King Charles Rd
Too many GP practices coming to the site. Surbiton well provided with GPs within
accessible walking distances of homes. Amalgamating them onto one site means more
people will have further to travel which will encourage them to come by car.
Disappointment expressed that group concentrated on complaints rather than focussed
on being creative and coming up with ideas and finding solutions
Suggestions
• People react better to being encouraged to change their travel habits than being
instructed to do so e.g. issue bus vouchers at Drs surgery so next visit is free on the bus
• Charge nominal amounts for parking outside shops either side of Ewell Rd e.g. 20p or
50p for short stay parking so parents and patients don’t use parking spaces at expense
of shoppers
• Possible disused plot nearby could be used for pay + display parking – e.g. health
owned land at r/o Newent House/Mad Hatter PH on corner of South Place/ Warwick
Grove (off Brown Rd) which has lain vacant and neglected for years – would also benefit
local traders.
• Restrict parking in the middle of the day e.g. 1 – 2pm on east side of Ewell Rd to deter
commuter parking and allow it to be available for parents etc
• So far as possible, restrict servicing vehicles to particular times of the day when traffic
lighter
• Move bus stop closer to Mellish Court and use box junctions to avoid blocking access to
parking areas to r/o shops
• Ensure additional/new crossing points for children (Berrylands side) to get across Ewell
Rd
• Introduce more restrictive parking controls on east side of Ewell Rd to discourage people
arriving by car – e.g. King Charles Crescent and Mulberry Place.
• Reduce the number of GP practices on the site
• Mindful of Conservation area, so need careful sighting of signage and building design.
• One resident suggested using south end of Oakhill Rd as a drop off point for parents
who have to drop off. Older pupils to escort kids up path (school example in Washington
USA more details telephone 02082887736)
14 of 14