17 to 19 Dukes Avenue

A planning application has been submitted for the site currently being used as a car lot

Car Lot

The application is requesting change of use to residential in the form of
erecting part single storey - part two storey and part three storey for 
use as nine self-contained flats with roof terraces and cycle park.

The full APPLICATION

COMMENTS must be registered by 31st March 2017

 

 

Proposed Changes to Local Healthcare

primary Care Poster

Tesco Clear Up

Tesco Clear Up

Many thanks to Danielle - Jean - Tariq and all the other volunteers
from the Environment Centre who presented to do sterling work on
the raised bed in front of Tesco Express....

Thank you.......

The
New Malden Future Group
(NMFG)

The New Malden Future Group (NMFG) came about when the previous draft planning document for Cocks Crescent was withdrawn in 2014 after criticisms from local residents and Councillors. Councillors turned to the local community to come forward with their ideas and views on how the land should be developed.
The NMFG includes representatives from the New Malden Residents’ Association, Groves Association, Community of New Malden Businesses, Kingston Society and a number of interested and concerned individuals. All members either live or work in New Malden and are passionate about its future, and some of the members have planning experience which has been invaluable in dealing with the maze of planning detail. Its members are:

Barbara Delamere, Groves Residents’ Association
Zbig Blonski (planner), Groves Residents’ Association
Niki McGibbon, Groves Residential, Community of New Malden Businesses
Richard Allum, Parry & Drewett, Community of New Malden Businesses
Justin Cooper (architect), Mohsin Cooper Limited
Frances Marsh, New Malden Residents’ Association
Val Martin-Gennings, New Malden Residents’ Association
Maureen Shilston, local resident
Anthony Evans [architect/planner and Conservation Officer), Kingston Society
Annie Amos, Kingston Vale Operatic Society
Seb Amos, Brycbox Action Group

The NMFG developed a vision for a new heart for New Malden. The vision was that development of the Cocks Crescent area should create a new heart and community focus for New Malden to reinvigorate it as a vibrant, interesting, friendly and popular place. This should be secured through high quality development, to include a new modern community hub comprising a new leisure centre, library/cultural resource/art facility, new town square, and reinvigorated open space, delivered through enabling housing development with shopping, services and other town centre employment uses.
Our vision received overwhelming public support in the various stages of consultation including a packed public meeting attended by over 100 local people and a petition with over 680 signatures. Over the two years that the NM Future Group has been working with the Council, we have seen a sea change in attitude from Councillors and Officers. This is the first time the Council has worked with the community to formulate a strategy for such a project. It has obviously not been without its teething problems and we have all learned from the experience.

The collective attitude of the Future Group is that residents must be at the forefront of the development of the site and that the community and public benefits should lead the development - not the other way round. The implementation of the SPD (Supplementary Planning Document) must ensure that the scale of development does not overwhelm the area and that it is sensitive to and integrates successfully with the surrounding residential area.

We do not wish Cocks Crescent to become a cheap political football. We want the whole council and all the local community to unite to deliver a well deserved and brighter future for New Malden, which the SPD offers and which council leadership must deliver. The outcome of this project is vitally important and will reflect upon the Council as a whole, irrespective of party.

With the inevitable increase in population that has been forecast for this country, and especially for the South East, it is absolutely imperative that we do not take away the facilities for sport, leisure and learning that we have been fortunate enough to have in our lifetime. It is essential that these facilities are improved and available for all of us. This has been at the heart of the New Malden Future Group’s work over the past two years and, we are confident from our dialogue with residents, that this is also their vision for Cocks Crescent. However, residents also want clearer information on the amount of housing units, traffic issues, and increased need for services such as education and health and these issues need to be addressed by the Council in order to allay residents’ understandable concerns. The Future Group looks forward to working with the council on the next steps in securing this vision.
Frances Marsh - New Malden Residents’Association

 

Vehicles Blocking Driveways

Driveway Parking

We receive many complaints about vehicles blocking driveways, entrances to and exits from property. This is seldom a question of the blockage being caused by a vehicle waiting, but by parking, ie the driver leaving the vehicle. Often the blockage is partial, but still sufficient to block the driveway and block the view of approaching vehicles in the roadway, even of pedestrians on pavements.

Such blockage is illegal as well as inconsiderate. Several London Boroughs took over the power to control this practice, along with other vehicle offences, from the police in 2013, but Kingston did not. Kingston’s excuse was that it had no yard to which it could take the vehicles offending by blocking driveways. The power to enforce the free entrance to and exit from properties has therefore remained with the police in Kingston.
A member of this Association noted that many other traffic regulations made by Kingston Borough in its own right require removal of the offending vehicle and taking it to a safe place, ie a yard. We enquired what this yard was, and how the offending vehicles were removed and kept. We discovered that there is no yard to which offending vehicles are taken for any offence, and that what RBK does is to book the offending vehicle for the offence, which means a fine for the owner and to do so repeatedly while the vehicle remains. We thought that such booking and fining would ultimately act as a deterrent to blocking driveways.
We have nevertheless put an enquiry to Kingston Police, about how often they receive complaints about vehicles blocking driveways, how often they act on those complaints, and what they do. We also asked how they see their power to book these vehicles in the future. The police have not yet replied. We will then raise the matter with RBK again, with a view to having RBK book offenders in future.
Vehicles often park across driveways with the permission of the occupant of the property. The problem is with the vehicle owners who park without asking for permission, and without leaving a note about where they might be found, and leave the vehicle while they go elsewhere, often for prolonged periods. If you observe that being done, it is best to intervene, even if permission has been obtained. Intervening might mean your neighbour can get in or out, or even yourself, next time. It could also set up a culture of behaving properly. Even trades people should make arrangements with property occupants about parking across driveways, not assume they can park any old how.

SUMMARY OF ON-LINE RESPONSES TO DRAFT COCKS CRESCENT SPD

 

Interpretation

 

  1. Both the vision and overarching principles received greater levels support than opposition, but the level of opposition is nonetheless significant and often close to the level of agreement. This is also the case for the land use strategy and public realm strategy. 
  2. Across other questions, opposition outweighs support. This includes the ‘masterplan’, ‘height and scale strategy’ and ‘delivery of affordable housing’. In short, the development’s proposed strategies very much divide opinion and whichever decisions are made on design (and importantly how these are communicated) in the next steps will need to give careful consideration to resident feedback.  
  3. What can principally be taken from across the responses is very strong support for the Malden Centre, community and leisure facilities - eight in ten respondents see the delivery of a new leisure centre as very important. The community centre is seen as an essential part of life. There are numerous testimonies concerning perceived health, social and well-being benefits to people of the area. The swimming pool is a crucial part of the leisure facilities and residents are critical of the lack of detail as to what will be retained.  People do not want to see a net loss of facilities. Future plans must address this. This also presents a major opportunity to improve on what is currently there.  
  4. Concerns regarding infrastructure are also very prevalent. Public services (such as education and health) are perceived as under pressure already. Congestion and local parking are significant problems that people want to see addressed before development exacerbates the situation.  
  5. The scale of development, particularly the upper limits of house numbers, and its height are also mentioned as cause for concern. New buildings need to be seen as more sympathetic and in keeping with the area, and not to overshadow them. This also relates to the above concerns regarding the impact on infrastructure and local amenities, and below regarding open space.  Open space is seen as an important part of the development – in particular the need to retain green space and features that are linked with the document’s references to health and wellbeing.  
  6. Whilst there is some recognition of the need for affordable housing, it also carried some negative perception of poverty and anti-social behaviour, and so greater communication is needed on this area.  
  7. There are also references to a perceived vagueness and lack of detail in the SPD and overuse of jargon. It may be that the document is by nature intended as high-level, with greater detail to follow at later planning stages but nonetheless residents want greater clarity and greater certainty even at this stage.   

 

Cocks Crescent SPD

 

Air Quality - Test Results

The Association has had the results from Gradko Environmental Testing Laboratories:
The full report  commissioned by NMRA can be read  here.
Below are the locations - period of testing and the results in micrograms per cubic metre.
RBK's policy is not to exceed an annual mean of 40 micrograms/m3. Seven of our readings are near the annual permissible mean. 

The HIgh Street reading is clearly the worst at 51.75 micrograms: there is a margin of error on all samples so the reading could be
49.06 - 54.44. The Fountain and Burlington School are also poor. We are particularly concerned about Burlington, since the school
playground is there and air pollution has a particularly harmful effect on childrens lungs.
We plan to do some more data gathering in the new year.

LOCATION                                         PERIOD EXPOSED                      NITROGEN DIOXIDE
                                                                                                                    MICROGRAMS PER
                                                                                                                        CUBIC METRE

 

Hoppingwood Road                                          A                                              25.61

Lime Grove                                                        A                                              24.47

Elm Road                                                           A                                              24.39

Kingston Road/South Lane                             A                                              39.02

Bodley Road                                                     A                                              41.02

Fountain Roundabout                                      A                                              49.17

South Lane/Malden Road                                A                                              40.18

Burlington School                                            A                                              44.50

Blagdon Road/Beverley Road                         A                                              37.32

Blagdon Road / High Street                             B                                             51.75

A = 24th September till 21st October

B = 23rd September till 21st October

 

THE  AIR  OF NEW  MALDEN

CAROLINE RUSSELL

It all started with our members. Questions about Air Quality in and around New Malden were being raised more and more as winter was coming to an end and people were getting out and about. 

It took considerable organising but a public meeting was held with the eminent Prof. Frank Kelly, attended by our Members, Councillors, and James Berry MP. That was at the beginning of September, even before that meeting we were taking steps to obtain our own equipment in order for the Association to assess for itself, the state of the air we all breath daily.

CR 5A

 

 

 

Contact Information

13 Raby Road
New Malden
KT3 3QT

newmaldenresidents@gmail.com