Update on planning future health services for Weybridge

15/11/2017 by Editor Leave a Comment

Residents who signed up to participate in consultation about future health services for Weybridge following the Community Hospital fire have received the update below.

Note that the NW Surrey Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) website has been updated with NW Surrey CCG’s informative reports of the two community meetings held on 17 October in St James’ Church, Weybridge.

PPDRA aims to contribute to the consultation in liaison with members who wish to particpate in the engagement process. If you are strongly interested in the shape of our future health services in Weybridge, please let us know.

FROM: Comms (NHS NORTH WEST SURREY CCG)
DATE: Wed 15/11/2017 13:30
SUBJECT: Engaging the local community in planning future health services for Weybridge

Thank you very much for expressing an interest in joining a smaller working group/s to consider future health services for Weybridge.

We have set out our draft engagement plans below, and it would be really helpful if you could let us know which group/s you might be interested in participating in:

Engaging local people across North West Surrey on our urgent care strategyAs we described at the public meetings in Weybridge on 17 October, we are starting to think about how we plan and improve access to urgent care services across North West Surrey. This will include services in Weybridge so it makes sense to start thinking about the wider picture first before we focus on the detail for a new healthcare facility in Weybridge.To start this engagement, we are planning to hold a wider engagement event (possibly end November/beginning of December) with up to around 50 people from across North West Surrey to start thinking about the best way to provide urgent care, on the day services for local people. This is likely to be a daytime event and we will also be inviting people from other parts of North West Surrey. This would include some facilitated table discussion.

A smaller working group to look at our developing urgent care strategyFollowing the event above, we would look to create a smaller working group that might meet every 2-4 weeks for a period of several months while we work through options and move towards public consultation.
Weybridge Hospital Patient Advisory GroupOnce we have clearer plans for urgent care access across North West Surrey, we would like to create a dedicated patient group to consider services + the look and feel/design for a new health facility in Weybridge. We anticipate a working group of up to around 20 people. This is not likely to meet until well into the New Year. This group is likely to meet approx. once a month for the duration of our planning for the new build (which could be up to around 2 years depending on how the planning moves forward).

As we indicated at the meetings in Weybridge, engaging the local community is a key part of our planning; we will continue to keep people updated via our website, the local press and other methods as appropriate and there will also be opportunities for more people to get involved during public consultation where we will also have further public meetings. During that wider consultation period we would also be very happy to come out and talk to local groups as much as possible.

In the meantime, we would be very grateful if you could indicate which of the above you would be interested in participating in; these are not mutually exclusive so you could opt for more than one if you wish.

All up to date information on Weybridge Community Hospital is now on our website and can be found here.

Communications and Engagement Team
NHS North West Surrey Clinical Commissioning Group
58 Church Street, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 8DP

Web: www.nwsurreyccg.nhs.uk
Follow us on Twitter @NWSurreyCCG

Weybridge Community Hospital — concern over which services will return

19/10/2017 by Editor 1 Comment

St James’ church was packed to capacity for two meetings on Tuesday 17 October. Around 800 local residents attended, hoping to hear positive news about health services returning to our town, after the destruction of Weybridge Community Hospital in the disastrous fire back in July.

The news was mixed. Good news is that the hospital site will be retained, interim accommodation for the two GP practices is being constructed as rapidly as possible, and should be up and running in December, and a new permanent building will be constructed on the site over the next three years or so.

The bad news is that Weybridge is unlikely to get back the Community Hospital as it was, with its Walk In Centre, X-Rays and extensive outpatient services.

What about the Walk In Centre?

So what will we get? North West Surrey Clinical Commissioning Group (NWS CCG) is responsible for deciding. The meetings were led by Matthew Tait, of NWS CCG, along with representatives of NHS Property Services and local GP practices.

The publicity handout headed ‘services returning to the former Weybridge Community Hospital Site’ (see below) made it clear that GP practices, a range of treatment room services, and Lloyds Pharmacy will return. Beyond that, all is up for discussion.

The great area of concern for residents at both meetings was the future of the Walk In Centre and X-rays etc. Will the Walk In Centre be returning?

We were told that Walk In Centres are now an outdated concept, that CCG thinking has moved on. But there will be treatment services. There is no short-term replacement for the Walk In Centre, as there is no space on the site and no other suitable site has been found. [Surrey County Councillor Tim Oliver on 20 Sept told local residents that part of the library building had been considered for a replacement Walk In Centre, but proved not to be feasible.]

CCG ‘engaging with community in NW Surrey’

About NW Surrey CCG

Residents were told repeatedly by Matthew Tait of the NW Surrey CCG, and his colleagues, that they would be engaging with the community of North West Surrey to understand local needs, and that future services would be shaped to meet those needs.

It appears that NWS CCG are starting with a clean sheet of paper, and looking at the needs of local towns from Ashford to Woking and beyond, in deciding what future facilities we will have in Weybridge.

Before the fire at Weybridge Community Hospital, Weybridge was a hub for local community health services. The loss of the Community Hospital means that we are no longer a working hub.

The services delivered in Weybridge in future may be better or worse than before the fire, NWS CCG cannot say at present, but CCG have a duty to look at the overall clinical needs of North West Surrey.

Weybridge concern about LOCAL provision

For many Weybridge residents, the important question has a different emphasis: ‘will we get back the LOCAL provision of health services that we lost in the fire?’

NW Surrey CCG cannot promise that we will get them back. But CCG want to engage with the community, and the massive turnout at the two meetings — CCG had originally planned to hold them in a room with a capacity of 100 people! — is a sure sign that Weybridge residents care deeply about local provision of those services.

There are natural concerns that our town may be diminished by a long-term loss of local provision of services which we value highly and rely on.

But as Matthew Tait has said, we may get something better and more future-proof. Perhaps the voice of local residents will be heard.

Three years of interim services

20 ‘pods’ (portakabins) have already been sited on part of the Weybridge Community Hospital site previously used for staff car parking, and these are being fitted out as GP Surgery facilities, plus treatment rooms.

The interim facilities on the former hospital site should be up and running by December 2017, at which point the Church Street Practice and Rowan Tree Practice will return to Weybridge. Another pod will house Lloyds Pharmacy.

Limited parking

There will be parking on the interim site for about 30 cars (presumably this will mainly be for staff parking?), including disabled spaces. The impact of this reduction in parking over the next three years is likely to be significant.

[If the remainder of the site will not actually be built on until two years time, would it not be possible to level most of it, and use it for temporary parking until building actually starts?]

There were questions about the possibility of increasing parking space longer term via underground parking (too expensive at £15,000 per space, according to NHS Property Services) or a multi-storey car park on the site (not dismissed, but likely to face cost and planning issues).

Three year plan

The majority of the interim site will become a building site for construction of a new building by NHS Property Services, following commissioning by CCG, in a process expected to last around three years:

12 week consultation in NW Surrey looking at community clinical needs
Followed by a feasibility study & further engagement
Outline business case + procurement
2-3 months design
3-4 months for town planning consideration and consent
8 weeks tendering process
12 months of building and fitting out

Community Engagement

Throughout the meeting, the words ‘engage’ and ‘engagement with the community’ were repeatedly used. PPDRA looks forward to genuine consultation, and has asked to be part of the process.

Meeting with Surrey County Councillor Tim Oliver, 20 Sept 2017

30/09/2017 by Editor Leave a Comment

COUCNILLOR-LIAISON-SURREY-303l

Issues that matter for Weybridge residents were the topic of a useful meeting between local residents’ groups and the Surrey County Councillor for Weybridge, on 20 September.

Clr Tim Oliver met with representatives of local residents groups in Weybridge, including the Weybridge Society, Portmore Park & District RA and Triangle Residents.

In advance of the meeting, PPDRA circulated a list of Surrey-related things that concern residents of our part of north Weybridge. Most of these were covered constructively in the meeting.

Below we list the PPDRA issues, plus Tim Oliver’s agenda. Summary of some key points covered in discussion to follow.

Summary of PPDRA issues/questions for Weybridge Surrey County Councillor – September 2017

1/ Parking concerns in north Weybridge

Need for effective strategic planning and action on parking (Weybridge-wide, recognising the specific issues of Portmore Park & district, including residents of our increasingly densely populated residential roads near the High Street where most households have no off-street parking, plus shoppers and workers and school runs)
Local reactions to the recent Parking Review, especially Dorchester & Gascoigne Road issues, and lack of action on Grenside Road following our meeting with Margaret Hicks

2/ Traffic flows and speeds in north Weybridge

Keeping speeds low in residential roads
Extending the 20mph limit to the east of Thames Street: Grotto Road, Monument Road etc (region of St James’ School & surrounding residential roads; additional traffic calming, particularly for Grotto & Greenlands Roads?)
Preventing Portmore Park Road / Thames St / Walton Lane becoming a faster & more heavily used rat run
Positive visibility of roundels in existing 20 zone (a few more needed, CIL funding possibility? likewise interactive signs?)
Request for up-to-date figures on traffic flows in Walton Lane/Thames Street and PPR

3/ Any SCC plans to reduce the overall negative impact of traffic on Weybridge?

4/ Safer cycle routes

SCC plans for improving safety of cycling Weybridge (given big spend in other places, and statements of previous Weybridge councillors)?
Particular issue cycling between PPR and Station/Heathside School at Balfour Road and Church Street.

5/ Pavements

Progress of town centre pavement / pedestrian area plans?
Dangerous unevenness on pavements and gradients on drop kerbs (and no way of reporting gradients online)
Continuing issue of missing pavement on one side of Grotto Road, approaching the junction of Thames Street (a crossover of two school runs, with many pedestrians; blind corner for traffic exiting Grotto Road)

6/ Public Footpaths

Excellent to have Broadwater Path FP40!
Gradients/difficult access to parts of FP36 (Grenside Road to River Thames)
Dual use of FP20 (PPR to Minorca) ?
Issues of horse riders on Desborough Island, including churning its unsurfaced perimeter footpath

7/ Road surfaces / potholes

Status of resurfacing vs patching?
Issues of recurrent break-up at high use turning areas (e.g. Elmgrove Road outside Waitrose car park) and bends (e.g. PPR either side ode of traffic islands)
Recurrent dangerous break-up & subsidence around drains (where cyclists have to ride – e.g. in Thames Street))

8/ Impacted gullies causing recurrent road flooding

g. the end of PPR by Balfour Road; Walton Lane (or is that an EBC culvert issue by the canoe club?)

9/ Weybridge Community Hospital

Transport to temporary Walton location (new enhanced bus timetables – is SCC monitoring need /demand/ take–up?)
Rebuilding plans (essential not to lose the local community facility!!!)
Medium term plans?

10/ Town centre improvement initiatives

Weybridge Library building – current plans?
Status of thinking on part-pedestrianisation, e.g. weekend/market day closures at end of Baker Street?
Other positive SCC thinking?

11/ Future housing plans – SCC involvement?

What is the SCC role in the consultation on future housing needs (e.g. in matching plans to infrastructure & community character; some local concerns about the impact of building multiple flats – with transient rentals – on the character of a family residential area)

12/ Possibilities for SCC supporting community & voluntary involvement?

Helping residents take pride in our locality, e.g. through supporting voluntary minor clearing work along public footpaths.

Happily, the PPDRA issues overlapped considerably with the agenda suggested by Tim Oliver:

AGENDA

Introductions

Purpose of the meeting

Library proposals/ walk in centre
Parking review
Park & ride/ Traffic congestion
Streetscape/ High street regeneration
Brooklands business park accessibility
Baker street
War memorial lighting
Road closures information
Road surfaces
Road safety

Future meetings

Broadwater Path taking shape at last

28/07/2017 by Editor 2 Comments

Broadwater Path – Weybridge Public Footpath 40

Broadwater Path — a picturesque walk along the edge of Broadwater lake — is at long last becoming a properly surfaced reality. The path runs through the tranquil Green Belt countryside between Grenside Road, Weybridge and Cowey Sale (Walton Bridge). Work to lay the crushed stone surface started this month, and should be completed by mid September.

At the time of writing, nearly half the length has already been surfaced, and it looks superb — a good solid surface where before there was tangled undergrowth and mud. It will be a wonderful lasting asset for our community.

Broadwater Path surfacing in progress July 2017

The surfacing is possible thanks to Community Infrastructure Levy funding secured from Elmbridge Borough Council.

The formal dedication of the public footpath by Surrey County Council was complete by the start of this year, after over 15 years of local effort to make it happen.

Broadwater Path is more than a walk though beautiful scenery — the dedication of the public footpath opens the way for public funding to help conserve the historic Broadwater lake, which has been silting up badly in recent years. We can now look forward with greater confidence to this priceless local feature being enjoyed by future generations.

The final agreed official route of Broadwater Path

Weybridge Parking Review – delays and action

15/02/2017 by Editor Leave a Comment

DorchesterRdParking2017-sc The long awaited Weybridge Parking Review decision seems to have been delayed again, and there is no reliable information available about when Surrey County Council will complete the review. But there is now a parallel local initiative to look at the problem.

Residents will recall that the draft SCC Weybridge Parking Review proposals caused a lot of concern locally, so much so that they were sent back for further work. SCC received hundreds of comments, and it seems to be taking a very long time to consider these. We hear that a Surrey County Council meeting to discuss local roads this month was cancelled at short notice. No reason was given, but it coincides with a dire financial position (£120 million shortfall) and budget uncertainty. There are concerns locally that the SCC Weybridge Strategic Parking Review may be cut back or put on hold indefinitely.

Meanwhile the Weybridgetown Business Group and Weybridge Society are collaborating to take a much needed longer term strategic look at Weybridge parking needs and possibilities. You can download a press release announcing the Weybridge Parking Project 2017_18 here.

As part of that voluntary local activity, they are seeking the views of local residents groups.

PPDRA input submitted in January 2016 to the SCC Weybridge Strategic Parking Review is shown below.

Do you think that the comments below are a relevant and fair reflection of Weybridge parking needs in 2017? If you live, work or shop in Weybridge, or are a concerned visitor, please let us know your thoughts.

PPDRA submission to SCC Weybridge Parking Review

January 2016

Portmore Park & District Residents Association (PPDRA) recognises that Weybridge needs adequate parking for residents, shoppers, visitors and workers, if our town is to thrive. We also know that this is a difficult balance to achieve.

The PPDRA committee broadly welcomes the principle of reducing parking restrictions to help increase capacity, where that is possible and desirable, so long as

a good balance of priorities is achieved (especially the balance between parking for residents, shoppers and workers)
safety is kept as a prime consideration.

We welcome the principle of consulting residents of individual roads about the specific needs of their road, especially where residents are being displaced from limited parking spaces in their own road.

PPDRA believes there is a very strong need for more public off-street parking, priced more affordably, and convenient for Weybridge town centre. This is a view which has been widely expressed by local residents in our community meetings and surveys. Cheap or free short stay parking in particular could help the town centre thrive. Affordable long stay off-street parking is also much needed, within reasonable walking distance.

We recognise that allowing on-street parking can have positive outcomes beyond a simple increase in parking capacity, especially in potential rat runs. Traffic speeds in our local residential roads are a major issue. Parked cars can be a positive natural form of traffic calming: for example, Portmore Park Road and Thames Street are unclassified residential roads which without parked cars might become high speed rat runs for through traffic.

Thames Street and Portmore Park Road include schools and a church, which have different parking needs and impacts on the community, meriting additional thought about how best to enable the required mainly short stay parking nearby. PPDRA has met with St George’s Junior School 3 times a year since 2002, liaising on issues including how best to manage school run drop off and pick up parking. We have also discussed parking issues with representatives of Christ The Prince of Peace church and other local groups. We note that Thames Street has recently faced issues of excessive obstruction caused by inconsiderate parking at the upper end between the junction with Grotto Road and Monument Green.

The most serious parking issues locally arise close to Weybridge High Street. The Portmore Park and District area of north Weybridge has a fair density of mainly Victorian homes with no off-street parking. The lack of private off-street parking is a particular issue in roads adjacent to the High Street, where shoppers and town centre workers look to park their cars. The result has been that residents of these roads, returning from a school run or shopping journey, risk finding nowhere to park within walking distance of their home. Hence many living in these roads favour residents’ parking schemes.

PPDRA has long supported the principle that Surrey County Council should consult residents of individual roads about specific residents’ parking schemes for their road.

The PPDRA committee also recognises the need to permit short term shopper and visitor parking in such roads, with a good level of churn, so long as it allows for the needed level of daytime residents’ parking. It is not good to see ‘residents only’ parking zones with few parked cars in daytime, when shoppers can find nowhere to park and when local shops are in need of footfall.

Further from the High Street, many homes in Portmore Park & District have private off-street parking. For roads where there is no issue of residents being displaced from essential on-street parking, as a general principle the majority of the PPDRA committee would favour only minimal restrictions, simply where safety issues demand double yellow lines on dangerous corners. However, we appreciate that there is concern among residents in some roads (particularly Wey Road and Round Oak Road) about potential displacement of parking into their roads if CPZs are introduced elsewhere, and we feel this issue needs careful consideration by Surrey.

We are aware of specific issues in Radnor and Glencoe Roads where there is a very high density of houses and almost no off-street parking, and Church Walk which has very limited parking. Some residents of these and other roads rely on their parking being able to overflow into on-street parking in Portmore Park Road.

PPDRA would be happy to contribute further on any way possible to help support Surrey County Council (and Elmbridge Borough Council) in finding ways to achieve adequate parking for Weybridge residents, shoppers, visitors and workers.

Additional PPDRA comments to Councillors in July 2016, following the release of draft recommendations

POSITIVE POINTS

The review tries to address some important parking issues, and includes consultation with residents of the most immediately affected roads – particularly those close to the High Street, with limited private off-street parking, such as Dorchester Road (where residents rely on being able to park on-street).
It proposes CPZ changes/extension based on the responses of residents of those roads.
It proposes something to help control early evening on-street parking near the town centre (by extending restrictions to 8pm).
It tries to do something to increase daytime short-stay shopper parking (by allowing it in some sections of CPZ roads).
It seeks to address known safety issues around various junctions.

STRATEGIC CONCERNS

The review fails to take a strategic view of Weybridge parking needs, and on-street vs off-street capacity.
It particularly fails to address the issue of public off-street parking shortage in Weybridge.

IMMEDIATE ISSUES

The review ignores roads east of Thames Street (e.g. Grenside Rd, Grotto Road, West Palace Gardens, Old Palace Road), and in particular does not address the issues of Grenside Road parking. (Note that St George’s Junior School staff park 30 or more cars on local roads on school days).
It does not assess the impact of displacement parking from CPZs. Some residents are concerned about displacement parking from new CPZs. PPDRA is aware of considerable disquiet from Round Oak Road & Wey Road, although PPDRA is particularly concerned about displacement into roads where there is limited private off-street parking, where displacement parking leaves residents nowhere to park.
It is not effective enough in increasing short-stay shopper daytime parking capacity (e.g. Oakdale Road daytime spaces count), and such spaces are poorly signed.
It does nothing at all to assist affordable long-stay worker parking.

Local concern at Parking Review recommendations

28/07/2016 by Editor Leave a Comment

The long awaited Weybridge Parking Review recommendations have received mixed reactions locally, and disappointment at what was not covered. Here we give an overview of the parking issues, and draft reactions from PPDRA to the recommendations.

When the Surrey County Council parking team presented its Weybridge Parking Review report of recommendations, and drawings to the Elmbridge local committee at its meeting of 27 June for initial approval, councillors at the meeting reported a lot of concern from local residents

SCC reports that “As a result of concerns expressed by committee members, we are currently considering comments received in response to the publication of these proposals, before deciding on what schemes should be put forward to formal advertisement. We are still aiming to advertise these proposals in September.”

At a public meeting on 14 July organised by Cllr Andrew Davis, PPDRA Chair Miles Macleod was invited to attempt an impartial non-political introduction.

Here are the notes from that introduction:

Weybridge Parking Review – An Introduction from PPDRA

Parking is an increasingly serious problem for our town. Weybridge needs:

Reliable parking for residents
Convenient parking for shoppers & visitors
Affordable parking for workers

The issue is that demand for parking spaces exceeds supply.

Weybridge has a particular problem in roads where Victorian and Edwardian homes have no off-street parking, so residents have to find spaces on-street, in competition with workers and shoppers unless there is a CPZ in their road.

Over the years this has got worse, with:

more cars,
new dwellings without private parking (which Government planning law forces Councils to permit near town centres)
progressively more yellow lines and on-street restrictions which reduce overall capacity

Many residents were pleased when Surrey announced a strategic review, which would try to do something about that.

Those who recalled the last strategic review, some 8 years ago, hoped it would be nothing like that – a plan which caused an outcry because it would have reduced parking capacity dramatically in parts of North Weybridge causing displacement to neighbouring areas.

PPDRA welcomed the new review’s aims. Our view has long been that:

residents in individual roads should be consulted on CPZs, within an overall strategy and consultation with wider community
the Councils — Surrey & Elmbridge — should work together to increase capacity
something major is needed to address the shortage of off-street parking in Weybridge

What was our reaction on seeing the Review recommendations? Well, in some ways very disappointed
– where is the strategic thinking? What about off-street parking? And why were some roads entirely ignored?

But it does have some positive points, in some of the changes proposed.

PPDRA DRAFT reactions to the Weybridge Parking Review 2016 report of recommendations

It has some good points:

Trying to address some important parking issues, and consulting residents of the most immediately affected roads – particularly those close to the High Street, with limited private off-street parking (where residents rely on being able to park on-street)
Proposing CPZ changes/extension based on the responses of residents of those roads
Proposing something to help control early evening on-street parking near the town centre (by extending restrictions to 8pm)
Trying to do something to increase daytime short-stay shopper parking (by allowing it in some sections of CPZ roads)
Addressing known safety issues around various junctions

And bad points:

LONG TERM

Failing to take a strategic view of Weybridge parking needs, and on-street vs off-street capacity
Particularly failing to address the issue of public off-street parking shortage

IMMEDIATE

Ignoring roads east of Thames Street (e.g. Grenside Rd, Grotto Road, West Palace Gardens, Old Palace Road)
Not assessing the impact of displacement parking from CPZs
Not being effective enough in increasing short-stay shopper daytime parking capacity (e.g. Oakdale Road daytime spaces count)
Doing nothing to assist long-stay worker parking

There is a fair overlap between our views and the views from the Weybridge Society, but where we differ is that PPDRA does not think that all changes should be put on hold while the strategic issues are sorted out – there is a parking crisis in some roads near the High Street, which needs urgent action.

Weybridge Parking Review – further local consultation

01/06/2016 by Editor Leave a Comment

Residents of some roads in the area between Weybridge High Street and Portmore Park Road have been asked for further views on parking restrictions in their roads. PPDRA is pleased to see that Surrey is consulting residents in these roads, as this is an area of particular parking stress, with very limited private off street parking and a high demand for spaces from shoppers and (where restrictions allow) workers.

PPDRA’s view has long been that Surrey should listen to the needs of residents of particular roads about restrictions in their road. We also believe that Weybridge needs more off-street parking, although this review does not appear to be addressing that strongly (but we await the report).

We understand that an aim of the Surrey County Council Parking Team in this review is to ensure that residents are able to park near their home, while also trying to allow the possibility of some short term parking for shoppers at times of day when spaces are available — overall seeking to reduce unnecessary restrictions so more on-street parking spaces are freed up.

There is an opportunity to give views online via the SCC website until 3 June via the Weybridge Parking Review page, which lists the specific roads they are interested in. The wording does not make it clear how SCC will process the views submitted by people who live in other roads.

The survey asks where you live, and how you find parking in your road. Then it asks about parking in Cedar Road, Elmgrove Road, Holstein Avenue and Oakdale Road, saying
The feedback we’ve had shows that currently, a lot of the roads with existing residents’ bays are not being fully occupied during the day, so we’re thinking of changing some or all of them from the existing ‘Monday – Saturday, 9am – 6pm, permit holders only’. Please let us know what you think about the following options.

It offers various options. The survey subsequently asks for views on introducing residents’ parking in other nearby roads — Dorchester Road, The Crescent, Gascgoine Road, Mount Pleasant, and St Albans Avenue — that do not currently have residents’ parking schemes, and whether you are a resident of one of those roads. It also has a general question about views on parking in our area.

Overall, it seems thoughtfully put together, and focused on specific local needs.

We understand that a report is due to be presented at the 27 June SCC Elmbridge Local Committee meeting. This is scheduled for 4pm on 27 June 2016, in the Council Chamber at Elmbridge Civic Centre, Esher.

An agenda and copies of reports should be available a week before the meeting, on the SCC website Elmbridge Local Committee page

Broadwater Path one step away

28/05/2016 by Editor 1 Comment

SCHOOL DECISION DELAY

Fourteen years of effort by local residents and councillors have gone into getting agreement and funding for the Broadwater Path, along the edge of Broadwater Lake. As well as being a magnificent facility for the community, the path will help ensure the future of the lake itself. But there is an unexpected last minute obstacle.

Just as Surrey County Council was poised to complete formal dedication of Footpath 40 (Broadwater Path) in April 2016 and to begin work on laying the surface (with CIL funding agreed by Elmbridge BC), local residents were dismayed to learn that St George’s Weybridge had decided to oppose dedication of the path across its newly acquired land, despite a previous Deed of Planning Obligation.

So everything is on hold, except the continuing decline of the lake.

Broadwater Lake is progressively silting up and desperately in need of substantial dredging works and maintenance. Formalising public access to the lakeside will do more than simply give walkers a better path: it will open the way to public funding for maintaining this historically significant lake and exceptional local natural environment.

Strong local opinion

Local community groups have lobbied the school, seeking a change of mind. On 21 April 2016, PPDRA Chair Miles Macleod, presented a comprehensive case for permitting the dedication – you can download a copy of the PPDRA Broadwater Path Submission to School Governors here. You can also download the maps and plans. As you can read in the submission, the path may possibly be formalised with or without the school’s agreement, but school consent would greatly reduce the unexpected delay.

Subsequently the school has informally suggested a possibility of permitting a re-routed path. This would involve a diversion away from the lakeside before the school land, and along the paved lane from the health club.

In sounding this out, we have heard some strongly expressed views that the school should permit the original lakeside route. At our May PPDRA Committee meeting, after extended consideration of matter and of the school’s alternative route proposal, the view of the committee was strongly in favour of continuing to press for dedication of Broadwater Path along its original proposed route. We also agreed to continue seeking further views from the local community.

The path alongside Broadwater has been used informally and unopposed for as long as anyone can remember. Formalisation of the path alongside Broadwater Lake would bring benefits for the school as well as the community.

What are your views? Please do take a look at the facts set out in our submission.

Note: The picture on this page shows the new land purchased by the school in red, the Broadwater Path (proposed Footpath 40) in green, and Footpath 36 (which separates the old and new school land) in yellow.

Flood Update — River Thames Scheme interim answers

22/01/2016 by Editor Leave a Comment

Following questions from PPDRA about the predicted effects of the proposed River Thames flood diversion channels — designed to discharge an additional 150 cubic metres of water per second back into the river at Weybridge — the Environment Agency River Thames Scheme team has helpfully provided some interim answers. See below.

These are reassuring in some respects, but show that the updated flow modelling, drawing on recent new evidence, has some way to go yet. We await further news.

—————————————————————————-
From: River Thames Scheme
Sent: 20 January 2016 17:08
To: ‘Miles Macleod’
Subject: Query regards modelling of tidal interface and thames barrier

Dear Mr Macleod

I apologise for my delayed reply.

Please see below our table of responses to your recent questions regarding modelling and tidal interface and Thames Barrier from our specialist teams.

Please be aware we are still awaiting the river modelling which we anticipate will be available in summer 2016.

Please do get in touch with us again if you have any further questions.

Yours sincerely

Felicitas Wappler
River Thames Scheme
Environment Agency Kings Meadow House, Kings Meadow Road, Reading, Berkshire RG1 8DQ

No.	Question	Answer
1	How would the progressive rise in level in the tidal Thames (upstream of the barrier) from river flow, over a high tide cycle (with/without the barrier closed) be changed by the increased maximum projected possible flow over an increased capacity Teddington Weir, as proposed under the RTS? (i.e. by how much would RTS increase the water level in the tidal Thames throughout the tide cycle, in a worst case scenario)	The hydraulic model that will be used to assess the impact of the RTS (including downstream of Teddington) is currently being finalised. The potential impact of the RTS will be tested with and without the Thames Barrier closed.
2	On what assumptions has that been calculated (worst case projected rainfall, worst case prior groundwater conditions, maximum flows upstream etc); how has it been modelled, and how has it been independently verified?	The hydraulic model of the lower Thames to test the RTS design is currently being finalised. The model extends from Hurley to Southend.Design flood conditions are represented in the model as inflow hydrographs for the Thames and its main tributaries, and a tidal water level boundary at Southend. The magnitudes of flows tested in the model are based on analysis of long-term flow records at gauging stations such as Windsor, Staines and Kingston. Therefore, the inflows to the model represent the effect of extreme rainfall and groundwater conditions, rather than modelling rainfall or groundwater directly. The model has been tested for a range of design flood magnitudes covering the following chances of occurring in any given year: 1 in 2 (50%); 1 in 5 (20%); 1 in 10 (10%); 1 in 20 (5%); 1 in 50 (2%); 1 in 75 (1.3%); 1 in 100 (1%); 1 in 200 (0.5%); and 1 in 1000 (0.1%). The downstream impact of the RTS is being assessed for each of these design events.The modelling work is being independently reviewed by CH2M. Their review covers the appropriateness of the model boundary conditions.
3	What is the current calculated effect of the RTS on levels in the Thames between Shepperton and Teddington, in worst case scenarios?	The hydraulic model that will be used to assess the impact of the RTS (including between Shepperton and Teddington) is currently being finalised.The objective of the downstream compensation measures (at the Desborough Cut and Sunbury, Molesey and Teddington weirs) is to reduce flood risk at all locations in this reach of the river with the RTS in place.
4	Is there a conceivable scenario in which the flows at Hampton / Molesey / Teddington weirs might be constrained to protect London from flooding, and what would the impact of that be on river levels between Shepperton and Teddington?	No, there is not a conceivable scenario where the lower Thames weir complexes would be operated to deliberately limit flows passing downstream to prevent flooding downstream of Teddington. With the RTS in place, the gates at Sunbury, Molesey and Teddington will continue to be operated in the same manner as they are currently. The gates at the weir complexes are progressively opened as river flows increase, so that in major floods all gates would be fully open.
5	Would it be correct to assume that the thinking (and conceivable maximum flows) may have moved on a little since the original work in framing the Lower Thames Flood Relief Strategy?	The magnitude of the design floods used in the modelling work have been reassessed as part of the update to the hydraulic model. This update makes use of the additional recorded flow data available in the last decade. This has resulted in changes to the peak flows to be used in the model, although these changes are relatively small.

———————————————————————————–

FURTHER UPDATE 10 February 2016

From: River Thames Scheme [mailto:rts@environment-agency.gov.uk]
Sent: 10 February 2016 09:16
To: ‘Miles Macleod’
Subject: FW: Query regards modelling of tidal interface and thames barrier

Dear Mr Macleod

Please find below the response from our specialist addressing your questions about peak flows and appropriateness of the model boundary conditions.

The peaks flows used in the modelling work are based on a statistical analysis of long-term records at flow gauging stations. The key station for the Lower Thames is Kingston, for which records are available since 1883 and is the longest continuous flow record available in the UK. The record has been extended up to the present day and this showed that including the Jan/Feb 2014 flood in the statistical analysis does not have a large impact on the peak flows used in the model compared to the estimates used previously in the Lower Thames Strategy. Partly this is because such a long flow record was already available. The second important factor is that the peak flow observed in February 2014 (500m3/s), whilst significant, is smaller than several other previous floods that will have been considered when deriving the Strategy peak flows. These floods include November 1894 (800m3/s), March 1947 (700m3/s), January 1915 (600m3/s), September 1968 (600m3/s), December 1929 (550m3/s) and November 1974 (550m3/s).

The 2014 flood was more exceptional in terms of its overall flood volume than its peak flow. That is, the flows remained very high for a longer duration than previous floods. The 2014 flood volume has been accounted for in the modelling work in the same way as peak flow, utilising statistical analyses of the long term flow records over a range of durations.

The scope of the CH2M review of the modelling work does cover the appropriateness of the flow peaks and flood volumes, and their assigned probabilities.

Please do contact us again if you require any further information.

Many thanks.

Kind regards

Felicitas Wappler
River Thames Scheme
Environment Agency
Kings Meadow House, Kings Meadow Road, Reading, Berkshire RG1 8DQ

Weybridge Parking Review – PPDRA Response

18/01/2016 by Editor Leave a Comment

On 17 January 2016, PPDRA sent the following to the Surrey Highways Parking Strategy & Implementation Team. It draws on extensive local discussion by our committee, input from residents at meetings and via a survey, and discussions with local groups.

PPDRA submission to SCC Weybridge Parking Review

The PPDRA committee broadly welcomes the principle of reducing parking restrictions to help increase capacity, where that is possible and desirable, so long as

a good balance of priorities is achieved (especially the balance between parking for residents, shoppers and workers)
safety is kept as a prime consideration.

PPDRA has long supported the principle that Surrey County Council should consult residents of individual roads about specific residents’ parking schemes for their road.