We Asked, You Said, We Did

Below are some of the issues we have recently consulted on and their outcomes.

We asked

We asked tenants and leaseholders who receive Housing Matters about their views on the magazine. We wanted to understand how many people read the magazine and find the content useful, as well as people’s views on its frequency and length.

We also asked residents their views on what topics are of interest to them and what methods of communication do they prefer when getting information and news from the Council.

The survey closed on 15 May 2022 and we received 360 responses.

You said

Housing Matters magazine

•         Nine out of every ten read Housing Matters; nearly three-fifths read it thoroughly.

•         85 per cent of people said the length was just right and 63 per cent said the frequency was just right.

•         73 per cent of people said the content of the magazine was useful and relevant to them.

•         A fifth of people said they would prefer to receive Housing Matters digitally with two-thirds of those individuals indicating they would prefer this to be in a e-newsletter format delivered straight to their email inbox.

Sources of information and communication methods

•         Aside from Housing Matters, the top channel (20 per cent) used by residents as another source of information for news and information relating to Council housing was the internet.

•         Letter was the most popular option (64 per cent) that residents chose that they would prefer the Council’s Housing Management Team to use to communicate to them.

•         Just under half (45 per cent) would prefer email.

Topics of interest

•         Two-thirds of respondents agreed the Council is good at keeping them informed about things that may affect them.

•         The most popular topics that residents said they wanted to hear more about included major works and repairs, fire safety, local community events and services, and public health.

We did

We found the results of this survey encouraging and were glad to see that many of those who responded had positive comments about the magazine and its content. There were some recurring themes in the responses, so we will:

•         Ensure each edition of the magazine has an overarching theme with articles included that focus specifically on topics of interest indicated by residents in the survey.

•         Keep distributing the paper magazine to households but make it easier for residents to opt out of receiving it to show we are listening to people’s concerns about cost and the environment.

•         Ensure there is a way for residents to obtain news and information about their homes, estates, and local area, online.

•         Discuss any potential delivery issues with our distribution team to explore why some residents reported not receiving the newsletter.

•         Take action to make the magazine more accessible for residents with specific needs such as partial sight and learning disabilities, and residents who don’t have English as their first language.

•         Moving forward, ensure the magazine has updates relevant to leaseholders as well as tenants as leaseholders reported being less engaged with the magazine.

We asked

We asked for views on proposed changes to the Council's traffic orders to formally amend them to allow for virtual perking permits.  This change was required following the implementation of the Key Decision Report on Virtual Parking Permits and the earlier consultation on virtual parking permits

You said

We had no objections or comments to this proposal

We did

We have implemented the proposed changes

We asked

We asked for views on the proposal to ban goods vehicles having a maximum gross weight in excess of 7.5 tonnes from entering or being in Ovington Gardens or Ovington Square, except for the purpose of loading or unloading.

You said

We had no objections or comments to the proposal.

We did

We have implemented this proposal and made a permanent traffic order to ban goods vehicles having a maximum gross weight in excess of 7.5 tonnes from entering or being in Ovington Gardens or Ovington Square, except for the purpose of loading or unloading.

We asked

We asked for views on 37 proposals in the February 2022 Miscellaneous Parking Changes

You said

We had a total of 35 objections and 29 comments on 12 proposals which included Blenheim Crescent, Bramham Gardens, Cadogan Gardens, Dunworth Mews, Elgin Crescent, Elm Park Gardens, Hesper Mews, Lexham Gardens, Lower Addison Gardens, Princedale Road, Russell Gardens Mews and Stafford Terrace

We did

We amended the proposal for Russell Gardens Mews, where only one metre of single yellow lines was converted to double yellow line, rather than the proposed two metres. We proceeded with all of the other proposals with the exception of the proposals for Dunworth Mews, Elm Park Gardens, Hesper Mews, Princedale Road and Stafford Terrace.  We also made the traffic order for a proposal which introduced a cycle hangar bay in Aubrey Road that was consulted on in the January 2022 Miscellaneous Parking Changes and on which the decision was deferred until the February 2022 Miscellaneous Parking Changes..

We asked

You told us from previous Panel exercises and when you joined the Panel that community safety is a key issue for you. And we know it's important to go beyond the crime statistics and hear about residents' actual experiences of crime and safety in your local area.

We, therefore, asked you about how we can make the borough safer, working in partnership with different agencies and groups across Kensington and Chelsea. By seeking your views, the Council looked to gain a better understanding of what would make local people feel safe, and to gain insights on your experiences of crime and antisocial behaviour as a witness and/or victim.

We asked you about:

  • Overall feelings of safety
  • Crime levels in your local neighbourhood
  • Community safety priorities
  • Personal experience of crime and/or ASB
  • Council run teams – Community Wardens and Parks Police

You said

Overall feelings of safetyThe majority of Panel members (84 per cent) feel safe when out and about in their neighbourhood during the day, this drops to 52 per cent after dark. Females feel less safe than males after dark (42 per cent compared to 65 per cent). Those living in the centre of the borough tend to feel more safe after dark (56 per cent) than those living in the north or south (48 and 51 per cent respectively).  

Crime levels - Around half (48 per cent) of Panel members feel that the crime levels in their neighbourhood are ‘average’ with 27 per cent citing their perception of crime in their area as ‘low’. Sixty per cent feel that crime is about the same over the past 12 months, 27 per cent that there’s more crime and 11 per cent less crime. Forty-two per cent stated that there were places they would worry about visiting in their neighbourhood, when asked to specify further this included council estates, poorly lit areas, and side streets. Concern was more prevalent amongst females (48 per cent) than males (33 per cent). White respondents were also more likely to avoid places in their neighbourhood than BAME (45 per cent compared to 27 per cent). Forty-two per cent of Panel members have also changed their behaviour in the last 12 months to feel safer, including not going out after dark, increasing home security, and hiding valuables. Again, this was more prevalent amongst females compared to males (48 per cent compared to 33 per cent). 

Community safety priorities - Of the current four community safety priorities in the borough, Panel members viewed drug related offences as the biggest problem (62 per cent) followed by antisocial behaviour (50 per cent). Fifty-nine per cent based these views on personal experience followed by 44 per cent on word of mouth. 

Experience of crime/antisocial behaviour - Thirty per cent of Panel members had witnessed crime or antisocial behaviour in their neighbourhood whilst 16 per cent had been a victim and four per cent both. Of those who had been a victim or witness only 35 per cent had reported it to the authorities. The main reason given for not reporting it was that they did not think it would be acted on (68 per cent). Around half (48 per cent) of Panel members agreed that community members trust local services and organisations. Males were more likely to agree with this than females (52 per cent compared to 46 per cent). Less than half of Panel members stated that they would know how to report specific crimes/antisocial behaviour. The top three measures that Panel members thought would have the biggest impact on crime and antisocial behaviour in their neighbourhood were: high visibility by police/wardens (91 per cent); enforcement against antisocial behaviour (88 per cent) and environmental improvements (87 per cent). 

Council run teams - Only 28 per cent of Panel members had heard of the Community Wardens, of those 22 per cent were satisfied with them and ten per cent dissatisfied. More had heard of the Parks Police Team (47 per cent). of which 36 per cent were satisfied and ten per cent dissatisfied.

We did

Results of the Making the Borough Safer survey have been shared with the Community Safety Team and initial views on how the results from the survey will be used include: 

  • Informing the Community Safety Plan due for publication in July 2022 and further assist in tailoring local action plans across community safety.
  • Feedback will be used to target resources, such as Wardens’ visibility, with a view to increasing the number of Community Wardens in the borough and feelings of safety.
  • Demographic difference in results will be used to develop specific awareness raising campaigns to different audiences.
  • Using results to develop targeted communication plans around the work of the Community Wardens, Parks Police Teams and how to report crime and antisocial behaviour.
  • Results will inform the team where within the borough to focus additional safety measures and environmental improvements and also inform the Council’s response to antisocial behaviour across the borough.
  • Results will be used to inform the commissioning work of the Community Safety Team.

We asked

We asked for views on the proposals in the January 2022 Miscellaneous Parking Changes

You said

We had a total of 40 objections and 55 comments about these proposals

We did

We deferred the decision on the proposal for Aubrey Road and proceeded with all of the other proposals with the exemption of the proposals for Chesterton Road and Russell Gardens Mews.  We also made permanent an experimental order to remove all of the parking bays and provide ‘at any time’ waiting restrictions in Bute Street.

We asked

We asked for views on the proposal for making the pedestrianised southern arm of Norland Road a pedestrian and cycle zone.  This proposed to prohibit all traffic from the road, with the exception of cyclists, vehicles used by the emergency services and vehicles required for emergency work carried out by utility companies.

You said

There was one objection and one letter of support – please see the attached report for further information

We did

We introduced a Pedestrian and Cycle Zone in the pedestrianised southern arm of Norland Road

We asked

During the first Covid 19 lockdown in March 2020, staff in the Customer Access Service were redeployed to other areas to support the council’s Covid 19 response. Members of the public were also being advised not to come to the Town Hall for face-to-face transactions. In view of this, we agreed with the Lead Member for Planning, Place and the Environment to introduce virtual (paperless) resident parking permits. This ensured that residents were able to renew their parking permits by providing scanned images of their vehicle documentation, and we could activate their permit without needing to send out a paper permit.

We found many benefits when operating a virtual permit system and we asked you to let us know whether you supported us in making them a permanent fixture. The resident permit consultation has now been completed and the consultation closed. Thanks to everyone who completed the online survey or wrote to us to provide your views.

You said

Headline findings from the resident permit consultation

  • We received 4,784 responses and 87% (4,155) say they support the permanent adoption of virtual (paperless) parking permits.
  • The vast majority (97 per cent) of respondents say they support us in making online resident permit services easier.

We did

Kensington and Chelsea Council is making virtual (paperless) parking permits permanent for residents who park their vehicles on-street, following overwhelming public support for the change during consultation. The key decision proposing this can be found at: https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/howwegovern/keydecisions/decision.aspx?DecisionID=5984.

Based on feedback from the majority of respondents (96 per cent), we will also be exploring how we can make our online resident permit services easier for all residents to access in future.

We asked

The first round of community engagement events has now been completed and the consultation closed. We held two engagement sessions in December 2021, one in-person and one online, to provide details about the proposed scheme and to ask for your views and feedback. Thanks to everyone who attended and who completed the online survey.

You said

Headline findings from the first round of engagement sessions

  • We received 22 competed surveys and 25 residents attended the two engagement sessions – one face to face and the other online.

Thoughts on the overall scheme

  • The vast majority (19 of 22) supported a scheme that re-provides the existing Latymer Community Church and provides improved community facilities.
  • Again 19 of 22 respondents supported the inclusion of drop-in stay and play provision as part of the proposal.
  • The majority (18 of 22) supported plans to provide new social housing, key worker housing and open market homes to rent on the site.

Thoughts on the types of housing

  • The most popular size of property respondents would like to see on the site was two bedroom properties (16), followed by one bedroom properties (15) and three bedroom properties (13).

Thoughts on the building height

  • The majority (18 of 22) felt the proposed building height (ground plus six floors) was about right.
  • However, four respondents felt the building would be too tall.

Thoughts on Landscaping, fencing and community garden

  • The majority (20 of 22) supported the proposed approach to landscaping on the site.
  • Most (18) would like to see existing fencing and railings removed or reconfigured to improve pedestrian access through the area and to green spaces as part of the development.
  • The majority (17) would also like to see improvements to the enhanced community garden area.

We did

The feedback received will inform future plans which will be consulted upon in a second round of consultation in due course.

We asked

We asked those who receive North Ken News (the northern seven wards of the borough) about their views on the newsletter. Having decided to reduce the frequency of the newsletter to once every two months, we wanted to understand how often people read North Ken News, what they liked about it and where we could make improvements.

The survey closed on 12 January 2022 and received 459 responses.

You said

How often do you read the newsletter?

  • Almost three-quarters (73 per cent) indicated they read North Ken News ‘every month’
  • One in 10 (10 per cent) read it ‘every two to three months’
  • Eight per cent said they ‘never’ read it.

Why don’t you read the newsletter?

  • Those who didn’t read the newsletter often or at all told us they weren’t interested in the stories, that they were too busy to read the newsletter or that they just flicked through it occasionally
  • A small number of respondents reported occasional issues with receiving the newsletter.

What content do you enjoy and how could we improve?

  • The content enjoyed most by respondents was local and community news, followed closely by updates on Council services, and local events.
  • Sixty-one per cent of respondents said they would like to see more information about local and community news in future editions.
  • When asked how we could improve the newsletter, 50 people told us they had no substantial suggestions and that they had positive views about content in the newsletter.
  • Twelve respondents commented on the design and layout of the publication, while ten said they’d like to see more community stories and interviews with local people.

We did

We found the results of this survey encouraging and were glad to see that many of those who responded had positive comments about the newsletter. There were some recurring themes in the responses, so we will:

  • Extend our content call-out list to seek-out content covering as much of North Kensington as possible, and to generate stories that cover a broader range of interests
  • Balance out the number of Council updates with content generated by the community, which will focus more on residents, community initiatives/projects, and local history/areas of interest
  • Work with the designers of North Ken News to refresh the look and feel of the newsletter to make sure the content utilises the page space, while remaining easy and enjoyable to read
  • Discuss any potential delivery issues with our distribution team to explore why some residents reported not receiving the newsletter.

We asked

As we begin to emerge from the pandemic and the Council supports recovery in our communities, we asked for your views on the care and wellbeing priorities in the borough. This included:

  • Covid-19 testing and support
  • Obesity and physical activity
  • Care and being a carer
  • Dementia support
  • Mental health wellbeing

By asking about your priorities, the Council is best advised on where to direct future programmes, policies, and investments to improve care and wellbeing across the borough.

You said

A key message from the survey results was that there was a lack of awareness about many of the care and wellbeing priorities (listed above) which were asked about. This included the Covid-19 support services and Kensington and Chelsea being a dementia friendly borough – this status was awarded by the Alzheimer’s Society in February 2020. Also, very few of you had heard of the Council’s Residents’ Pay and Play scheme (this is a free annual membership, giving residents access to a range of discounted activities across Kensington Leisure Centre and Chelsea Sports Centre)  or were aware of the care homes in the borough. There was, however, support for the Council purchasing local priorities to provide homes for adults with learning disabilities and a number of you expressed an interest in becoming a Dementia Friends’ Champion.
 

Since the start of the pandemic, more of you had seen a decrease in your physical activity than had seen an increase. There was demand for walking and running clubs as well as yoga and tai chi classes to encourage more physical activity. Whilst some of you had seen no change in your mental health wellbeing, the majority had seen some sort of increase in feelings of stress or anxiety. Although a significant minority of you know where to get support for your mental health wellbeing, there was a demand for more navigation/signposting of what support is available by 48 per cent of respondents. A number of you described yourselves as carers and you wanted to see the Council facilitate more practical help to support carers.

The majority of you felt that the borough was accessible (particularly in the centre of the borough). There was support for pedestrian crossing with lights, lowered curbs, and disabled parking to improve the accessibility further.

We did

The lack of awareness of many of the care and wellbeing priorities in the borough suggests the need for some targeted communication to drive up awareness and allow more residents to benefit from locally funded services. Other improvements the Council can realise from listening to your views include:

  • Contacting those who expressed an interest in becoming a Dementia Friends’ Champion
  • Organising more physical activities at future public events the Council runs and, in our parks, and green spaces
  • Informing the types of support and signposting provided to carers in the borough
  • Informing planning for improved accessibility around the borough, particularly for those with additional needs
  • More promotion of K&C as a Dementia-Friendly borough
  • Consideration as to whether the Council purchases new buildings for the care of adults with learning disabilities
  • Better promotion of mental health services and self-care to those needing extra support recovering from the psychological impacts of Covid-19.

Later on this year, we will update you with more details on the actions taken and how to get involved.

 

We asked

We asked for your views on proposals to improve Bute Street. The key features of the proposed scheme were:

  • The road would remain closed to through traffic, with access permitted only for deliveries, for the emergency services, for dial-a-ride buses and for vehicles displaying a valid disabled people’s permit. Full access for pedestrians and cyclists would be maintained
  • A continuous, level footway and carriageway, paved in natural stone
  • Additional planting to help improve air quality, including new trees and low-level planting and incorporating sustainable drainage where possible, to intercept rainwater and help reduce potential flooding
  • Provision for at least 18 market stalls for the Saturday farmers’ market
  • Spill-out space for cafes and restaurants to cater for outdoor eating and drinking

You said

We received 90 completed questionnaires. Of these 88% supported the scheme. We also received 33 separate emails commenting on the proposals.

Although there was considerable support for the scheme, there was some concern regarding the reduction in the number of market stalls that could be accommodated for the Saturday Farmers’ Market. Market traders were also concerned about temporary arrangements to allow them to continue trading while the construction work is in progress. We also received a request for a drinking fountain to be provided as part of the scheme.

We did

Although it only operates one day per week, there is a lot of support from the local community for the farmers’ market and a desire to see an increase in the number of market stalls. We have therefore reviewed the proposals to try to provide more space for market stalls and have modified the layout accordingly. The modified layout of the street now provides sufficient space to accommodate 22 stalls, which is an increase from the current 20 stalls. We have also added a drinking water fountain.

We understand the need for a temporary location for the market so that trade can continue during the work and we are exploring suitable options for discussion with the traders.

We will now be embarking on detailed design of the revised scheme and expect to start work in Spring 2023.

We asked

For the views of readers on the Business Matters enewsletter.

You said

  • The majority of respondents reported reading every issue
  • The majority of respondents felt a fortnightly publication was about right
  • The most popular times to read the newsletter was at lunchtime and at the end of the day
  • Fridays and Saturdays were the most popular days to receive the newsletter
  • The most interesting stories to respondents were related to business support from the Council
  • The majority of respondents indicated Business Matters was where they get the majority of their business related information from the Council 

We did

The information gathered has been used to inform development of the newsletter. In particular leading to further testing to compare the results of the survey, to how readers behave in reading the newsletter. 

For example, the preferred time of day for the newsletter, length of stories, type of stories and demographics of our readers to give more insight into the type of content that readers are more interested in.

We asked

We asked for views on the proposal to order ban on all motor vehicles from entering the length of Elystan Street that lies between the south-eastern kerb-line of Whitehead’s Grove and the north-western kerb-line of Elystan Place.

You said

We had no objections or comments about this proposal.

We did

We have made this scheme permanent.

We asked

We asked for views on the proposals made in the October 2021 Miscellaneous Parking Changes.

You said

We had a total of 30 objections and 25 comments about these proposals.

We did

We amended the proposals for Harcourt Terrace (to reduce the size of the bay) and Uxbridge Street (to make only one of the two sets of changes proposed for Uxbridge St permanent) and approved all the other proposals. We also made permanent previous experimental orders in Elystan Street and Lansdowne Crescent and made permanent a proposal previously advertised in June 2021 in Egerton Gardens and made some changes to the articles of the traffic orders.

We asked

During November and October 2021, we asked for your views on updating our current Intermediate Housing Allocations Policy, including the possible provision for the allocations of homes reserved for key workers. This included:

  • Which professions should be regarded as Kensington and Chelsea key workers;
  • How key worker categories should be ranked when prioritising for key worker homes;
  • Whether some intermediate rent homes should be reserved for key workers;
  • What the minimum household income should be to access key worker housing and intermediate housing;
  • Whether a resident’s borough should affect their priority for intermediate housing or key worker housing;
  • The consideration of key workers on casual contracts.

By asking for your views, the Council is best advised to establish the local need of key workers that provide valuable services to the residents of Kensington and Chelsea and who will benefit most from affordable housing in the borough.

You said

Key worker sections and organisations 
You said that workers in the following sectors and organisations received over a 66 per cent ‘Strongly Agree’ or ‘Agree’ rating that they should be considered a Kensington and Chelsea key worker:

  • National Health Service (NHS);
  • London Fire Brigade;
  • Qualified care workers (for example social care);
  • School workers including teachers;
  • Metropolitan Police
  • Childcare workers;
  • Social services.

Ranking key worker categories
The following were the top five key worker categories to be included in the definition of a Kensington and Chelsea key worker:

  • National Health Service (NHS);
  • London Fire Brigade;
  • Metropolitan Police;
  • Qualified care workers (for example social care);
  • Childcare workers.

Reserving some intermediate rent homes for key workers
A total of 77 per cent of respondents said that they strongly agreed or agreed with the proposed approach to reserve some new intermediate rent homes for key workers providing services to Kensington and Chelsea residents.

Minimum household income
A total of 58 per cent of respondents said that they strongly agreed or agreed with the proposed minimum household figure of £20,000 per annum. In addition, a total of 10 per cent of respondents (largest percentage) thought that between £15,000 to £19,999 was the most appropriate minimum annual household income threshold for intermediate and key worker housing.

General intermediate housing
A total of 80 per cent of respondents strongly agreed or agreed with the proposed approach to continue to prioritise Kensington and Chelsea residents over non-Kensington and Chelsea residents for general intermediate housing.

Key worker priority
There was no majority consensus over which group should receive a higher priority for key worker housing. A total of 40 per cent of respondents thought key workers who live in Kensington and Chelsea should receive a higher priority, whereas just below a quarter (22 per cent) of respondents thought that key workers living outside of Kensington and Chelsea should receive a higher priority. Nearly a third (32 per cent) of respondents thought that neither group should be prioritised over the other.

Key workers on casual contracts
Nearly half (a total of 48 per cent) of respondents strongly agreed or agreed with the proposal to consider key worker applications who are on casual contracts for key worker intermediate housing provided they are in regular work.

We did

The new Key Worker Housing and Intermediate Housing Policy (the ‘Policy’) has been shaped by the results and comments from the public consultation survey, the results and comments from the employer survey, and desktop research conducted by Council housing policy officers. The Policy is due to be presented at the Leadership Team Meeting on 16 March 2022. It is anticipated that the following will be approved and implemented as Council Policy on 17 March 2022.

Key worker sections and organisations
A definition of a Kensington and Chelsea key worker will be fully defined. The following key worker categories achieving over 66 per cent of ‘Strongly Agree’ and ‘Agree’ support in the public consultation survey:

  • National Health Service (NHS);
  • London Fire Brigade;
  • Qualified care workers (for example social care);
  • School workers including teachers;
  • Metropolitan Police
  • Childcare workers;
  • Social services.

Ranking key worker categories
No key worker category will be prioritised over the over when it comes to the future allocation of key worker housing. The Council regards all the key worker categories as being equally valuable in contributing to the public services in the borough.

Reserving some intermediate rent homes for key workers
The Council is committed to reserving some intermediate rent homes for key workers, in line with the Council Plan and the Council’s Housing Strategy.

Minimum household income
The minimum household income has been revised to £20,000 per annum whilst acknowledging that there is discretion on the figure subject to the household undergoing an affordability assessment. This has taken into account the ten per cent of respondents’ view that the minimum household income should be within £15,000 to £19,999 per annum.

General intermediate housing
The Council will continue to prioritise Kensington and Chelsea residents over non-Kensington and Chelsea residents for general intermediate housing.

Key worker priority
The Council will adopt a residence-blind priority when considering applications for the allocation of future key worker homes.

Key workers on casual contracts
The council will consider applications from those on casual (or ‘zero-hour’) contracts provided that the applicant can demonstrate that they have been in regular work for the previous 12 months.

We asked

We asked for views on the experimental introduction of preventing motor vehicles entering or proceeding in Bute Street (cycles are exempt from this restriction) and replacing the parking places with ‘at any time’ waiting restrictions.

You said

There were six objections, 47 letters of support and 14 comments.

We did

We have made this experimental order permanent so it will continue indefinitely.

We asked

Our second round of consultation on New Homes at Cheyne presented updated proposals which sought to respond to resident feedback provided during the first round of consultation, notably reducing the height and number of floors in the proposed building.

This round also gave residents the chance to express their preferences about some of the design proposals being considered for the site, such as architectural features that could be used on the building and in its surrounding landscape.

You said

What you told us:

  • Strong support for the Nursery and Children’s centre on the site

We welcome and appreciate the local support for the proposed Nursery and Children’s Centre.

  • Concerns about new homes and social housing

We have listened to the concerns raised about providing new homes on the site and considered this alongside feedback from planning officers and other stakeholders.

The intention is to include nine new homes as part of the development which has been reduced from up to 22 homes presented at Round 1. Planning policies encourage the re-use of council sites to provide much needed new homes in the borough. The site is in an accessible location and close to local shops and services, so we think it’s a good site for building new homes.

  • Concerns about the building’s height

The height of the development was reduced in consultation Rounds 1 and 2 from up to seven storeys in the original proposal to four storeys in the latest one: a ground floor level and three storeys above ground. This means that nine new homes are now proposed, rather than up to 22 as was previously proposed.

The four-storey proposal was discussed with the Council’s planning department and the design officer considered it to be an appropriate height in the context of the surrounding area.

  • Concerns about building density in the area

The borough is typically characterised by low to medium rise developments (the definition of which includes developments up to 6 storeys in height) and often in the form of mansion blocks. The proposed development of nine new homes on a site measuring 0.14 hectares, represents a density of 64 homes per hectare. This is much lower than the Chelsea Waterfront development and we think the scale of development is appropriate for this site.

  • Concerns about daylight and sunlight

A detailed technical assessment has been carried out to inform the design of the proposal and a report will be submitted with the planning application.

The technical assessment concludes that nearly all the windows of neighbouring properties tested will comply with the relevant industry guidelines, provided by the Building Research Establishment (BRE). These guidelines are used to assess new developments like this and designed to ensure developments do not have unacceptable impacts.

The assessment concludes that the neighbouring park and the gardens on Thorndike Close will comply with BRE industry guidelines.

  • Concerns about traffic caused by the new development

The new homes will be car free with no parking spaces, in line with the Council’s policy requirements. The local area is highly accessible by bus, and cycle spaces will be provided for the new residents and those who work in and visit the Nursery and Children’s Centre.

Over two thirds of the additional trips will be made on foot or by public transport with the remainder by car or cycle.

Design choices

  • We have incorporated your preference of paving choices into the design
  • Feedback from Round 2 told us that residents and other stakeholders preferred greenery to be incorporated into the façade design. This feature has been enhanced by including evergreens to make sure there will be some greenery all year round. This feature has been praised by the Quality Review Panel in our pre-application discussions.
  • Feedback from Round 2 indicated a preference for a calm internal colour scheme, and the intention is to incorporate this at the detailed design stage. There will be design workshops arranged in the future to discuss the interior design of the Nursery and Children’s Centre.
  • Responses to the red tone brick presented at round 2 have been muted.  In response to this feedback, the design team is continuing to consider options for the tone of brick.

We did

Feedback in response to residents and stakeholders' views, and actions taken, can be read in the 'You Said' section above.

We asked

We asked for your views on two of the playgrounds within Emslie Horniman Pleasance, with the aim of making refurbishments to them using feedback from the community. The consultation was split into 2 phases – initial ideas and feedback, followed by a survey.

You said

Phase 1 (Initial Ideas and Feedback)

Phase 2 (Survey) - 106 responses

Junior Playground (Multi Themed):

  • Satisfaction: A total of 52% were satisfied with the current playground (12% very satisfied, 40% satisfied). Whilst a total of 24% of respondents were dissatisfied (17% dissatisfied, 7% very dissatisfied).
  • Type of Material: A total of 83% of respondents said that they would like the equipment to be made out of wood/timber/natural materials.
  • Seating: A total of 65% of respondents said that there should be more seating and benches within the playground.
  • Top 5 Requested Types of Equipment: Learn and Play, Jumper/Trampoline, Multi-unit/Climbing Frames, Swings and Balancing Equipment.
  • Canopies: 77% of respondents said they felt the canopy (covered area) features should remain within the large playground.
  • Themes: The majority of respondents wanted to have multiple themes throughout the playground.
  • Gates and Fencing: A total of 76% of respondents would like to see improvements made to the entrance gates and perimeter fencing.
  • Mural: The majority (83%) of respondents would like to see a mural within the playground to celebrate local artistry.
  • Other Comments: Make the canopies larger, improve the entrance gate by installing a child lock/self-closing mechanism, and adding more bins.

 

Pathfinder Playground:

  • 76% of respondents said that they would like to see the space remain as a playground area.
  • Types of equipment: A total of 63% of respondents selected Jumper/Trampoline and Multi-unit/Climbing frames as their most preferred. The least popular option was Dynamic/Spinning equipment at 25%.
  • Type of Material: 65% of respondents supported the idea of keeping the equipment in the pathfinder playground with the same natural, timber look.
  • Surfacing: 69% of respondents wanted to see suitable safety surfacing introduced.
  • Other Comments: More seating, make the space more visible, add more bins, and make the space more appealing for older children.

We did

The results will be used to help with the scope of the works, and the council will be working with the community to finalise the designs of the play areas.

We asked

For your views on extending the network of e-Scooter hire scheme parking bays in the borough by introducing an additional 15 bays across the borough

You said

We received a range of comments on 12 of the 15 locations, no location received more than four comments.

We did

In addition to the on-line consultation we undertook a statutory Traffic Management Order consultation on eight of the bays. After considering the comments received from both sources we decided to proceed with installation of all of the bays.