The Place Committee met to discuss a range of issues, including parking charges, a proposed footbridge, opposition to a third runway at Heathrow Airport, habitat banks, retrofitting council buildings, and the redevelopment of the Household Reuse and Recycling Centre and Waste Transfer Station. The committee approved progressing with the investigation and setting up of habitat banks on council-owned land, and also approved the implementation of energy conservation measures at council buildings. The committee also agreed to progress with the redevelopment of the Household Reuse and Recycling Centre and Waste Transfer Station to the end of RIBA¹ 4.

Parking Charge Increases

Charlotte Salaman, a tenant of the Wicham Public House, raised concerns about the recent increase in pay and display parking charges in North Kingston, specifically in CPZ² 26526, where the hourly rate had risen from £1.10 to £3.40. She argued that this increase was discriminatory, implemented without consultation, and negatively impacted local businesses, particularly hospitality venues like hers. She also noted the inconsistency of charges across the borough.

Councillor Nicola Nardelli, Portfolio Holder for Sustainable Transport, Waste and Recycling and Co-Chair - Place Committee, responded that the parking fees contribute to the maintenance of roads, footpaths, bridges, and safety initiatives throughout the borough. She also mentioned the financial burden of the Freedom Pass³ scheme. She stated that the council had been mindful of the impact on residents and had only increased the costs of residents' permits, vouchers and car parks in line with inflation.

Ms Salaman asked a supplementary question, questioning why the parking spaces outside her pub were so expensive compared to other areas like the Guildhall car park or Maple Road. Councillor Nardelli responded that the CPZ covered a large area and changing the banding structure would require a significant amount of work and consultation.

Proposed Footbridge over the River Thames

Sanjeev Baisy presented a petition advocating for a footbridge across the River Thames from Surbiton to Bushy Park. He argued that it would improve connectivity, boost the local economy, increase property values, reduce car usage, and promote public health and wellbeing. He suggested a feasibility study to assess the costs and benefits.

Councillor Nardelli acknowledged the idea was lovely, but recalled a ferry service that used to operate there that was not very busy. She suggested looking into reinstating a ferry service instead. Councillor Roger Hayes stated that feasibility studies had been done before and the project was impractical due to the span of the river, land ownership issues, and cost. He estimated the cost to be between £10 and £20 million.

Councillor Andrew Bolton asked how the council could possibly find £15 million for the project. Councillor Ian George recalled previous inquiries to TfL⁴, the mayor, and government offices for funding. Councillor Kamala Kugan suggested trying the lottery fund. Councillor Mark Durrant suggested a conversation with Hammertons Ferry to see if they would like to start a service in Surbiton.

Mr Baisy thanked the committee for their consideration. The committee agreed to note the petition.

Motion on Third Runway at Heathrow

Councillor Kamala Kugan introduced a motion, seconded by Councillor Yvonne Tracey, expressing the council's strong objections to a third runway at Heathrow Airport. She cited concerns about increased noise and air pollution, the impact on mental health, and the potential for increased A&E attendance due to respiratory issues. She requested that the council ensure there is an infrastructure matrix that captures and evaluates conflicting interests, such as ESG⁵ goals, CSR⁶, sustainability, and social value.

Councillor Andreas Kirsch, Leader of the Council & Portfolio Holder for Heritage and Culture and Co-Chair - Corporate and Resources Committee, stated that the administration was opposed to the third runway and had rejoined the No Third Runway Coalition. He said that the motion was redundant as the council was already acting on the issues raised.

Councillor Kugan suggested designing a clearly structured matrix that properly brings together all the interests so it's visible for people. The committee agreed to note the motion, as the council was already doing everything in the motion.

Habitat Banks

Deborah Dibb, Director for Climate, Environment and Registrations, introduced the concept of habitat banks, explaining that developers are now required to deliver a 10% improvement in biodiversity, known as biodiversity net gain, through development in the borough. If developers cannot meet this requirement on site, they can buy biodiversity credits from registered sites. She said that the council was exploring options to enable biodiversity credits from local developments to be used at sites within the borough to improve local habitats. She sought approval to further explore the sites, mechanisms, and partners to establish habitat banks.

Councillor Hayes supported the proposal, but emphasised that habitat banks should be a fallback position and that biodiversity net gain should be met on site wherever possible. He also suggested the Seething Wells filter beds as a suitable site. Councillor Bolton asked if any other local authorities were already doing this. Councillor Manthel suggested opportunities along the riverfront to convert concrete riverbanks to more natural banks. Councillor Nardelli asked how the audit would vary seasonally and how to protect land from developer sabotage. Councillor George asked if planning officers could turn down applications that did not meet biodiversity requirements.

Ms Dibb responded that the council would be robust in ensuring developers meet the requirements on site first. She said that the biodiversity credits were split into wetland habitats, hedgerows, woodlands, and grassland. She said that the audits would depend on the nature of the site and the biodiversity that's there. She said that the council would have to partner with a registered body with Natural England to monitor the sites. She said that the council had been working with London Borough of Sutton and that there were a couple of other local authorities that were progressing this.

Councillor George said that he was still unsure as to the planning law on this. He asked how this fitted in with the planning duty to maximise the use of land. He also asked where the council would replace grass that was built on. Matthew Essex, Executive Director Place, responded that developers should look to provide their biodiversity net gain requirements on their existing sites. He said that it was not about acreage necessarily, but about quality. He said that the funds secured through this would really be enhancing those habitats so they can support a greater range or breadth of biodiversity than they can in their current state.

Councillor Manders added that Tolworth Court Farm has very large areas of a monoculture of grass which doesn't actually support very much in the way of biodiversity. The committee agreed to progress with the investigation and setting up of habitat banks on council-owned land.

Retrofit of Council Buildings

Deborah Dibb presented a report seeking approval for the implementation of energy conservation measures at council buildings, via the council's appointed partner, Cenergist, through the 'Retrofit Accelerator - Workplaces' programme. She said that the council has a target of reaching net zero carbon for its own operations by 2030, primarily through reducing energy use in its own buildings. She said that the allocated budget includes council capital, external funding from the public sector decarbonisation scheme, the GLA Renewables Fund, and carbon offset funding. She requested delegated authority to manage the program going forward in consultation with the director of place and the portfolio holder.

Councillor Manders added that the program includes energy efficiency measures, replacing lighting with LEDs, solar panels, and moving out of gas heating. He said that heat pumps would be installed where district heating is not available.

Councillor Kirsch asked about the categories for choosing which buildings would have draft proofing sooner rather than later. Ms Dibb responded that the recommendations were based on a number of factors, including grouping different types of works, any kind of existing or planned works to buildings, and external funding criteria. She offered to take the specific question away around draft proofing and see if those measures can be moved forward. Councillor Hayes assumed that the large number of solar panels being installed next year was due to a big contract. Councillor Manders confirmed that this was the case. The committee agreed to implement the energy conservation measures at council buildings.

Waste Transfer Station and Recycling Centre

Councillor Nardelli introduced a report on the progress at the Villiers Road household reuse and recycling centre and waste transfer station. She said that the current design and building on the site date back to the 1980s and that there is a need for investment to keep it operational into the future. She said that the updated design removes the need for the use of steps, provides for pedestrian and cycle access, and meets the requirement for safe vehicle movements, storage of waste and recycling material, and the improved fire and pollution controls in line with the Environment Agency's requirements.

Ms Dibb added a late technical clarification, replacing the reference to a two-stage open procurement procedure with competitive flexible procedures. The committee agreed to progress the Household Reuse and Recycling Centre and Waste Transfer Station to the end of RIBA 4.

Leisure Contract

Councillor Kirsch introduced a report to recommend a preferred bidder to award a new leisure contract to operate the borough's leisure sites from October. He said that the new contract replaces the old leisure contract, which dates back to 2006. He said that the contract will cover the three existing leisure sites, the Albany Outdoors, and the Chesington Sports Centre. He said that the contract includes the provision for the new Kingston Leisure Centre, which will be brought into the contract when it opens in spring 2027. He said that the new contract includes an enhanced concessionary pricing offer, the London Living Wage for all staff and operators, a wider range of activities, ongoing investment from the preferred bidder into the maintenance of the facilities, a strong reduction commitment to reduce the carbon footprint, and social value in delivering the contract.

Councillor Kugan said that she found it strange that the paper apparently provides assurance that compliant processes have been followed, because given the commitment over 10, 15 years, presumably the £120 million quoted here is for the full 15 years, or is it for 10 years. She asked if there would be a reduction in the service charge if the other leisure centre does not come on stream. She also asked about integration of the IT systems and due diligence in terms of financial risk of the service provider.

An officer responded that the preferred bidder scored highly in all of those areas. He said that the bidders have also been assessed on their mobilisation plans robustly, which will include things like IT systems, communication, and transfer of staff. He said that over the lifetime of the contract, there will be a robust performance framework, which they'll be assessed against in terms of delivery.

Councillor George asked about the cost of swimming lessons for children in schools and if there was any requirement of them to ensure that time is made available for that. Matthew Essex said that the procurement was run to a specification of services, which absolutely did include for the provision of sufficient time to meet the school demand for swimming provision.

The committee voted to award the contract, with Councillor Kugan voting against.