Leatherhead AHEAD
Moving our town forward together
P.O. Box 240, Leatherhead, Surrey KT22 8YQ Phone: 01372 378604
email: leatherheadahead@aol.com
Leatherhead AHEAD
Moving our town forward together
P.O. Box 240, Leatherhead, Surrey KT22 8YQ Phone: 01372
378604
email: leatherheadahead@aol.com
Completion of Leatherhead Phase 2 works - Review - amended version 17 March 2004
Our comments are given at Part 2 ...
[click here for Mr Coen's response to these and our further reply: click here to see our Conclusions quickly]
Part 1 MVDC
High Street/Church Street, Leatherhead
Phase 2 of Environmental Enhancement Scheme
We have carried out a post-completion review of the development
work in Leatherhead High Street, recently completed, and are
detailing our findings below.
THE PROPOSAL
At its meeting held at 2.00 pm on Wednesday, 16th
February 2000 at Mole Valley DC Offices (Pippbrook) the Mole
Valley Partnership Area Transportation Sub-Committee approved
item No. 9 on the agenda, the proposed design for the above
mentioned scheme. Those voting were:
Mrs Janet Marsh
Mr Derrick Burt
Mr Hubert Carr
Valerie J. Homewood
Mrs Shirley Lyon
Mrs Jean Pearson
Mr Peter Seabrook, OBE
Mr James E. Smith, OBE
Mr David Timms
Mrs Hazel V.A. Watson
Mr Peter Webb
Mr Hubert Carr voted against the decision.
The meeting felt that there had been sufficient consultation and
stressed that there should be no unnecessary delay.
The design had previously been approved by Mole Valley District
Council’s Planning Committee at its meeting on 19th January
2000.
BACKGROUND
The background to this decision was the paper submitted
by Mr Martyn Williams, District Engineer, on 16th February 2000.
This is summarised below.
CONSULTATION
Item 7 states that the exhibition (of the proposed
design, scale model and plans) was visited by over 1000 people,
during October 1999, and Item 8 states that some 77% of those
visitors who commented were in favour of the proposed design.
THE SCHEME
Item 9 reads:
“The design concept …addresses the need to create a
welcoming and unique focal point at the junction of the High
Street, Church Street and North Street, which will allow easy
access for everyone, and fit in with the broad mixture of
surrounding architectural styles.”
Item 10 reads:
“The terraced slopes will allow much improved accessibility
through this part of the town and increase the amount of seating
for visitors to use.”
Item 11 reads:
“ Safe but attractive water features would be incorporated
in low level retaining walls required for the terracing. A
coloured lighting scheme will be incorporated. The use of high
quality materials is proposed throughout.”
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The estimated cost of the scheme was put at £650,000 to
be funded as follows:
£000
400 Developers contribution
100 MVDC capital contribution
050 SCC contribution from revenue
100 SCC capital contribution
650
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
Item 16 reads “The implementation of the project is an
integral part of the regeneration strategy for Leatherhead. It is
the key in attracting both more visitors to the town centre and
more inward investment opportunities.
2 THE REALITY - comments from Leatherhead AHEAD
on the above
CONSULTATION
The public exhibition was held in a small shop in the
Swan Centre in Leatherhead on four days in the period 21st to
30th October 1999 between the hours of 11 am and 4pm. It is
noteworthy that two of these four days were Saturdays. These
Saturdays were either side of the school half-term week when many
people would have been away. It is understood that the number of
people actually commenting on the proposal was 78 – of which
the 77% quoted would have amounted to 60 persons.
The major components of the proposed development of the Phase II
area, on which the public were consulted and for which these 60
persons voted, were:
terraced slopes (later referred to as “ramps”), a
multiscreen cinema or a health centre, a water feature, more
shops and a new entrance to the town from Leret Way.
In the event, a Travelodge hotel is being built at the location
designated for the cinema or health centre, the water feature was
abandoned as being not technically feasible, and the access from
Leret Way, with the possible additional shops, has not
materialised.
When, two years after this
“consultation” had taken place, the wider public became
aware of the proposed development, considerable opposition was
expressed. This opposition was reflected in numerous letters of
protest published in the local press, citing considerations of
hygiene, requirement for frequent cleaning, etc. and most
importantly a misuse of public money.
A number of writers of these letters formed a group, and
Leatherhead AHEAD was born. A demonstration was then
held at the crossroads at the beginning of March 2002.
As there was no response from the councils, a petition was then
taken up among users of Leatherhead town centre. Following a
demonstration outside the council offices, this petition, with
2700 signatures was presented to the Local Committee for Mole
Valley at their meeting on 10 April 2002. In spite of this, the
majority of the Local Committee members voted to continue with
the project. In the weeks that followed, further signatures
objecting to the proposal were added to the petition, bringing
the total to over 4,500.
With no reaction from the councils, Leatherhead AHEAD
then organised a public meeting in the Leatherhead Theatre on 29
April 2002. This was attended by some 508 persons – more
than the maximum capacity of the theatre – and, following a
presentation of the implications of the proposed development, 500
persons voted against it. This was not a political issue. Rather
was it a matter of common sense.
The Councils then organised their own public meeting on 19 June,
where major opposition to the proposed development was again
expressed.
Despite all of this, the project went ahead.
THE SCHEME
(Item 11) It was stated, at the inception of
the Phase II project in April 2002, that its completion would
require approximately six months. A large part of the Phase II
area was then excavated to a considerable depth and remained so
for some eight months. During much of that time there were almost
daily changes to the footpath layout. No assistance whatever was
provided to help the elderly and disabled, cope with the
ever-changing obstructions, which even the able-bodied had
problems negotiating. These at one stage included a narrow,
unprotected plank bridge across a trench, into the Abbey National
building, and similar ‘bridges’ accessed other
premises. This was an even greater problem for the many
visually-impaired persons from SEEABILITY, living in the area.
An important point to note is that when the old surface was taken
up, down to the original road, it was possible to see that the
original slope at the crossroads was a continuation of the rest
of the high street. In other words, the reason for the ramp
was to correct a slope the steepness of which had been man-made
in the first place. Putting back the original slope might
well have solved the problem and a ramp would not have been
necessary at all.
Then, at a meeting of the Local Committee, on 11th December 2002,
it was announced that the water feature had been found to be not
technically feasible and had been abandoned. It was stated that a
new design would be drawn up and work on a revised project would
commence early in the New Year. Given this fundamental change in
the project, a motion was put from the floor that the revised
proposal should be submitted for further public consultation.
This was voted down and the proposal to proceed with a revised
project was approved, despite the fact that designs and costing
for it had still to be produced, and thus in ignorance of whether
or not the final cost would fall within budget. An extract from
the minutes of that meeting, recording the motion and its
rejection, is attached as Appendix 1. It is questioned whether,
in doing so, those councillors making this decision were, in
fact, not acting outside the limits of their authority.
It must here be said that the conclusion cannot be avoided that
the management of the whole project has been abysmally deficient
in, amongst other things, not recognising months earlier that the
water feature was technically unfeasible and now, at this late
date, that it would be necessary to dig a trench across the
newly-paved area of the High Street for the laying of cables to
the new Travelodge hotel – something which good practice
would surely have foreseen from the outset of that project.
“The use of high quality materials is proposed
throughout”, does not seem to apply to the paving, as
several cracked slabs have already had to be replaced.
(Items 9 and 10) There is no disputing the fact that the
final development constitutes a unique (=only one of a kind:
without equal”) focal point, a declared objective of Phase
II. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine there could be another
such construction, anywhere, which falls so far short of
“allowing easy access for everyone.”
Beyond that it must be said that, rather than being
“welcoming and allowing easy access”, the magnitude and
solidity of the ramps and walls, in fact, give the impression of
a fortification, impeding and discouraging the approach to the
High Street from the west.
As will be seen from the minutes in Appendix 1, the Local
Transportation Manager (LTM) “clarified for the Committee
that, with the removal of the water elements from the design, any
features above ground would be aesthetic rather than structural
and there was no requirement for a wall.”
Later, when the plans were ‘shown’ to specific
residents, the revised design, in spite of this
“clarification”, was shown to include a number of
walls. Residents questioned whether these would not largely
obscure the view of the High Street from points below (west of)
the area. The LTM then gave an assurance that the height of the
walls would be “very little above ground level” so that
“this view would be only slightly reduced.” In the
event, the upper part of the High Street beyond the Phase II area
is now largely obscured by the walls, which are far higher and
more solid than those proposed. Indeed, the massive concrete
foundations for these walls were taken to a depth of one metre or
more .… for aesthetic purposes only?
In a letter sent to the chief executives of both councils in
November 2002 by LeatherheadAhead, the Disability Action Group
and other Leatherhead town stakeholders, the councils were
requested to ‘take the opportunity provided by the cessation
of work in the town centre (when the water feature was abandoned)
to consult with stakeholder groups and agree the best way
forward….’ Again, this was disregarded.
Since the opening of the ramps, their use has been monitored on
eight different days – both before and after addition of the
cladding – at different daylight hours, by pairs of
observers, for a total of 19½ hours. Findings of this monitoring
are attached in Appendix 2 to this letter. It will be seen that
not one person, able or disabled, used the ramps during any of
the monitoring periods. We believe that this was a representative
sampling from which it must be concluded that the ramps are used,
if ever, only on the rare occasion. We call upon the Council to
verify this by appointing an independent agency to carry out its
own monitoring and to publish its results.
It should be mentioned here that, in order to accommodate the
ramps, the gradient of the slope of the footpath along the north
(most used) side of the site appears to have been increased above
the pre-Phase II configuration. This has resulted in an even
steeper ascent from North Street to “More” (ex Martins)
where the Post Office is located, and beyond. However, this is
still the route taken to this area, in obvious preference to the
ramps, by all users, including the many disabled and elderly
people and those with push chairs. In passing, it is noted that a
further by-product of the construction is that, in times of heavy
rainfall, a considerable depth of water accumulates around the
post box at the bottom of the slope.
Apparently, Seeability have written a letter to Surrey County
Council regarding safety issues in the centre of Leatherhead. The
Disability Action group have commissioned a report regarding
safety which was sent to Surrey County Council back in August.
The original scheme stated that the design concept would
“fit in with the broad mixture of architectural
styles”. While this is a matter for personal, subjective
appreciation, it must nonetheless be questioned whether the
glazed-slate effect used can be said to fit in with the
18th-century style of the surrounding red-brick buildings or how
the installation of tubular aluminium bicycle stands and notice
board fits into this historical town.
The declared intention to “increase the amount of seating
for visitors to use” can hardly be said to have been
achieved by the installation of 10 stark, flat-topped, backless,
solid “granite” columns, 50cms in diameter and in
height, in place of the previous wooden benches accommodating
some 14 or so persons. Some, at least, of these benches were
almost always occupied; the granite monoliths seldom if ever are.
Indeed, on the twice-weekly market days, the upper six of these
columns are totally covered by the structure of the
greengrocer’s stall, to nobody’s apparent
inconvenience.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Particularly given the major time-overrun, we call upon
the Council to disclose the auditable final cost of the project,
broken down into detailed cost elements comparable with those in
the original project - something which has consistently been
withheld “until the project is completed”. It must here
be emphasised that the completion of the Phase 2 works does not
equate to completion of the original project, since the £650,000
budgeted cost of this included, amongst other things, the
construction of the water feature, for which we believe a
provision of £60,000 was made, but which was never completed.
The original cost was later amended to be £715,409 (including
£100,000 from MVDC and £114,000 from SCC), and then £750,000.
We have been told repeatedly that the bulk of the monies employed
on the Phase 2 works are Section 106 money
(‘Developers’ contributions), which had to be spent on
these works. However, at an Environment Committee meeting,
Section 106 money was re-allocated for the use of Town Centre
Management. Presumably, therefore the whole of the Phase 2
Section 106 money (at least £500,000), together with the money
from MVDC and SCC, could have been redeployed to address the
problems of access and parking.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
It defies the imagination that the completed Phase II
development could be regarded as “the key in attracting both
more visitors to the town centre and more inward investment
opportunities” as was claimed in justifying the original
proposal. On the contrary, it is considered by a great many, in
unsolicited comments by passers by, to be a major disincentive to
the would-be visitor wishing to approach the centre from Bridge
Street/North Street.
Attention is also drawn to the several accidents which have
occurred in the Phase II area since its completion – some
occasioned by the wedge-shaped steps at the bottom of the ramp,
and the two small unexpected steps on the ‘More’ side
of the ramp (dangerous for anyone in a wheelchair) – others
by the unevenness of newly-laid paving slabs, and one, at least,
requiring hospital treatment. Given this, it is recommended that
a Safety Audit be carried out at an early opportunity, if only to
avoid claims of negligence against the council.
At Christmas, the large Christmas Tree was positioned at the
bottom of the ramp, blocking the sloping exit (intended for
wheelchair users) and obliging everyone to use the steps!
CONCLUSION
The final version of the Phase II development in the
centre of Leatherhead fails to achieve any of its principal
declared objectives. The water feature, a major part of the
project, had to be abandoned as technically unworkable. The
promised multiscreen cinema or health centre was abandoned and a
hotel built in its place, and the ramps, held out as the solution
to improved access to the centre, are unanimously forsaken by the
able and disabled alike and result in pedestrian approach to the
town from the west being more difficult than before the project
was undertaken. They also severely restrict the view of the High
Street.
The whole redeveloped area can be seen only as impeding the
town’s regeneration, and is an example of inappropriate use
of money.
Nothing short of demolishing the whole sorry construction and
restoring the area to a wide, even slope with some simple seating
is likely to achieve the ideals which were promised by the Phase
II proposal.
At the same time, the entrance to the upper
(north east) end of the Swan Centre, from Leret Way, where the
majority of disabled persons reaching Leatherhead by transport
arrive, should undergo a simple, low-cost modification to
facilitate their access to the down ramp into the centre.
In the name of the people of Leatherhead we call upon Surrey
County Council to show good reason why this restoration of our
town as we now propose should not be undertaken at the earliest
opportunity, after submitting this to proper public consultation.
LeatherheadAhead
6 March 2004
Revised 17 March 2004
Review of Phase 2 works - APPENDIX 1
Extract from the minutes of the Mole Valley Local
Committee meeting dated 11 December 2002:
‘The Local Transportation Manager clarified for the
Committee that, with the removal of the water elements from the
design, any features above ground would be aesthetic rather than
structural and there was no requirement for a wall. He also
advised that the design of the scheme without the water element
would need to be reviewed as a whole and specifically in respect
to the 1.2m strips where the walls were originally to be
installed.
Hazel Watson, seconded by Michael Anderson, moved the following
motion:
"The Committee notes:
- that the water feature cannot be built as originally designed
because of recently discovered statutory undertakers' plant
beneath the existing crossroads area
- that January is likely to have freezing conditions which
may hinder construction work
- that February being the wettest month of the year is also
likely to be adverse in terms of weather conditions and limited
daylight; and
- that the Whitelegg report recommended better consultation with
the residents.
The committee agrees that the Phase 2 Leatherhead Town Centre
works should be suspended until March, or such time as a full
public consultation can be held on various options to meet the
objectives set by the Civic Trust Regeneration Board and that
until such time the area should be paved over and that no further
construction work should be undertaken"
Following discussion the motion was lost by 7 votes to 4
Michael Anderson, seconded by David Timms, moved an amendment to
Recommendation 2 in the published report as follows:
"That the revised layout of the ramp and associated works be
delegated to the Local Transport Manager, Local Committee
Chairman and Local members in and following consultation with
local stakeholder groups and the people they represent"
Following discussion the amendment was lost by 7 votes to 4.
The Chairman advised the Committee that Recommendation 2, as
published, was not legal since powers could be delegated to the
Local Transportation Manager, but no to the Local Committee
Chairman or Members. He proposed an amendment as follows:
“That the revised layout of the ramp and associated works be
delegated to the Local Transport Manager, in consultation with
the Local Committee Chairman and Local Members.”
Both the original Recommendation 1, and
Recommendation 2 with the Chairman’s amendment were then
voted upon. Both were carried by 7 votes to 2. Hazel Watson
requested that her opposition be noted.
The Local Transportation Manager advised members that the
contractors would be back on site on 6 January and agreement on
what replaces the water elements of the design would have to be
reached by then. Officers have been working on conceptual
ideas and representatives of interest groups will be invited to
discuss these as soon as possible
The committee agreed that:
i) the ramp and associated works are pursued, with the
exception of the water element;
ii) the revised layout of the ramp and associated works be
delegated to the Local Transport Manager, in consultation with
the Local Committee Chairman and Local Members.’
These minutes were agreed as a true record and signed at the
meeting of the Mole Valley Local Committee meeting held on 12
February 2003
Chairman: David Gollin (Surrey County Council Member)
Those voting were:
Surrey County Council Members
Helyn Clack – Vice-Chaiman (Con)
Bob McKinley (Con)
Jim Smith OBE (Con)
David Timms (LD)
Hazel Watson (LD)
Mole Valley District Council Members
Michael Anderson (LD)
Rosemary Dickson (Con)
Valerie Homewood (LD)
Janet Marsh (I)
Jean Pearson (Con)
Ben Tatham (Con)
GIVE US BACK OUR TOWN !
this page last updated 12 May 2004