Agenda item

The Committee heard that Section 106 money was not enough to progress the Beckenham Green Canopy Project. Mr Munnelly suggested that section 106 money be used to supplement the major scheme.

A Member of the Group asked if the Town Centre Team could manage more frequent markets. The Chairman felt that this was possible if LBB installed the required infrastructure. Mr Munnelly expressed the view that a business case existed to use markets as a source of revenue generation. 

The main update on the major scheme was provided by Julian Lewis from East Architects. There had been public consultation activities and events which included a public exhibition at Citygate Church, a meeting with Copers Coe Area Resident’s Association, and a meeting with Beckenham Business Association. Feedback was recorded by writing down details of conversations, by using feedback forms and via email. Mr Nick Goy expressed the view that not enough information had been disseminated concerning the consultation process.

It was noted that strong views emerged from the consultation process, expressing a broad range of likes and dislikes. There was a strong desire for change amongst local residents and businesses.

Likes: 

a)  The prospect of fewer HGV’s using the High Street

b)  The use of Feature Lighting. There was a positive desire for the High Street to be brightly lit, with bespoke lighting used for areas like alleyways. The Working Group felt that all of the lighting in the High Street should be changed. The Group were in favour of lighting being fixed to buildings wherever possible.

c)  The public liked the ideas of an enhanced pedestrian experience and wide pavements.

d)  There was much support for de cluttering the high street, and for enhancing the public realm

e)  Many people welcomed the benefits of safer crossings

Dislikes:

a)  It was felt that the aspiration to provide pedestrian access to the War Memorial was not realistic

b)  Strong feeling was expressed that the existing traditional lighting in Beckenham Green should be maintained

c)  There was concern that not enough provision had been made for cyclists

d)  Concerns had been expressed by members of the public concerning shared space pedestrian areas. It was felt that this was a potential cause of conflict between pedestrians and motorists in the shared space areas

Mr Lewis directed the attention of the Working Group to the table on page 4 of the consultation report which detailed the priorities for the town centre in table form. It was clear that the top priority that emerged from the consultation were the plans to develop  Beckenham Junction and the Green; this was followed by plans to improve the War Memorial Junction, and then plans to improve lighting. It was noted that caution should be exercised when analysing these results as the total sample used was only 27 people.

Some members of the Working Group expressed concern at the possibility of using footways that were level with the road surface as this would make things difficult for blind people.

The Chairman enquired what the current position was concerning TfL, and what was going to happen next. It was noted that LBB were currently in negotiations with TfL to finalise details, and to try and get more money released for the project if possible. It was hoped that a broad agreement would be obtained by September 2015, and that the project would be implemented from Spring 2016. At the moment everything was on target.

The Working Group were advised that a term contractor had been allocated, and this was Conways. It was now the case that an enhanced and final business case had to be put before TfL by LBB and East Architects. A member of the working group enquired what the current stumbling blocks were, and Mr Munnelly responded that at the moment there were none.

The Chairman concluded this agenda item by stating that the project should see design progress in September and that at the same time the next architecture contract phase will be finalised.