Minutes:
Stephen Oliver (LBB Planner) attended to provide the Major Scheme update. There had already been some discussion concerning the development of the Major Scheme outlined in the minutes pertaining to the Town Team update.
Mr Oliver informed the Group that negotiations concerning receipt of final funding were ongoing with TfL. The negotiations centred around the Major Scheme costs and the amount of contingency funding required. He informed the Group that LBB had submitted a 70 page business case to TfL, and that he had been in dialogue with TfL regularly. The Business Case had been revised several times. TfL’s finance team had been going through everything, but had still not confirmed final funding. LBB had originally suggested contingency funding of 25%; this had now been reduced to 15% with an estimated saving of £250k. Mr Oliver stated that he had been in a positive call with TfL on the day of the meeting, and it was hoped that all of the funding issues would be resolved by the end of July.
The Chairman was concerned that if the delay continued, FM Conway may decide to send their resources to an alternative contract. Mr Oliver noted that it would take 16 weeks to get all the materials on site, so the project work would not commence in September as had been previously hoped. FM Conway was aware of the situation.
Cliff Watkins was not present at the meeting but had written in with the observation that on the drawings there did not appear to be any indication of the edge of the present pavements.
He felt that the pavements on the drawings looked wider than they were at present and may interfere with the current traffic flows and thus make Beckenham a less attractive place to visit after £5m had been spent.
Nick Goy stated that he was concerned that in the High Street, the carriageways were getting narrower, and that this was a problem. His concern was that although this provided more room for the pavement, the width of roadways had been reduced. This problem would be exacerbated if there were issues like vehicle breakdowns and accidents. Mr Oliver stated that, in Beckenham High Street the aim was to discourage traffic. Mr Goy pointed out that plenty of room was still required for passing trade and deliveries.
The issue of paving was discussed, and Mr Oliver stated that generally speaking, it was intended that the ‘earthy brown’ paving be used. Gail Low stated that there was an issue with consultation, and that Rectory Road residents needed to be informed of what was planned. Mr Goy commented that at eight road junctions along the High Street it was planned to use grey granite slabs in contrast with the pink bricks proposed in the rest of the High Street. He referred to this as ‘schizophrenic’. He wondered why granite had to be used when it was expensive and had to be imported from China. The officer response was that the three granite locations were the main gateways to the town, and that Chinese granite was a third of the price of Scottish granite.
It was agreed that the Beckenham Society would lead on pavement plaques, and design suitable wording. Chloe Jane Ross asked if the Working Group should approve plaques in the pavements. It was agreed that this was a matter that should come back to the next meeting. Cllr Dunn pointed out that Rectory Road was often blocked, and so asked if there would be less traffic going into the High Street. Mr Oliver responded that this had been subject to traffic modelling, and that the Traffic Team would again be consulted.
RESOLVED:
(1) that the Major Scheme update be noted and that the Group be updated in due course concerning the agreement of funding from TfL
(2) that the matter of Plaques be discussed at the next meeting.