We asked, you said, we did

On this page you can find out more about the outcomes of the council's consultations.

Once a consultation or engagement project has ended, we will review the feedback received and consider how your comments can help shape proposals, plans and policies. We will feed this back to you below.

On this page you can find out more about the outcomes of the council's consultations.

Once a consultation or engagement project has ended, we will review the feedback received and consider how your comments can help shape proposals, plans and policies. We will feed this back to you below.

  • Victoria Recreation Ground playground: updated plans

    8 days ago
    Victoria final design

    We asked

    We shared draft plans for the revamp of Victoria Recreation Ground playground and asked for your views.

    You said

    The feedback on the plans was positive, with feedback including:

    • wanting more social and imaginative play equipment for young children

    • asking for cradle seat swings in the toddler area

    • asking that the proposed trampoline is made bigger

    • not being in favour of the maze in the playground

    We did

    Based on your feedback, we changed the plans for Victoria Recreation Ground playground. The changes are:

    Play equipment for young children
    A number of people asked for more imaginative play...

    We asked

    We shared draft plans for the revamp of Victoria Recreation Ground playground and asked for your views.

    You said

    The feedback on the plans was positive, with feedback including:

    • wanting more social and imaginative play equipment for young children

    • asking for cradle seat swings in the toddler area

    • asking that the proposed trampoline is made bigger

    • not being in favour of the maze in the playground

    We did

    Based on your feedback, we changed the plans for Victoria Recreation Ground playground. The changes are:

    Play equipment for young children
    A number of people asked for more imaginative play equipment for young children. We have changed the plans to include a toddler train, playhouse and cradle seat swings in the toddler area.

    Trampoline
    Based on feedback, we have changed the plans to include a larger 2m x 2m trampoline.

    More natural-looking designA number of people asked for more natural looking surfacing, so this has been toned down to a more natural colour which is more in keeping with the local area.

    What was removed?
    Of those who responded to the survey, a number of people were not supportive of the maze and the timber edging around the sandpit, so these have both been removed from the design.

    Next steps

    The works on site are due to start in mid September and complete in early October, taking around 4 weeks.

    You can find out more about the Community Parks Programme by visiting the Kingston Council website.


  • Gambling Act 2005: policy review feedback

    8 months ago
    Screenshot 2018 11 01 at 09.04.53
    The Gambling Act 2005 requires the council, acting as the Licensing Authority, to prepare and publish a Statement of Policy and Principles at least every three years. We held a 12 week consultation and engaged with residents, local businesses, associated trade bodies, responsible authorities and other stakeholders.

    Thank you to the 108 people who got involved and had their say on the Gambling Act policy.

    We asked

    We asked local people for their views on the existing Gambling Act policy, particularly the existing ‘no casino’ resolution within the document.


    You said

    305 people visited the survey webpage and 108...

    The Gambling Act 2005 requires the council, acting as the Licensing Authority, to prepare and publish a Statement of Policy and Principles at least every three years. We held a 12 week consultation and engaged with residents, local businesses, associated trade bodies, responsible authorities and other stakeholders.

    Thank you to the 108 people who got involved and had their say on the Gambling Act policy.

    We asked

    We asked local people for their views on the existing Gambling Act policy, particularly the existing ‘no casino’ resolution within the document.


    You said

    305 people visited the survey webpage and 108 completed the consultation.

    ‘No casino’ resolution
    80% of respondents said that they did not think casinos should be permitted in the borough.

    Gaming machines
    Respondents largely agreed with the draft policy.

    Local area profile
    As part of the Gambling Act Policy consultation, the council produced a map of existing licensed gambling venues, education facilities, children’s centres and drug and alcohol services. Respondents generally agreed with the content of this profile.

    We did

    ‘No casino’ resolution
    Members of the Licensing Committee agreed to keep this resolution.

    Gaming machines
    Members of the Licensing Committee agreed with the draft policy on gaming machines.

    Local area profile
    Members of the Licensing Committee agreed with the area profile.

    On Tuesday 30 October, the draft Gambling Act policy was approved at Licensing Committee.

  • Kingston Conversations feedback - winter 2018

    over 1 year ago
    Dfasd

    The Kingston Conversations aim to involve residents more directly in our decision making process, with informal discussions on the topics that matter most.

    The January events saw conversations around housing, the London Plan and regeneration, recycling, air quality and our budget. Council tax, highways maintenance and Cock's Crescent were also popular topics.

    We asked

    We asked all attendees to fill in a questionnaire before the event and after. Both surveys asked whether you felt the council listened to residents and whether it acts on your concerns.

    You said

    In both cases, attendees felt differently and more positive about the council...

    The Kingston Conversations aim to involve residents more directly in our decision making process, with informal discussions on the topics that matter most.

    The January events saw conversations around housing, the London Plan and regeneration, recycling, air quality and our budget. Council tax, highways maintenance and Cock's Crescent were also popular topics.

    We asked

    We asked all attendees to fill in a questionnaire before the event and after. Both surveys asked whether you felt the council listened to residents and whether it acts on your concerns.

    You said

    In both cases, attendees felt differently and more positive about the council following the event. The graph below shows the increase.



    You need to be signed in to add your comment.

    comment
    Submitting your comment
    Cancel
  • Fairfield Recreation Ground - updated proposal now available

    over 1 year ago
    Fairfield recreation ground 002


    Results from the consultation and community engagement have now been reviewed and analysed and an outcomes and proposals report has been drafted.

    We asked

    We asked the local community for their views and ideas on our proposals for improving Fairfield Recreation Ground.

    You said

    71 people visited the portal page within the five week consultation period, and 28 visitors left comments and suggestions about the proposals. These included:

    Perimeter footpath proposal – 20 comments in favour of the footpath proposal. It was suggested that the footpath should be wider to improve accessibility and should be surfaced in tarmac to facilitate...


    Results from the consultation and community engagement have now been reviewed and analysed and an outcomes and proposals report has been drafted.

    We asked

    We asked the local community for their views and ideas on our proposals for improving Fairfield Recreation Ground.

    You said

    71 people visited the portal page within the five week consultation period, and 28 visitors left comments and suggestions about the proposals. These included:

    Perimeter footpath proposal – 20 comments in favour of the footpath proposal. It was suggested that the footpath should be wider to improve accessibility and should be surfaced in tarmac to facilitate access.

    New access gates – The proposal to create additional access gates into Fairfield was broadly supported, however a number of respondents disagreed with the proposed location of the gates which were indicated as being in the centre of the boundary fences.

    Several supported new access gates close to the Fairfield South boundary. Two respondents were very concerned about a new access gate being opened within the Fairfield West boundary citing concerns about late night noise and anti-social behaviour.

    Unrelated responses - Three people suggested that a cycle route should be introduced through the existing central path.

    Suggestions were also made that the central path surfacing was in poor condition and should be upgraded.

    There were requests for new/updated gym equipment and user signage, improved planting and social facilities within the park.

    We did

    Footpath - We have taken account of the concerns about the width of the footpath and would consider increasing the width of the footpath on the Fairfield South boundary to 1.5m as the consultation would appear to indicate that this path is likely to receive the greatest use as a through route. The rest of the footpath would remain at a width of 1.2m.

    Gates - The position of the new gates have been reconsidered in view of the comments received from the consultation exercise.

    It is now considered that a preferred option would be to open three new pedestrian accesses into the Fairfield.

    1. At the corner of Fairfield South and Fairfield West.

    2. In the Fairfield Footpath boundary close to the junction with Fairfield South.

    3. In Fairfield Road opposite the public library frontage.

    It is not proposed to create a new access point at the other end of the Fairfield where Fairfield Lane meets Fairfield Road.

    The location plan indicates where the new pedestrian entrances will be positioned.

    Gym equipment - The council acknowledges that the existing gym equipment would benefit from updating/renewal, there is however no funding for this at present. Should the opportunity arise in future, funding will be sought to replace the gym equipment.

    Cycle route - The council previously consulted on a proposal to install a cycle route through the central pathway; this proposal was rejected by the community and the site landowners. This item is considered to be out of scope of the current footpath project.

    Central pathway improvements - The council has recently inspected the central pathway and although it is in a safe and serviceable condition, it is considered that it would benefit from some renewal work. There is currently no budget allocation for this work, but this will be reviewed should anything change in future.

    Social facilities/landscape enhancement - It is considered that there is little opportunity to improve these aspects at present. However there may be an option to include a facility within the existing changing accommodation should a commercial partner be identified.

  • Kingston Conversations feedback - October 2017

    over 1 year ago
    4122 kingston conversation jan 2018 social media web assets kc logo

    The Kingston Conversations aim to involve residents more directly in the decision making process with the council in an informal way on topics that matter most.

    The October events saw conversations around roads, student accommodation, Go Cycle, parking, boat mooring, housing, litter, fly tipping and the Tolworth Area Plan.

    We asked

    We asked all attendees to fill in a questionnaire before the event and after. Both surveys asked whether you felt the council listened to residents and whether it acts on your concerns.

    You said

    Attendees at the Surbiton conversation felt differently and more positive about the council following the...

    The Kingston Conversations aim to involve residents more directly in the decision making process with the council in an informal way on topics that matter most.

    The October events saw conversations around roads, student accommodation, Go Cycle, parking, boat mooring, housing, litter, fly tipping and the Tolworth Area Plan.

    We asked

    We asked all attendees to fill in a questionnaire before the event and after. Both surveys asked whether you felt the council listened to residents and whether it acts on your concerns.

    You said

    Attendees at the Surbiton conversation felt differently and more positive about the council following the event.

    Attendees at the Tolworth conversation felt more positive that the council listens to them following the events, however their opinion stayed the same around whether the council acts on what residents say.

    The graph below shows the difference.

  • Kingston Conversations feedback - July 2017

    almost 2 years ago
    Join the kingston conversation planet
    The Kingston Conversations aim to involve residents more directly in the decision making process with the council in an informal way on topics that matter most.

    The July events saw conversations around housing, dog fouling, garage rents and growth in the borough. Along with council tax, highways maintenance and parking.


    We asked

    We asked all attendees to fill in a questionnaire before the event and after. Both surveys asked whether you felt the council listened to residents and whether it acts on your concerns.

    You said

    In both cases, attendees felt differently and more positive about...

    The Kingston Conversations aim to involve residents more directly in the decision making process with the council in an informal way on topics that matter most.

    The July events saw conversations around housing, dog fouling, garage rents and growth in the borough. Along with council tax, highways maintenance and parking.


    We asked

    We asked all attendees to fill in a questionnaire before the event and after. Both surveys asked whether you felt the council listened to residents and whether it acts on your concerns.

    You said

    In both cases, attendees felt differently and more positive about the council following the event. The graph below shows the increase. It also shows that 70% of attendees in Kingston Town Centre and 85% in Chessington felt the council listened to them. And 46% in Kingston Town Centre and 92% in Chessington felt the council acts on their concerns.



  • Cambridge Road Estate regeneration - phase 1

    by Jess BTT, about 2 years ago
    Site photos april 15 006

    We asked
    The council is developing plans to regenerate the Cambridge Road Estate (CRE).

    As part of the first phase of the project, three possible regeneration options were shortlisted based upon the feasibility work completed in 2016. These three options were chosen from a long list
    of 14 that looked at different parts of the estate. They were:

    Option A - keep and refurbish all four of the tower blocks, and replace the remaining housing.
    Option B - keep and refurbish Madingley and Brinkley and replace all other housing.
    Option C - replace all of the housing on the estate.

    We asked
    The council is developing plans to regenerate the Cambridge Road Estate (CRE).

    As part of the first phase of the project, three possible regeneration options were shortlisted based upon the feasibility work completed in 2016. These three options were chosen from a long list
    of 14 that looked at different parts of the estate. They were:

    Option A - keep and refurbish all four of the tower blocks, and replace the remaining housing.
    Option B - keep and refurbish Madingley and Brinkley and replace all other housing.
    Option C - replace all of the housing on the estate.

    Details of the three shortlisted options can be found online at www.kingston.gov.uk/CREregen

    The consultation process ran for two months, starting at the beginning of September 2016,
    and ending in October 2016, and used a survey to capture residents’ views and
    feedback.

    You said
    A total of 416 responses were received, with 361 valid responses.

    Most residents (54%) were in favour of regeneration. 18% of residents were explicitly against regeneration.

    In the written section of the survey, the majority of respondents expressed a favoured option, but many did not.

    Of those who expressed a viewpoint, option C was the most favoured option.

    Of the residents who did not state a strong viewpoint on the options, comments on their surveys indicated that a third were in favour of regeneration, a third were against and a third didn’t mind or were unclear.


    We did

    The council has made the following commitments to residents:

    1. We will keep or re-provide the same number of homes for council tenants with a secure tenancy.
    2. We will provide opportunities for leaseholders and freeholders living on the estate to move into one of the new homes.
    3. We will offer market value for homes owned by leaseholders and freeholders if their properties are scheduled for redevelopment.
    4. We will offer financial assistance to residents who need to move home in accordance with the council’s decant policies.
    5. We will engage with all residents at all stages of the programme, discussing with them the next
    steps, the options if they need to move home and involving them in the design of new homes and the estates improvements.
    6. We will support vulnerable tenants if they need to move home.

    A Resident Regeneration Team has now been set up to be part of the process as plans develop. This will ensure residents views are heard throughout the project. For more information please read our CRE questions and answers.