Current issues / developments and events that you might want to get involved with

Response from Hampton Society member Alison Cheers

9 January, 2012

This is an interesting choice of two quite different religious schools for Hampton parents' to make. Coincidentally I have already put a few thoughts on Hampton website this morning.

When prospective parents think about sending a child to one of the new Free Schools, it may be worth considering the FAQs on the Government Web site link below and carefully considering how each of the schools would answer these questions.

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/typesofschools/frees...

One of the most often asked is about the schools curriculum and presumably there would be a contrasting response from the two schools for this area of religious education and collective worship.

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/typesofschools/frees...

For further detail if required on the Marahashi Religion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_Meditation

Oldfield House School is the third Marahashi school in the UK, with the two others situated close by to local Transcendental Movement communities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_Meditation_movement) , the first in Skelmersdale and the second which is due to open in Woodbridge Suffolk.

Although both of these schools are situated close by to a local community of TM practitioners or Marahashi Community, it is not known if a local Marahashi community is practicing in the Hampton area?

Send your comments on this issue

Response from Hampton Society member (anon.)

10 January, 2012

I have received this information from the Maharishi Free School and thought it would be of interest to other members.

"Maharishi Free School is all-inclusive, non-selective, non-faith and will be providing RE of a mainly Christian nature. There is no belief or faith involved in TM or the Maharishi School except as a curriculum subject. The School has pupils who are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Christian as well as non-faith/humanist and includes the study of 'World Religions' which introduces children to world's major religions as well as to humanism. Only 1% of the School's new intake is comprised of children whose parents have previously practiced TM. Research published in peer-reviewed journals such as the 'International Journal of Neuroscience' and 'Education' substantiate that TM improves brain wave coherence, academic performance and that students become more self-actualised. www.maharishischool.com

"By choosing Maharishi Free School for Hampton, parents will have nearly double the number of primary places available as well as having a local secondary school for their children."

Send your comments on this issue

Question from HS (non-member)

10 January, 2012

I attended the meeting on Saturday at the centre and they explained that they intended to place the school building at the tree line at the back of the site which would make it highly visible fom the road. It would make it the first thing that you saw as you left the M3 and passed Hampton.

I suppose my major concern is the size of the building. Although it is discreetly placed in Hampton itself it is very visible from the main road. It will be a real statement about Hampton.

Send your comments on this issue

Comment from Hampton Society member AF

10 January, 2012

For my part it suggests that Maharishi School trust are seeking to exploit the locality in a way more appropriate to a commercial venture than an educational one. (Aren't they, in addition to exploiting the site location by the main road, also proposing to use the word "Richmond" in their name?) This would lead me to question their principles and motives.

Send your comments on this issue

Comment from Richard B Scott on behalf of The Maharishi School

10 January, 2012

Dear Hampton Society Editor

The building will not be at the far end of the site, facing Upper Sunbury Road. I too would be concerned if the School were placed next to the road – it would be very inappropriate relative to the surroundings.

What we are proposing is that the building would be on the north side of a line of mature trees that dissect the site, (these are evident from the attached photo) and would be situated right next to the fence, near the existing primary school building. This makes the most sense, both aesthetically and practically, and should mean that the building is barely visible from the road.

Best regards, Richard

Send your comments on this issue

Alternative name suggested by the Conservative Party

September, 2011

The Conservative Party have been looking into a potential name for the new constituency and are putting forward – Hampton Court Parliamentary Constituency. This is the only name that they could see was inclusive and had any chance of being agreed to by the inspector because the main criteria is to show a historical background to a name that fits all the area – this is critical and consequently many proposed names have been disregarded - please see below Justification for Hampton Court Parliamentary Constituency, Honour of Hampton Court.

Why this name?

– Hampton Court is a large enough name to carry such an important post as no one ward is.
– Hampton Court will give us a focus.
– It is unique to us.
– It is inspiring and both nationally and internationally known.
– It can be justified to Hanworth and Hounslow Heath who have far reaching royal connections and might not want their name taken out of the proposed Teddington and Hanworth.

+ Please see 'Other Royal connections' below – Henry VIII and royals for Hanworth and Hounslow Heath.
+ The Longford River which runs through Hanworth, Hounslow Heath, Hampton North and Hampton Hill to Bushy Park and onto the Thames on the reach above Teddington Lock. This river fed water to Hampton Court for its Royal Parks. Bushy Park being the hunting grounds for the royals and borders Teddington, Hampton Hill, Hampton Wick and Hampton.

To have a chance of getting this through the inspector they need various local societies to support the name change in a letter. This can be a simple letter saying that we have X members and they have been consulted, and the society and its members are happy to support the name change.

The Hampton Society are very happy to write a letter in support of this if the majority of our members are in favour. We only have a very short period of time to deal with this so a swift reply would be very much appreciated.

Send your comments on this issue

Further reading:

Justification for Hampton Court Parliamentary Constituency
- Honour of Hampton Court

In June 1525 Cardinal Wolsey surrendered his majestic palace to Henry the Eighth, "the most magnificent gift ever made by a subject to his sovereign". Henry set about embellishing it and improving the parks which he stocked with game. The parks, however, offered little convenience for his favourite sport of stag-hunting which, now that he was growing old and stout, he wished to enjoy close at hand. He secured Acts enabling him to acquire the manors adjoining Hampton Court with a view to enlarging the parks still further. These included the two manors of Molesey, which he exchanged with their previous owners for ex-monastic properties elsewhere. In addition he secured or already held the manors of Hampton, Hanworth, Kempton, Feltham, and Teddington in Middlesex, and Sandown, Imber, Weston, Esher, the Waltons, Oatlands, and Byfleet in Surrey. These he combined into an "Honour", i.e. a group of manors, subject to the capital manor of Hampton Court. A further Act in 1539 confirming this enabled him to convert the "lordships, manors, towns and villages" lying south of the Thames to be erected into a forest or chase, to be known as the Hampton Court Chase, for the "nourishing, generation, and feeding of beasts of venery, and fowls of warren", to be reserved specifically for the king's sport and pleasure. A wooden fence reinforced with a ditch was constructed around the chase, within which the ancient and severe forest laws prevailed.

Although the rights of the tenants were technically safeguarded by the Act, the new conditions caused great distress. Crops were so seriously damaged by deer that land was left uncultivated, people left the district and cottages were allowed to fall into ruin. The king in his old age was a dangerous man against whom to raise complaints, but by 1545 "certayne men of Molsay and other townes in the chase besides Hampton Court" were driven by desperation to complain of their sufferings to the Privy Council. No redress, however, was offered while Henry lived. Directly he died in 1547 the distraught men of Molesey and the adjoining manors complained again. This time a Commission of Enquiry was set up by the Privy Council. It recommended the disparking of the chase and the removal of the deer to Windsor. The recommendation seems to have been made less to relieve local distress than to improve the situation caused by the loss of rents and avoid the cost of renewing the park fence which was fast falling down.

The Act setting up the Chase has never been rescinded so that the area remains to this day technically a royal forest. A Bill, however, has recently been introduced into Parliament with a view to effecting its repeal (Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Bill, 1971).

Other Royal connections – Henry VIII and royals for Hanworth and Hounslow Heath

From earliest times, the Lords of the Manor of Hanworth (and latterly the Dukes of St. Albans), have come to St. George's Church as have many Kings and Queens:

– Henry VII
– Henry VIII
– Queen Anne Boleyn
– Queen Catherine Parr
– Queen Mary Tudor (as a Princess)
– Queen Elizabeth I (as a Princess and as a Queen)
– James I 
Charles I and his Queen Henrietta Maria

This is because they stayed at the Manor House, which had become a Royal Hunting Lodge for the forest of Middlesex and especially for Hounslow Heath. The Manor House became so large, that it was often referred to as a Palace. It reverted back to a Manor House during the time of Charles II. Sadly, it burnt down in 1797 and the Georgian front, Jacobean back, the towers and the Elizabethan black and white gallery (with its painted ceiling), were all lost.

In it's place rose Hanworth Park House. Built by Henry, VI Duke ofSt. Albans, on church land in the park. He is buried before the altar atSt. George's Church, and the parchment he inscribed giving £6 per annum in rent is extant. The present Duke is still Baron Vere of Hanworth. The title of Viscount Hanworth was created in Victorian times for the Pollock family. The first Viscount of Hanworth was Master of the Rolls and lived in Hanworth Park House. He was also Lord of the Manor of Hanworth.

There are 2 terra-cotta heads of the Caesars in the yellow brick pediments on either side of the drive to Tudor House, which belonged to Cardinal Wolsey (by Miano in 1510). These are from the Holbein Gate in Whitehall, London. Also, there are two brick ovens by the same hand as those at Hampton Court, used for cooking a whole deer on a spit.

The Princess Mary and Princess Elizabeth planted a walk of parallel yew trees when they lived in the Palace. This is now behind Parr Court, Hanworth Park, though some of the trees have now been cut down to provide private car parking for residents.

The Princess Elizabeth mounted her pony to ride in Hanworth Park, on a set of marble steps, still extant in Tudor Court. She had her portrait painted in the Palace at Hanworth and this now hangs inWindsor Castle. She was about 15 years old and wore a red dress and shown holding a prayer book.

Three Hundred years ago, the historian Camden said that Hanworth was the favourite place of Henry VIII and of his daughter Elizabeth. They paid many visits. King James I knighted the Lord of the Manor in St. George's Churchand in gratitude, he placed the Royal Arms in stained glass in the Church (which has been recovered and restored). This stained glass is displayed in St. George's Church, Lady Chapel. When Queen Henrietta Maria was staying at the Palace, King Charles I was godfather to the infant son of Lord Cottington, then Lord of the Manor of Hanworth. A silver-gilt Chalice and Paten for the Altar was given to St. George's and suitably inscribed. This gift is kept in the bank vault.

 

Conversation between member John Soones and Ray Brodie of Bushy Park

July, 2011

One of our members, John Soones, recently visited Ray Brodie, Manager of Bushy Park, who apologised for not consulting local residents about the erection of the fencing, although he did point out that if he had to consult on every action, he couldn't do his job.

Mr Brodie was able to confirm that seven deer (one male and six female) escaped from the main park into Brew House Fields eighteen months ago. During that time there have been six conflicts with pedestrians in Dukes Head Passage but with only minor injuries. When asked about the implications of moving the deer back to the main park, Mr Brodie said that deer can't be herded and he could not justify the expense of a veterinarian using a tranquiliser dart and the transportation costs and did not think the alternative option – culling them – would be a popular option.

Following discussions about alternative courses of action, a compromise has been reached which involves lowering the height of the fence to a level which will lessen the obstruction of the view across the fields but still keep the deer contained.

Send your comments on this issue

Comment from one of our members

June, 2011

When the fence first went up – I was horrified, and feared that it would be 'filled in' and become a close boarded fence. Despite using the passage for 5 years and never even seeing a deer anywhere near the river, let alone on the footpath side, I really doubted it's purpose.

Many dogs like drinking from the river, at the final corner before BushyPark. Now that it has become clear that the fence is in it's final form (ie it won't be filled in), I am slightly less concerned.

However, from your article it would seem clear that the Park had some money left over and this seemed 'an idea'. Complete waste of money.

If there is any money left over next year, I would suggest they spend a bit more on maintaining the Passage (ie clearing overgrowth from both sides) and clearing off the mud that collects in the last 30meters before the Park. Oh yes, and empty the dog waste bins more frequently – they are often 'overflowing'.

Thanks, Jonathan (Member)

Send your comments on this issue

Update from Cllr Gareth Roberts

May, 2011

"I attended the Bushy Stakeholders Meeting this morning where the issue of the fence was on the agenda. For those of you unaware of this group it is a meeting of senior personnel from The Royal Parks, Police, Parks Managers, Friends Groups representatives and ward councillors which discusses a wide range of subjects pertaining to the park.
 
As has already been said, the parks management believe that the fence is necessary owing to the problem of deer crossing over from the nature reserve and becoming stuck in the narrow confines of Duke's Head Passage. When it was asked whether there have been incidences of this happening recently it was confirmed that there had. There is a very real concern that if a deer became stuck in the passage with no visible means of escape it could become distressed and  dangerous to the public. One of the issues that is raised regularly at the meeting is that because many members of the public have become used to the deer (even to the extent of feeding and petting them) they forget that they can present a real danger under certain circumstances. 
 
As for the continued presence of the deer in Brew House Fields it was also confirmed that the parks management considered that they are being beneficial to the ecosystems at work in the nature reserve.
 
On the subject of resiting the fence to the other side of the river there were two considerations. 1) Cost and 2) style of fencing.  The first is rather self explanatory. If the fence was to be resited onto the other side of the river then a Palisade style of fence would be deemed necessary. If you're unfamiliar with Palisade Fencing an example picture can be found on this website. The reason why this type of fence would be necessary is that it would need to be robust enough as a defence to stop an animal going under the fence - as would be possible with the existing style of fence - and thereby wouldn't solve any problem. The existing style of fence works on this side of the river because of the relative depth of the water makes it difficult for the animal both to climb out and negotiate the fence.
 
The reason for the fence going up relatively quickly was that they needed to use 'end of year money'
 
The Park Management does accept that they took their eye off the ball in terms of not giving adequate explanation to the public as to why the fence was required. They intend to remedy this situation by posting signs giving more details.
 
So at present it would appear that the parks authorities aren't willing to remove the fencing owing to the issues of safety and the beneficial impact of the deer in Brew House Fields. They will, of course, continue to monitor the situation and listen to public opinion on the subject."

Send your comments on this issue

Questions raised by local resident John Soones to Park Manager, Ray Brodie

May, 2011

1. Have the Friends of Bushy Park contacted you and expressed a view yet?
2. How long have the deer been in Brew House Fields?
3. How many deer are there?
4. Are they of mixed genders and if so are there any mature males?
5. Can you give me a schedule of conflicts and outcomes of deer and pedestrians in Dukes Head Passage?
6. What are the implications of relocating the deer to the main park area?

Send your comments on this issue

Public meeting at Linden Hall called by the Denmead Neighbours' Association

11 January, 2012 at 7.30pm

The Denmead Neighbours' Association are holding a public meeting at Linden Hall (beside level crossing )
on 11 January at 7.30p.m. to discuss the planning application which has been submitted to the council.

The Denmead Neighbours' Association are particularly concerned about the following aspects of the plans.
The proposed development will have room for 200 pupils as opposed to the current 144 pupils. The proposed
new building will impact on the locality reducing the amount of open space.Proposals to have an emergency
vehicle entrance through the cul de sac Wensleydale Gardens will inevitably lead to pressure to allow
daily access via this route. Click on the planning number 11/4125/FUL on the council's planning site to read the application. Ojections have to be received by 15 Febuary.

Send your comments on this issue

Report on the public meeting at Linden Hall called by the Denmead Neighbours' Association

13 January, 2012

Fifty people attended a public meeting at Linden Hall on 11th January to discuss the recent planning application for redevelopment of the school in Gloucester Road.The plan is to change the site from a playing field with ancillary classrooms and a sports hall/assembly hall, to a fully self contained school with accompanying offices and resource spaces and able to accommodate almost 200 pupils.

Points made at the meeting included the effect on local parking and traffic movements making a very difficult situation at the beginning and end of the day for Gloucester road residents, completely impossible. There were also comments on the impact of a large two storey building on the area surrounding a site which is designated, "Open Land of Landscape Importance".

Generally speaking the plans were felt to promote the school's expansion at the expense of the local community and the general opinion was of opposition to the plans and of the need to ensure that the Planning Committee was aware of the strength of this opposition.

Send your comments on this issue

Waitrose in Hampton? Final public meeting report

From Maura Waters, 24 September, 2011

Waitrose passed its final planning hurdle on Thursday, 22 September, and will open its doors either later this year or early in 2012. No objections were raised at Richmond Council's final planning enquiry on Thursday, September 22nd.

Throughout the planning period the major concern has been the threat of increased traffic. The new 6,663 sq. ft. store will attract most of its customers as pedestrians, but with many car-drivers also expected, a safety survey has been planned to assess traffic levels once the new store starts trading.

The proximity of the level crossing at Hampton station is, of course, a further traffic complication. But Cllr. Virginia Morris informed the enquiry Hampton was lucky to have a footbridge over the railway, unlike poor Sheen! (Anyone who has had to wait at the crossing in Manor Rd there will sympathise).

In accordance with its usual practice of investing in the local area Waitrose has promised to donate £6,000 each year to local good causes. Claiming that the siting of one of its stores in a locality tends to boost sales in surrounding shops, it has already agreed to pay for a Hampton village map showing all the local retailers.

Waitrose in Hampton? Report back

From Cllr Gareth Roberts, 1 June, 2011

Just to report back on the discussions we had prior to the event yesterday.

I along with my fellow ward councillor, Janet Langhorne and Michael Badgery of The Hampton Village Traders Association attended the exhibition yesterday, before it opened, so that we could raise some of the points made at last month's meeting held at the Beveree - the third Hampton Councillor, Suzette Nicholson was unavailable owing to being out of the country.

The main issues we discussed were those of traffic flow and parking provision.

A similar Waitrose store in Walton On Thames has a car park which has over twice the number of available bays than are planned for Waitrose hampton. Are you confident your provision is enough?

The car park in Walton is the main town car park. It isn't owned by Waitrose nor is it used exclusively by Waitrose customers. Yes a large number of Waitrose customers do use the car park but by no means all and, similarly, not all of the car park users are Waitrose customers. They are confident that the 40 spaces (approx) provision at their proposed location will be sufficient

How long can customers park and how will this be enforced?

Customers will receive 1 hour free parking at the store. The contractor bought in to manage the car park is Euro Car Parks.

Will provision be made for staff to use the car park?

No. Unfortunately any staff member that chooses to drive to work will, unfortunately, have to park in surrounding roads. It is envisaged that there will be no more than 15 employees on site at any one time. It is hoped that the majority of staff will be sourced from the immediate surrounding area which will, hopefully, travel to work either by foot or by public transport. There are various schemes and incentives in place to encourage this sort of behaviour.

The junction of Oldfield Road/Percy Road is currently subject to congestion caused by vehicles leaving the industrial unit further along Oldfield Road. Local residents have been campaigning for an access road to be built to relieve this problem. Is this something Waitrose would be interested in assisting with - not least because removing any congestion at this junction will benefit customers trying to visit the store by car.

While the representatives from Waitrose were unable to offer a response there and then (quite rightly) they have expressed an interest in doing what they can to help. They have taken away a small dossier including the feasibility study, some correspondence from supporters of the scheme including Vince Cable and have promised to have the issue discussed at board level. They have promised to keep an open dialogue with councillors over this issue.

Of course other issues were discussed including the impact on small traders in the village.

At the public meeting it was asked whether the meat/fish counters would be chiller units for the display and sale of prepackaged food or would they be staffed counters

The meat and fish counter will be staffed counters but they will be modest in size.

At the public meeting concerns were expressed about the continued viability of independent traders such as bakers and butchers in the face of competition from Waitrose. Residents also questioned whether waitrose would be prepared to scale back their offering if they were causing significant damage to existing traders.

The Waitrose representative wanted to stress that it is not the Waitrose way to come in and wipe out traders. If planning permission was received the store would be opened according to the model which they have set in place. If a trader found that their business was being significantly hit by Waitrose then they would be willing to consider scaling back that offering within their store so as to relieve the pressure on that particular independent shop.

Trolleys. How will these be managed?

Trolleys will cost £1 to use as is standard and that £1 is refundable on return. They will be kept indoors out of trading hours. Waitrose is willing to consider magnet technology to lock the wheels if they're taken across the entrance. Of course there's not much that can be done against determined trolley thieves.

Will the mature trees on Oldfield Road be retained?

Yes

Waitrose in Hampton? New public event at Field House, Oldfield Road,
Wednesday 1 June 2011, 3.00 pm to 8.00 pm

From Cllr Gareth Roberts, 25 May, 2011

Following on from the successful public meeting a new event has been planned for you to be able to put your questions directly to representatives of waitrose.

The format of this event will be different from the previous meeting as it will be held in the "drop-in event" format allowing traders and residents the opportunity to attend at a time convenient to them and talk directly to representatives of waitrose and also their highways and planning consultants.

The event will be held at Field House, the site of the proposed store.

Do come along and put your points, ideas and concerns directly to Waitrose

Don't forget to have your say on the development, either for or against, on the council's website www.richmond.gov.uk/planning.

The reference number is 11/1178/cou

The deadline for comments has been extended to 10 June 2011

Follow this and other issues on your local website www.hamptonpn.ning.com

If you have any questions please contact Cllr Gareth Roberts cllr.groberts@richmond.gov.uk,
telephone 020 8979 2360.

Public meeting at The Beveree - feedback

3 May, 2011

Thank you to those of you who responded with your views on this proposed development. Several members of The Hampton Society committee, including myself, attended the public meeting on Tuesday evening and I have prepared a summary of the discussion below for your information.

The meeting was attended by roughly 130 people, including a Waitrose representative who took notes and answered a few questions, but couldn't answer all. Cllr Gareth Roberts asked for a show of hands at the start of the meeting and opinion was divided 50:50 with 30 don’t knows.

Positives:

• Currently no decent supermarket within walking distance
• Out of town stores harm local shops more, so bring the supermarkets back into town
• Studies show that empty retail units have been reduced by 54% in areas with a Waitrose
• It’s a ‘convenience’ store, two-thirds size of Tangley Square Sainsburys
• People prefer Waitrose to other chains, so better to accept this before others apply
• Increases footfall for other traders
• Brings more choice to the area and more convenient opening hours for full-time workers
• Creates new jobs
• Waitrose presence attracts new traders
• Increase in house prices
• Waitrose an ethical brand which has schemes in place to help community

Negatives:

• Traders can't compete with supermarket prices
• More noise, pollution and traffic congestion
• Loss of quiet village life, atmosphere compromised
• Only 40 car parking spaces allocated, 6-10 of which will be taken up by lorry deliveries (where will staff park?)
• Only one entrance and difficult for lorries to turn
• Parking already a huge problem in Hampton
• Percy Road narrow and traffic backs up at level crossing already
• Hazardous for local school children on Percy Road
• Offices to let upstairs - only 4 parking spaces allocated
• People still won’t walk to Waitrose because they don’t want to carry bags
• Will this open floodgates for other big chains?

Conclusion

Views have to be submitted by 17 May and another meeting is planned (date tbc). The green text contains links to the relevant sites. Cllr Roberts recommended:

• set up a committee to keep in touch with what’s going on with Waitrose planning app.
• air and follow views on Hampton People’s Network
• log into council website and submit views on-line
• Hampton Village Traders website will be up and running on Thursday and views can also be posted there.

 

As a society, we will not be making a ‘policy’ decision on this matter at the moment. Therefore, we strongly recommend that members express their views individually on the planning section of the council’s website. The reference for this application is 11/1178.

Send your comments on this issue

Canvasing of views of the locals by Cllr Geoffrey Samuel

Saturday 11am-12.30pm 16 April, 2011

Outside Sainsburys in Tangley Square to informally canvas the views of local residents on its development, leading toa formal consultation process.

Send your comments on this issue

General village consultation at Hampton Academy

Saturday 25 June 10am-5pm, 2011

There will be an exhibition, to which residents can attach Post-it note comments. This is a follow up to the All-in-One survey that took place a few months ago.

Send your comments on this issue