Welcome to RAWW

RAWW is keen to preserve the fine trees that are one of the features of our area, and to encourage the planting of new trees. Some of the mature trees date back to the time when much of the area between Copse Hill and Coombe Lane was part of the Prospect Place estate owned by the Earl of Cottenham. The grounds were landscaped by Humphrey Repton.

Remnants of the Repton planting, like the copper beech above, can most clearly be seen on the Atkinson Morley land, especially the Holm oaks and the single avenue of London Plane trees. Traces can also be seen in Cottenham Park where the diagonal path follows the line of an avenue of trees that once went from Prospect Place (on the south side of Copse Hill) south across the park to one of the estate entrances at what is now the junction of Coombe Lane and Avenue Road (hence the name).

Street Trees

Marilyn Frampton is our representative for street trees. In the autumn and winter she has been co-ordinating residents’ requests for planting new trees and replacing dead or diseased trees. She has been liaising with Merton Council through Lew Block, Grounds Maintenance, 8545 3826 at Merton Civic Centre. He has welcomed interest and information from RAWW and will consider requests for planting subject to checking their practical feasibility. Please send requests to Marilyn at marilynframpton@aol.com. If you want a tree outside someone else’s house, please ensure you have their agreement first and preferably a commitment to help look after it.

RAWW’s main concern now is to ensure that street trees, particularly new plantings, are looked after. We would urge RAWW residents to water trees in dry weather in spring and summer, and notify Lew Block (above) if a tree has been vandalised or is under threat from for example rubbish tipping road debris et al.

Trees on private land

Many of the best trees in our area are already subject to tree preservation orders. This includes many in private gardens, some in parks and a high concentration of them on the Atkinson Morley site. Street trees cannot be subject to tree preservation orders.

There is information on tree preservation orders on the Merton Council website at

What is a tree preservation order?

Permission from the Council is required for works to, or removal of, all trees that are covered by a tree preservation order. Permission is also required for works to trees in conservation areas. The Council can take action if trees are removed or unauthorised work is done. If you suspect unauthorised works are being done or are planned to a protected tree please send an email to enquiries at raww.org.uk, or if urgent action is required then contact the Council’s Development Control Administration Team on 020 8545 3238.

Making tree preservation orders

Preservation orders are made when there is perceived to be a threat to a tree or group of trees. Most commonly this is because of possible development but also sometimes because the owner of a site has expressed an intention to have a tree removed, or have work done to it. The threat doesn’t have to be immediate and if in doubt it is prudent to take action rather than risk the need for a rush later. To be considered for preservation orders trees should

have amenity value e.g. contribute to the street scene and general appearance of an area

RAWW have prepared a form to help local residents make a case for the preservation of trees on private land.

To find out if a tree already has a tree preservation order, or to request that a tree be considered for a preservation order, you should contact the Council’s Development Control Administration Team on 020 8545 3238. You can also contact RAWW for assistance.

RAWW policy on preserving trees on private land

RAWW believes that it is best to take early action to protect trees rather than wait for a specific proposal for removal. If you are aware of important trees that might be threatened you are advised to contact the Council yourself, or inform RAWW so that action can be taken.

To contact RAWW for trees on private land, please send an email to trees at raww.org.uk.

Parking

RAWW works with other local residents groups and the Raynes Park Association (RPA) on parking and other issues that are relevant to all users and residents of the central area of Raynes Park. The RPA is a grouping of local resident’s associations including RAWW.

Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ) in Raynes Park

In December 2005 the Council approved the introduction of a Raynes Park North (RPN) CPZ, to include Rosevine Road, Tolverne Road, Trewince Road, and Worple Road (north-west side only, numbers 187 to 211) operating Mondays to Fridays, between 8:30am and 6:30pm. The CPZ became operational in April 2006. The decision was taken to restrict parking all day rather than only 1 hour, as favoured by many local residents. Further details are available at

http://www.merton.gov.uk/living/transport/parking/cpz/rpnorth.htm

History

All residents’ associations represented by Raynes Park Association (RPA) believe that a decision on CPZ is a matter for individual residents and lobbying for a particular decision on this issue should not be undertaken by RAs. However, a decision once given by the Council after due consideration, should be binding.

A consultation conducted in 2001 by the Council revealed overwhelming rejection of proposals for a CPZ within the Raynes Park Area. In 2004, another consultation exercise for a slightly smaller area of CPZs was undertaken. The Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee stated at the outset of the consultation, that the final decision would be taken by him. The majority rejected the proposals, but some roads voted to accept a CPZ. Two very small CPZs were agreed by the Council and the Chairman wrote to all participants, announcing the final outcome.

Dissatisfaction with the outcome has led individual roads to lobby the Council for a reversal and private meetings have taken place with representatives of individual roads. A decision was made to re-consult some roads – and those adjacent to them who are likely to suffer from “displacement”. This has always been the major issue – how far should CPZs extend, in order to protect the rights of residents?

Raynes Park Centre Parking

Efforts to improve parking and make it less complex have been in progress for some years, the major achievement so far has been the extended hours for Pay & Display in parts of Coombe Lane. More improvements are being sought and some inaccuracies in signing have been brought to the attention of Merton Council. The introduction of controlled parking zones north and south of the railway have increased the amount of short term parking as the CPZs include some short term pay and display bays but some of the inaccuracies in signing remain. Be careful!

The Raynes Park Association have produced a guide on where to park in the centre of Raynes Park.

Parks

Landscape architecture students from Kingston University have been working with the Friends on a project to gather local peoples views on how the park should be improved. In response to this have come up with some possible designs.

To see what improvements local residents have said they would like to see in the park and some of the possible designs ideas the students have come up with in response to these please visit http://yourcottenhampark.blog.com.

Open Spaces

The Oberon Playing Field

The Oberon, which is Metropolitan Open Land, links the open spaces of the Atkinson Morley site with the allotments of Cambridge Road. It is a vital part of the character of the area represented by RAWW and we are concerned to ensure its continued use as a playing field and to safeguard its quality. Much of its perimeter is lined with trees, mainly alternate Scots Pine and Silver Birch, all of which have Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs). It has a pavilion built in the early 1930s which is of some period interest and worth preserving. Unfortunately it is in a poor state after years of neglect, and we would like to see it repaired and refurbished.

The site is currently the financial and management responsibility of Raynes Park High School. They have increased its use by others, mainly preparatory and primary schools, but also local community groups. They have also tidied the site and undertaken to improve security and maintenance. While the site has to pay for itself, the school sees its responsibility as an important part of its community role. RAWW welcomes this as potentially leading to investment and a proper standard of care, but will retain a watching brief through regular liaison with the Headteacher, users including the local primary school, the local authority and local residents.

Helicopter Traffic over West Wimbledon

Background

This is a subject that doesn’t receive as much coverage as Heathrow but, nonetheless, it is a cause of annoyance to RAWW members. As with the Heathrow flightpaths, the proximity of Wimbledon Common and Richmond Park is both a curse and a blessing. This short article provides background to helicopter routes around London, specifically, SW London and describes the very limited recourse that is available to those annoyed and disturbed by the noise.

There are paths set out for helicopter flights over and around London known as heliroutes. These are designated by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). The heliroute chart is available from several commercial organisations. I haven’t been able to find a free copy anywhere on the web, so my description of the routes is gleaned from other data sources! The heliroutes in our neck of the woods are H4 which follows the alignment of the Thames, and branching off from that, H7 which follows the western edge of both and Putney and Roehampton and across Wimbledon Common. Heliroute H3 also crosses parts of SW London. H7 is the heliroute that crosses West Wimbledon. There are height restrictions, both maximum and minimum at which helicopters can fly, except for landing approach and take-off. These height restrictions are set to take into account the need to limit the impact when flying over urban areas on the one hand and the fact that the area is within the Heathrow flight path, thereby putting a ceiling on flights, on the other. The general limitations on flying over populated areas are governed by the CAA. One of the functions of its Directorate of Airspace Policy is to act as a focal point for receiving and responding to aircraft related environmental complaints from the general public.

The CAA publishes what it styles Environmental Information Sheets. Two of these cover helicopter activity in London. These can be found at:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/Dap%20facts7.pdf

and

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/Dap%206.pdf

In summary, these documents outline the guidance under which helicopters operate in London and highlight the very high degree of evidential data that will be required to progress complaints.

If you do wish to make a complaint about noise, here are the contact details:

Head of Aviation Regulation Enforcement
CAA House
Room 504
45-59 Kingsway
London
WC2B 6TE

Telephone: 020 7453 6193

Consultation with the Mayor of London

During the Summer of 2006, the Mayor of London ran a consultation exercise seeking the views of many parties on the impact of helicopters across London. In addition to seeking the views of the operators and the aviation sector, the Mayor also sought the views of local residents. The Mayor’s team was very surprised by the number of complaints that it received from residents in areas such as Blackheath, Hammersmith and Fulham and Wandsworth. The Residents’ Association of West Wimbledon submitted a response to the consultation.

The Mayor is due to publish his report in October. We await the findings with interest and will continue to pursue this topic. To assist in any future consultations or discussions with the Mayor’s team, it would be very helpful to understand the views of a wide range of local residents. A new thread has been started on the forum to cover this topic – please let us have your views on this growing problem.

Heathrow - the world's noisiest airport?

Background

BAA's Web site boldly states that Heathrow airport is the world's busiest international airport. Unfortunately, it is situated in the western suburbs of one of the world's largest cities. So, while the airport does bring undoubted benefits, it also brings significant problems for residents across a vast area of SE England in the form of air pollution and noise pollution.

In West Wimbledon , we are relatively fortunate (compared to those residents in places such as Richmond and Windsor ) that we are overflown only when the wind is from an easterly direction. This is about 30% of the time in a typical year. However, as Wimbledon is on a so called Noise Preferential Route (established many years ago to limit the number of homes overflown the downside of having Richmond Park and Wimbledon Common on our doorsteps), when the wind is from the east, we have departing aircraft overhead from 6:30am to 11:30 pm . Many local residents have expressed concerns about the current situation and are worried about the effect of a third runway. and with good reason. Unless local residents take action, the situation will only get worse as, for example, the limit on the number of flights imposed by the Terminal 5 inspector will almost certainly be ignored if the history of Heathrow is anything to go by.

The main protagonists

The central protagonist is, of course, the Department for Transport (DfT), an organisation whose civil servants were described as the 'Fifth Column' by a protestor at a recent meeting on night flights. In the curious world of the civil servant in the DfT, those of us live in West Wimbledon do not, apparently, suffer from aircraft noise even though we have wide bodied jets taking off over our houses until 11.30pm (and, frequently, beyond). More surprisingly, neither do the residents of Putney which suffers even more noise pollution than we do. Similarly badly situated airports, for example Sydney and Washington , use a different noise measurement system from that used by the DfT. Amongst other differences, these airports use a system which weights the noise by time of day, so that late night flights are considered to be more polluting than their daytime equivalents.

As Prince Charles recently said, with regard to politicians, "... then they take decisions based on market research and focus groups, on the papers produced by advisers and civil servants, none of whom will have experienced what it is they are taking decisions about." However, the 2003 Air Transport White Paper does seem to start to recognise the problem:

"Daytime noise impacts at Heathrow are many times worse than at any other airport in the UK , despite significant improvements in the noise climate over many years. The Government's policy - reaffirmed in the consultation document - is to take all practicable steps to prevent any deterioration in the noise climate at Heathrow, and to continue to do everything practicable to improve it over time."

The DfT is not averse to using retired airline industry executives as 'advisors' - although the objectivity of such advisors might be questionable. One 'advisor', Aussie Rod Eddington, the ex-CEO at British Airways, can occasionally be spotted in the sandwich shops and banks on Horseferry Road , SW1 with his 'DfT Contractor' badge dangling around his neck. Sir Rod is engaged on a study examining the link between transport and productivity. It is expected that the Eddington Study will report in mid-2006. Environmentalists fear this could lead to pressure for lots more road building and relaxing planning controls a reasonable concern given the view he expressed three years ago "The problem is that in Britain it takes forever to get permission to do anything, and virtually anyone who objects can delay the decision indefinitely." (interview in Daily Telegraph - June 24, 2003 ).

One of the more interesting recent developments was the resignation of Karen Buck from her role as junior transport minister with responsibility for aviation. Some sources claim that she was 'uncomfortable' with the Government's transport policy - naturally, a claim which a loyal MP would deny. Nonetheless, maybe there are some people with consciences in the Administration, and of course, the most recent Secretary of State was moved to the Department of Trade and Industry in the recent blood letting in Dowing Street. We await the views of his successor with interest.

HM Treasury is also a staunch supporter of expansion at Heathrow. In his pre-Budget speech last December, the Man Who Would Be Prime Minister, stressed the economic importance of Heathrow's 'unique role in supporting economic growth across the country' - the use of the word 'unique' continuing to promote one of the great myths of the air transport sector. He also detailed plans for 'extensive' modelling work to 'understand the nature and extent' of air quality problems at Heathrow. So, I think the 'Fifth Column's' brief is very clear! And here's a tale from The Times ( January 5, 2006 ) which reveals the extent of their desire to placate their master:

"The Government is well aware of this [the air quality problem]: it has a team of seven civil servants in the Department for Transport beavering away to find solutions. One option, incredibly, is to reduce car emissions by sinking part of the M4 into a £2 billion tunnel. Another is to knock down 7,000 homes. If the EU law is trying to stop people being choked by fumes, then move them! Anything, it seems, is better than daring to face the reality that the cheap flight boom must end."

The role of British Airways and BAA needs no explanation they're listed companies and their remit is to increase their share price. Placating local residents is unlikely to increase their share prices selling more duty free goods and shifting more tourists is what counts for these organisations. It is reasonable to assume that any statements regarding their environmental concerns are irrelevant platitudes. Their attitude is summed up by a recent pronouncement by Willie Walsh, BA CEO:

"The notion that flying is a selfish, antisocial activity that single-handledly threatens planetary catastrophe bears no relation to the evidence."

This comment was made in relation to a BA funded study into air pollution at Heathrow which showed that EU limits are not being breached. Incidentally, this is in complete contrast to a recent (February 2006) study by the Aviation Environment Federation which, of course, demonstrates that you can prove whatever you like as long as you're prepared to write a cheque to your independent consultants.

There are many organisations that are actively fighting against further expansion at Heathrow. These include Wandsworth and Richmond Councils, Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (HACAN) and the Mayor of London. Follow this link for an insight into Ken's views:

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/assemmtgs/2005/mqtjun22/minutes/mqtminsA-transcript.rtf

Their views are fairly straightforward - enough is enough. There have been many broken promises from various Governments over the past 25 years and these groups are now demanding that the current Government honours promises to cap the number of flights at Heathrow and takes all practicable steps to prevent any deterioration in the noise climate at Heathrow, and to continue to do everything practicable to improve it over time (2003 Air Transport White Paper, paragraph 11.52).

What's happening now

2006 was set to be a very important year for Heathrow - the Government was due to 'consult' (as the Administration likes to describe these types of exercises) on two long standing commitments: 'runway alternation' and the 'Cranford Agreement'. In summary, these commitments provide relief from noise pollution to residents in places such as Richmond , Hounslow and areas to the west of the airport. In March, the DfT announced that this exercise had been delayed for six months as the issues were complex. However, you can be pretty certain that the hardcore lobbyists from BA and BAA will not be sitting back waiting to see what happens. Equally, those seeking to ensure that the Government doesn't break its pledges are equally active.

So, if this issue troubles you, what can you do? The best course of action is to inform yourself of the issues and this can be done via various Web sites useful links are at the end of this article. You should also write to Stephen Hammond, MP and tell him of your concerns and your views on the development of Heathrow. With the recent greening of Dave and his pals, it would be reasonable to expect support from Steve.