Concerns over transparency and the future of the Seething Wells site were raised at a Surbiton Neighbourhood Committee meeting, with particular unease surrounding a proposed shift in reporting responsibilities.
During an urgent item presented for information only, members of the Seething Wells Action Group, Lucia Rosario and Phil Renton, voiced their unease regarding the transparency of information and the timing of its receipt. Ms Rosario questioned whether a proposal to shift reporting of Seething Wells from the Surbiton Neighbourhood Committee to the Place Committee, which would be decided on September 23rd, constituted an abrogation of the Surbiton Neighbourhood Committee's involvement. Mr Renton echoed concerns about a lack of transparency through the Place Committee, noting that many local residents may not be aware of or familiar with it. He also highlighted the timing of receiving the information as a concern, stating that late material regarding the Seething Wells update was submitted the day before the meeting, which did not allow the Seething Wells Action Group sufficient time to discuss it as a group.
Councillor Ian Manders and Councillor Andrew Wooldridge emphasised the committee's ongoing need for scrutiny of the site. Councillor Roger Hayes, speaking as a member of the Friends of Seething Wells, highlighted the lack of response from officers to a paper submitted by the group six months prior, which offered alternative proposals for the site's future. Mr Hayes stated that the group had submitted a paper offering positive alternatives and a purpose for the future of the Seething Wells filter bed site, moving away from complaints. He expressed disappointment at the lack of response, noting that the group had chased it up twice and spoken to a senior officer face-to-face without receiving a response. He requested that when the committee discusses this matter in the future, their paper be brought forward for consideration.
Councillor Manish Shukla expressed a desire to collaborate with the group to achieve quick wins and long-term solutions.
He stated, I would like to work with you and the group to see if we can have some quick wins in there, like the graffiti for example, and possible solutions for long term, you know, future of that place.
He also expressed concerns about the plans to develop the site and its potential impact on biodiversity, stating that the plans to develop it will completely destroy biodiversity in that area.
Councillor Shukla also commented on the site's appearance, noting it is completely an ISO, especially when you enter Kingston, number one.
It was clarified that any changes to the reporting plan would be decided at the Place Committee on September 23rd, not at this meeting. Councillor Hayes advised the committee not to let their authority as a standalone committee be usurped, stating that while the Place Committee has the right to decide things, it has absolutely no right at all and tell you what you do.
This indicates that the Place Committee has the ultimate jurisdiction over decisions regarding the site's reporting and future, while the Neighbourhood Committee has the right to scrutinize and make recommendations.
The meeting information stated that an urgent item regarding an update on Seething Wells was presented for information only, with no resolution required.
The significance of the Seething Wells site, which warrants ongoing scrutiny, appears to stem from its location, environmental concerns, and the community's long-standing interest in its future.
