Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 520 KBVenue: High Cross Church, Knoll Road, Camberley, GU15 3SY
Contact: Nikkie Thornton-Bryar Surrey County Council Surrey Heath Borough Council, Surrey Heath House, Knoll Road, Camberley, GU15 3HD
Note: Official meeting starts at 6.30pm
| No. | Item | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies were received from Cllr Paul Ilnicki. |
|||||||
|
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING
To agree the Minutes of the last meeting held on 29 Sept 2016. Additional documents: Decision: The minutes of the last meeting were agreed and signed by the Chair. Minutes: The minutes of the last meeting were agreed and signed by the Chair. |
|||||||
|
UPDATE ON DECISION TRACKER
To receive and comment on the updated decision tracker. Minutes: The latest decision tracker was reviewed and agreed. |
|||||||
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.
Notes: · In line with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, declarations may relate to the interest of the member, or the member’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom the member is living as husband or wife, or a person with whom the member is living as if they were civil partners and the member is aware they have the interest.
· Members need only disclose interests not currently listed on the Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests.
· Members must notify the Monitoring Officer of any interests disclosed at the meeting so they may be added to the Register.
· Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest.
Minutes: Cllr Rodney Bates declared a non pecuniary interest (Item 8) as he lives in Berkshire Road which is on the contingency list for Highways works. If this were to be considered, he would leave the discussion. |
|||||||
|
WRITTEN PUBLIC QUESTIONS
To answer any written questions from residents or businesses within the area in accordance with Standing Order 69. Notice should be given in writing or by email to the Community Partnership and Committee Officer by 12 noon, four working days before the meeting. Minutes: There were 3 written public questions received. The questions and answers given are attached as Annex B. |
|||||||
|
WRITTEN MEMBERS QUESTIONS
To receive any written questions from Members under Standing Order 47. Notice must be given in writing to the Community Partnership & Committee Officer by 12 noon 4 working days before the meeting. Minutes: There was one written Member question from Cllr Rodney Bates. The question and answer given is attached as Annex B. |
|||||||
|
PETITIONS
To receive any petitions in accordance with Standing Order 68. Notice should be given in writing or by email to the Community Partnership and Committee Officer at least 14 days before the meeting.
Alternatively, the petition can be submitted on-line through Surrey County Council’s e-petitions website as long as the minimum number of signatures (30) has been reached 14 days before the meeting.
The meeting will discuss 3 petitions as detailed below. Minutes: The Local Committee received 3 petitions at the meeting. |
|||||||
|
Deferred Petition Response - Church Lane, Bisley
The Local Committee received a signed petition by 129 local residents requesting the Local Committee to extend the current 30mph speed limit on Church Lane from St John the Baptist Church to the start of the one way system from Woking. Following further review of the situation, it is proposed that a combination of moving the current 30mph speed limit outside the residential area with physical features will improve the environment for those on Church Lane. Decision: The Local Committee received a signed petition by 129 local residents requesting to extend the current 30mph speed limit on Church Lane from St John the Baptist Church to the start of the one way system from Woking. Following further review of the situation, it was agreed that a combination of moving the current 30mph speed limit outside the residential area with physical features will improve the environment for those on Church Lane.
The Local Committee (Surrey Heath) agreed to:
(i) The advertisement of a Traffic Regulation Order to extend the current 30mph speed limit on Church Lane from the east most point for a distance of 70m beyond the current system of street lighting, (ii) Any objections to the revocation of the existing 40mph speed limit and resultant introduction of a 30mph speed limit should be considered and resolved by the Area Highways Manager (NW) in consulation with the Divisional Member and Chairman, and that this issue only be returned to Committee if any objections prove insurmountable, (iii) Once any objections have been considered and resolved, that the order be made and the 30mph speed limit be introduced.
Minutes: The Local Committee, at the last meeting, received a signed petition by 129 local residents requesting to extend the current 30mph speed limit on Church Lane from St John the Baptist Church to the start of the one way system from Woking. Following further review of the situation, it was agreed that a combination of moving the current 30mph speed limit outside the residential area with physical features will improve the environment for those on Church Lane.
The Parish Clerk thanked Officers and Members for their reconsideration and assistance.
The Local Committee (Surrey Heath) agreed to:
(i) The advertisement of a Traffic Regulation Order to extend the current 30mph speed limit on Church Lane from the east most point for a distance of 70m beyond the current system of street lighting, (ii) Any objections to the revocation of the existing 40mph speed limit and resultant introduction of a 30mph speed limit should be considered and resolved by the Area Highways Manager (NW) in consulation with the Divisional Member and Chairman, and that this issue only be returned to Committee if any objections prove insurmountable, (iii) Once any objections have been considered and resolved, that the order be made and the 30mph speed limit be introduced.
|
|||||||
|
Two new petitions on parking in Lightwater
To receive a petition from Cllr Rebecca Jennings-Evans entitled “To ask Surrey County Council to investigate the viability and options to increase the number of parking spaces in Lightwater Village Centre”
To also receive a petition from Tim Dodds and Surrinder Gandhum entitled “increase parking in Lightwater”
As these two petitions are on the same topic, the report details the investigations made.
Decision: The Local Committee received two signed petitions requesting the Local Committee provide additional parking spaces in Lightwater. One of the petitions read “To ask Surrey County Council to investigate the viability and options to increase the number of parking spaces in Lightwater Village Centre”.
The proposals reviewed by Surrey Highways Officers related to the older petition and included works on private land and conversion of footway into carriageway. Both aspects of that proposal had significant financial implications that could not be considered by the Local Committee at the current financial situation.
The newer petition, as explained by the petitioner, wanted to look at lower cost options and review the use existing on street parking spaces and waiting times. It was agreed that the petition response would be deferred to the next meeting to allow the local Councillor and the Parish Council to meet with the parking team.
Minutes: The Local Committee received two signed petitions requesting the Local Committee provide additional parking spaces in Lightwater. One of the petitions read “To ask Surrey County Council to investigate the viability and options to increase the number of parking spaces in Lightwater Village Centre”.
The proposals reviewed by Surrey Highways Officers related to the older petition and included works on private land and conversion of footway into carriageway. Both aspects of that proposal had significant financial implications that could not be considered by the Local Committee at the current financial situation.
The newer petition, as explained by the petitioner, wanted to look at lower cost options and review the use existing on street parking spaces and waiting times. It was agreed that the petition response would be deferred to the next meeting to allow the local Councillor and the Parish Council to meet with the parking team.
|
|||||||
To report progress made with the delivery of proposed highways schemes, developer funded schemes, and revenue funded works for the 2016/17 financial year.
To provide a summary of Operation Horizon’s successes so far and to give Members the opportunity to choose over 2km of roads to be included in Horizon 2.
To report on relevant topical highways matters.
Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee received a report on progress made with the delivery of proposed highways schemes, developer funded schemes, and revenue funded works for the 2016/17 financial year.
The report also provided a summary of Operation Horizon’s successes so far and to gave Members the opportunity to choose over 2km of roads to be included in Horizon 2.
The Local Committee (Surrey Heath) agreed to:
(i) Note the progress with the ITS highways and developer funded schemes, and revenue funded works for the 2016/17 financial year. (ii) Agree the proposed capital works programme for 2017/18 shown in table 4 at section 2.4. (iii)Consider the selection of schemes under the influence of the Local Committee for inclusion in the Horizon 2 Roads Major Maintenance Programme, delegating authority to the Area Highway Manager in consultation with the Local Committee Chairman and Vice Chairman to finalise the list of schemes for inclusion by 31st January 2017 (namely the first 5 schemes on the list). (iv)Note the budgetary position. (v) Note that a further Highways Update will be brought to the next meeting of this Committee.
Minutes: The Local Committee received a report on progress made with the delivery of proposed highways schemes, developer funded schemes, and revenue funded works for the 2016/17 financial year.
The report also provided a summary of Operation Horizon’s successes so far and to gave Members the opportunity to choose over 2km of roads to be included in Horizon 2. Members agreed to support the first 5 projects on the priority list (proposed by C.Cllr Adrian Page and seconded by C.Cllr Mike Goodman).
The Local Committee (Surrey Heath) agreed to:
(i) Note the progress with the ITS highways and developer funded schemes, and revenue funded works for the 2016/17 financial year. (ii) Agree the proposed capital works programme for 2017/18 shown in table 4 at section 2.4. (iii)Consider the selection of schemes under the influence of the Local Committee for inclusion in the Horizon 2 Roads Major Maintenance Programme, delegating authority to the Area Highway Manager in consultation with the Local Committee Chairman and Vice Chairman to finalise the list of schemes for inclusion by 31st January 2017 (namely the first 5 on the list). (iv)Note the budgetary position. (v) Note that a further Highways Update will be brought to the next meeting of this Committee.
|
|||||||
|
HGV REVIEW - CHOBHAM, WINDLESHAM AND LIGHTWATER
The Local Committee received a petition signed by 900 local residents on 10 March 2016 requesting them to stop the increase of heavy HGV’s through the villages Windlesham and Chobham. The report recommends the installation of weight limits in two areas to reduce the impact of HGV’s on residents.
Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee received an online petition, signed by 508 local residents on 10 March 2016 requesting the Local Committee to stop the increase of heavy HGV’s through the villages Windlesham and Chobham. The petition read “The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead have decided to impose a weight restriction on Chobham road Rail Bridge of 7.5 tonnes. This will have a significant effect on the safety of residents in Windlesham and Chobham and increase the number of heavy goods vehicles using Windlesham and Chobham, diverting away from Chobham Road.This change would not have happened if Windlesham and Chobham had been in the Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and not in Surrey. We call on SCC to urgently complete a strategic review of the impacts this decision will have on both Windlesham and Chobham, particularly the safety and health of residents and to agree what measures are necessary to protect residents and motorists.” The recommendations in the report were made to reduce the impact of HGV on residents in the identified areas. Consideration had been given to the impact a weight limit would have on the surrounding area.
The Local Committee (Surrey Heath) agreed:
(i) To the progression, design and installation, of a 7.5T weight limit within Windlesham, as per Annex B, as part of the ITS schemes for 2017/18. (ii) To the progression, design and installation, of a lower 7.5T weight limit along High Street (A3046) as part of the ITS schemes for 2017/18. (iii) Not to progress with a weight limit on Chertsey Road (A319) and progress with alternative options to improve the junction with High Street (A319) and Windsor Road (B383) Minutes: The Local Committee received an online petition, signed by 508 local residents on 10 March 2016 requesting the Local Committee to stop the increase of heavy HGV’s through the villages Windlesham and Chobham. The petition read “The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead have decided to impose a weight restriction on Chobham road Rail Bridge of 7.5 tonnes. This will have a significant effect on the safety of residents in Windlesham and Chobham and increase the number of heavy goods vehicles using Windlesham and Chobham, diverting away from Chobham Road.This change would not have happened if Windlesham and Chobham had been in the Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead and not in Surrey. We call on SCC to urgently complete a strategic review of the impacts this decision will have on both Windlesham and Chobham, particularly the safety and health of residents and to agree what measures are necessary to protect residents and motorists.” The recommendations in the report were made to reduce the impact of HGV on residents in the identified areas. Consideration had been given to the impact a weight limit would have on the surrounding area. Officers were thanked for an excellent report.
The Local Committee (Surrey Heath) agreed:
(i) To the progression, design and installation, of a 7.5T weight limit within Windlesham, as per Annex B, as part of the ITS schemes for 2017/18. (ii) To the progression, design and installation, of a lower 7.5T weight limit along High Street (A3046) as part of the ITS schemes for 2017/18. (iii) Not to progress with a weight limit on Chertsey Road (A319) and progress with alternative options to improve the junction with High Street (A319) and Windsor Road (B383) |
|||||||
Officers of Surrey County Council’s parking team have carried out a review of on street parking restrictions within the borough of Surrey Heath and identified changes which would benefit road safety and reduce instances of obstruction and localised congestion. Committee approval is required in order to progress these changes to the stage of ‘formal advertisement’, where the proposed restrictions will be advertised for 28 days and open to comments, support or objections from members of the public.
Additional documents: Decision: Officers of Surrey County Council’s parking team have carried out a review of on street parking restrictions within the borough of Surrey Heath and identified changes which would benefit road safety and reduce instances of obstruction and localised congestion.
Committee approval is required in order to progress these changes to the stage of ‘formal advertisement’, where the proposed restrictions will be advertised for 28 days and open to comments, support or objections from members of the public.
The Local Committee (Surrey Heath) agreed that:
(i) the proposed amendments to on-street parking restrictions in Surrey Heath as described in this report and shown in detail on drawings in annex A are agreed – to also include the amendment to Evergreen Road and the small extension in Glamis Close. (ii) the local committee allocates funding as detailed in paragraph 5.1 of this report to proceed with the introduction of the parking amendments. (iii) the intention of the county council to make an order under the relevant parts of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to impose the waiting and on street parking restrictions in Surrey Heath as shown on the drawings in annex A are advertised and that if no objections are maintained, the orders are made. (iv) if there are unresolved objections, they will be dealt with in accordance with the county council’s scheme of delegation by the parking strategy and implementation team manager, in consultation with the chairman/vice chairman of this committee and the appropriate county councillor. An additional member may be invited for comment.
Minutes: Officers of Surrey County Council’s parking team have carried out a review of on street parking restrictions within the borough of Surrey Heath and identified changes which would benefit road safety and reduce instances of obstruction and localised congestion.
Committee approval is required in order to progress these changes to the stage of ‘formal advertisement’, where the proposed restrictions will be advertised for 28 days and open to comments, support or objections from members of the public.
Members discussed the proposals in detail. It was noted that the Parish Council have written in about changes in High Street Chobham, however, traffic is a problem in the area. Evergreen Road was discussed and it was agreed that the proposal would include double yellow lines on the hammerhead. Portesbury Road was discussed in public questions and will be reviewed by the team. It was noted that the impact of the traffic lights may affect the flow in Frimley Green and this would be included on the statement of reasons for that area.
The Local Committee (Surrey Heath) agreed that:
(i) the proposed amendments to on-street parking restrictions in Surrey Heath as described in this report and shown in detail on drawings in annex A are agreed – to also include the amendment to Evergreen Road and a small extension of the scheme in Glamis Close. (ii) the local committee allocates funding as detailed in paragraph 5.1 of this report to proceed with the introduction of the parking amendments. (iii) the intention of the county council to make an order under the relevant parts of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to impose the waiting and on street parking restrictions in Surrey Heath as shown on the drawings in annex A are advertised and that if no objections are maintained, the orders are made. (iv) if there are unresolved objections, they will be dealt with in accordance with the county council’s scheme of delegation by the parking strategy and implementation team manager, in consultation with the chairman/vice chairman of this committee and the appropriate county councillor. An additional member may be invited for comment.
|
|||||||
|
A30 AND MEADOWS HIGHWAYS SCHEME
Additional documents: Decision: The Committee received a report to update them on the business case for the A30/ Camberley Town Centre Highway Improvements. The business case to the Enterprise M3 Local Enterprise Partnership is currently scheduled for submission in the summer of 2017. The current work programme has been built around this deadline.
The proposals will require a public consultation which has been arranged for an 8 week period commencing in January 2017 and ending in March 2017 to fit in with the timescale for submission of the business case.
Unfortunately, no Officer was available to present the report and as Members felt the proposals were not clear, they felt unable to agreed the recommendations. However, Members did not want to see the consultation process delayed as they supported the making of a LEP bid in the Summer.
The Local Area Committee (Surrey Heath) agreed to:
(i) Delegate authority to the Area Highways Manager in consultation with the Committee at an informal meeting and the Transport Policy Project Manager to agree the consultation material. Minutes: The Committee received a report to update them on the business case for the A30/ Camberley Town Centre Highway Improvements. The business case to the Enterprise M3 Local Enterprise Partnership is currently scheduled for submission in the summer of 2017. The current work programme has been built around this deadline.
The proposals will require a public consultation which has been arranged for an 8 week period commencing in January 2017 and ending in March 2017 to fit in with the timescale for submission of the business case.
Unfortunately, no Officer was available to present the report and as Members felt the proposals were not clear, they felt unable to agreed the recommendations. However, Members did not want to see the consultation process delayed as they supported the making of a LEP bid in the Summer. The amended recommendations were proposed by Cllr Valerie White and seconded by C.Cllr Adrian Page.
The Local Area Committee (Surrey Heath) agreed to:
(i) Delegate authority to the Area Highways Manager in consultation with the Committee at an informal meeting and the Transport Policy Project Manager to agree the consultation material. |
|||||||
|
MEMBERS ALLOCATION REPORT
Surrey County Council Councillors receive funding to spend on local projects that help to promote social, economic or environmental well-being in the neighbourhoods and communities of Surrey. This funding is known as Members’ Allocation.
For the financial year 2016/17
the County Council has allocated £10,296 revenue funding to
each County Councillor. This report provides an update on the
projects that have been funded since April 2016 to date. Additional documents: Decision:
Minutes:
|
|||||||
The report is produced for each meeting of the Local Committee (Surrey Heath) so that members can review the forward plan and comment on items that are currently anticipated will be received by the committee.
Decision: The Local Committee received a report on the forward plan and members were asked to review the plan and comment on the items that are currently anticipated will be received.
The Local Committee (Surrey Heath) noted the forward plan outlined in the report.
Minutes: The Local Committee received a report on the forward plan and members were asked to review the plan and comment on the items that are currently anticipated will be received.
The Local Committee (Surrey Heath) noted the forward plan outlined in the report.
|