Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 504 KBVenue: Godalming Baptist Church, Queen Street, Godalming GU7 1BA
Contact: David North, Community Partnership & Committee Officer Godalming Social Services Centre, Bridge Street, Godalming, GU7 1LA
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies were received from Mr W Ramsdale and Mr D Round. Mr D Munro and Mr A Young were absent at the beginning of the meeting. |
|
|
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
To approve the minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record. Minutes: Mrs V Young proposed the following amendment to the final sentence of section 2 of minute 46/15:
It was confirmed that the request would remain on the holding list of the Cranleigh and Eastern Villages Task Group for consideration in the year 2017/18.
Seconded by Mr S Inchbald, the amendment was agreed. With this amendment made, the minutes were approved as a correct record. |
|
To review the progress of decisions made at previous meetings. Minutes: The committee noted further updates to the decision tracker and agreed to the removal of completed items. It was noted that the A286 Grayswood Road improvements (Haslemere) remain to be completed, also that the chairman will shortly meet residents to discuss the College Gardens on-street parking proposals. |
|
|
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: No declarations of interest were received. |
|
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.
Petitions have been received as follows:
1. An online petition posted by Mr D Chandler
We the undersigned petition Surrey County Council to
widen Portsmouth Road, Hindhead to
avoid accidents.
Minutes: Mr D Chandler presented a petition requesting that Portsmouth Road, Hindhead be widened to avoid accidents. He referred to a number of comments on social media reflecting the concern of residents. It was felt that the pavement is too wide and the carriageway too narrow and that the road has further features that increase the risk of accidents: there are no central white lines, there is no street-lighting, there are angled bends with protruding kerbs rather than curves, users include large vehicles, morning congestion makes turning through traffic from side roads hazardous. Improvements were suggested to address these concerns.
The Area Highway Manager (AHM) referred to the proposed response tabled at the meeting (Annex 1). He expressed a fear that widening the road and painting a central white line would increase speeds, but undertook to consider the petitioners’ ideas and to bring a report to the next meeting of the committee on 17 June 2016.
[Mr D Munro joined the meeting.] |
|
|
FORMAL PUBLIC QUESTIONS
To answer any questions from residents or businesses within the Waverley Borough 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: The text and response to one public question are attached at Annex 2. |
|
To receive any written questions from Members under Standing Order 47. Minutes: The text and response to one member question are attached at Annex 3.
Mr S Cosser noted that information on Horizon had now been received, but requested assurance that outstanding schemes not scheduled on 2016/17 would be completed in the final year of the programme so that appropriate publicity could be issued. |
|
To decide whether Public Footpath rights are recognised over the route in question. Additional documents: Decision: Resolved that:
(i) Public Footpath rights are recognised over the route A-B-C-D-E on Drawing No 3/1/18/H85 (Annexe H of the report) and that a Map Modification Order under sections 53 and 57 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 be made to modify the Definitive Map and Statement. The route will be known as Public Footpath No.300 (Farnham).
(ii) If objections are maintained to such an order, it will be submitted to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for confirmation.
Reasons
The County Council has a duty under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA 1981) to modify the Definitive Map and Statement (DMS) if it discovers evidence which on balance supports a modification. In this instance the evidence submitted in support of the application was considered sufficient to establish that public footpath rights are reasonably alleged to subsist over a route, having been acquired by virtue of public use under statutory presumed dedication (under s.31(1) of the Highways Act 1980). Evidence suggests that landowners have not sufficiently challenged users or taken sufficient actions to demonstrate their lack of intention to dedicate during the relevant period. Minutes: No members of the public had registered to speak on this item.
The Countryside Access Officer reminded the committee that it could only consider evidence relating to the historical route described in the report. The recent planning history of the site and the intention of the developer to provide footpaths in the future were not relevant to the decision to be made.
Ms D Le Gal explained that, although a current user of the field, she was unable to comment on the situation during the 20-year period in question and sought clarification on the evidence for the route proposed in the report. It was pointed out that the route was supported by user evidence forms.
Mr S Mulliner questioned the judgement that, even if the landowner had sought to prevent access and any barriers had been subsequently removed, rights can be established by users who have not themselves damaged or removed the obstacles. The Countryside Access Officer acknowledged that a conflict existed, but had made her recommendation on the basis of the number of users and the nature of the landowner’s attempts to stop their access.
When put to the vote, the recommendations were agreed by 13 votes to nil, with one abstention.
Resolved that:
(i) Public Footpath rights are recognised over the route A-B-C-D-E on Drawing No 3/1/18/H85 (Annexe H of the report) and that a Map Modification Order under sections 53 and 57 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 be made to modify the Definitive Map and Statement. The route will be known as Public Footpath No.300 (Farnham).
(ii) If objections are maintained to such an order, it will be submitted to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for confirmation.
Reasons
The County Council has a duty under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA 1981) to modify the Definitive Map and Statement (DMS) if it discovers evidence which on balance supports a modification. In this instance the evidence submitted in support of the application was considered sufficient to establish that public footpath rights are reasonably alleged to subsist over a route, having been acquired by virtue of public use under statutory presumed dedication (under s.31(1) of the Highways Act 1980). Evidence suggests that landowners have not sufficiently challenged users or taken sufficient actions to demonstrate their lack of intention to dedicate during the relevant period. |
|
|
COMMUNITY RESILIENCE TO FLOODING (SERVICE MONITORING AND ISSUES OF LOCAL CONCERN)
To receive an update on the work being done by Surrey County Council and partners to raise community awareness to flood risk and the causes of flooding and to develop community resilience. Additional documents: Decision: Resolved to note on the work achieved to date by Surrey County Council, Waverley Borough Council, the Environment Agency and Surrey Community Resilience Partnership in promoting flood resilience in the borough and to request that members’ comments be noted.
Reasons
The Local Committee had an opportunity to continue to inform and support the work as relevant. Minutes: The following topics were discussed:
· There was a concern that Thames Water is not sufficiently responsive or appropriately structured to address problems, especially related to drainage and sewage, which fall within its remit. The Strategic Network Resilience Manager explained that the County Council, as Lead Flood Authority (LFA), is working to improve engagement with Thames Water. · Members wished to explore the implications of the LFA’s role in the planning process. The LFA is a statutory consultee for major developments with respect to surface water management systems, following relevant guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework. Plans are assessed to ensure that discharge of water from sites does not exceed the previous level and conditions, e.g. for long-term maintenance and testing, or refusal can be recommended as appropriate. Some members hoped that a more robust response could be forthcoming in view of the volume of development in certain areas and noted again the need to engage Thames Water in addressing the potential impact of large-scale developments, especially on green-field sites. Officers recognised a need for water companies to increase investment in drainage through the charging regime; an increasing amount of pre-application discussions with developers are taking place. · The progress made in alleviating the impact of flooding in Godalming and the promotion of resilience in Cranleigh and Alfold was commended. · There was a wish to engage better with large land-managers, e.g. to respond to run-off associated with the removal of vegetation. Officers referred to the Wey Partnership as a means of engaging large landowners through a catchment-based approach.
Resolved to note on the work achieved to date by Surrey County Council, Waverley Borough Council, the Environment Agency and Surrey Community Resilience Partnership in promoting flood resilience in the borough and to request that members’ comments be noted.
Reasons
The Local Committee had an opportunity to continue to inform and support the work as relevant.
[Mr A Young joined the meeting during this item.] |
|
|
HIGHWAYS UPDATE (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION)
To receive an update on the 2015/16 programme of highway improvement and maintenance works funded by this committee and to agree further arrangements for allocating the budget for 2016/17. Additional documents: Decision: Resolved to:
(i) Note progress of the 2015/16 programme of highway works funded by this committee and external sources as described at Annex 1 of the report.
(ii) Agree that the Local Transport Plan (LTP) Task Group brings further recommendations on the allocation of the 2016/17 budget to the next meeting of the committee on 17 June 2016.
(iii)Note the Localism applications submitted by parish and town councils and a housing association and ask the Area Highway Manager to scrutinise these and agree allocations within the £45,000 budget allocated in consultation with the chairman of the local committee.
Reasons
The committee was asked to agree actions by the LTP Task Group, Area Highway Manager and chairman in order to resolve budget allocations for 2016/17.
Minutes: The committee welcomed the County Council’s recently-announced initiative to refurbish a significant mileage of the county’s pavements. Members expressed regret, however, at the absence of local involvement in developing the Year 1 programme and requested engagement of the local committee in developing the programme for the second and subsequent years.
Members noted the impact of strengthened design and delivery in implementing the committee’s 2015/16 programme of improvement schemes and welcomed its completion. The timely release of Planning Infrastructure Contribution funds (PIC) in collaboration with Waverley Borough Council was recognised as a significant feature of the committee’s capacity to deliver its programme.
The committee congratulated the Highways teams on the successful delivery of the programme in 2015/16.
Resolved to:
(i) Note progress of the 2015/16 programme of highway works funded by this committee and external sources as described at Annex 1 of the report.
(ii) Agree that the Local Transport Plan (LTP) Task Group brings further recommendations on the allocation of the 2016/17 budget to the next meeting of the committee on 17 June 2016.
(iii)Note the Localism applications submitted by parish and town councils and a housing association and ask the Area Highway Manager to scrutinise these and agree allocations within the £45,000 budget allocated in consultation with the chairman of the local committee.
Reasons
The committee was asked to agree actions by the LTP Task Group, Area Highway Manager and chairman in order to resolve budget allocations for 2016/17.
|
|
|
HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES IN RURAL AREAS (SERVICE MONITORING AND ISSUES OF LOCAL CONCERN)
To receive an update on activity in eastern Waverley and adjacent areas in Guildford and Mole Valley. Decision: Resolved to:
(i) Endorse the study approach for identifying and addressing rural Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) issues. (ii) Support the proposed direction of the project to coordinate it with the work of the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Quiet Lanes and De-Cluttering Working Group, including trialling the decluttering approach developed by Norfolk County Council. Reasons
A certain level of HGV activity on this area’s rural road network is inevitable, due to agricultural and local business activity and the need for local deliveries. However, it is perceived that many HGV movements through this area are unnecessary and having a detrimental impact on the safety and character of rural lanes. It is expected that some problems on minor lanes can be eased by a combination of defining and signing the most appropriate routes for HGVs through rural areas together with low cost measures identified through discussions with parish councils. Some of these measures are already being promoted by the Surrey Hills Quiet Lanes and De-Cluttering Working Group Minutes: The chairman left the meeting and Mrs V Young took the chair for this item.
Members were informed that areas outside of the initial focus of activity, e.g. west of the A281 and in the Haslemere corridor, could benefit from the experience and learning gained. It was envisaged that a workshop would be arranged for parish councils in the wider area to enable them to undertake the initial work.
It was pointed out that a focus on rural areas should not result in displacement of vehicle movements into urban residential areas and that the most appropriate routes should be followed. It was recommended that care should be taken when advising restrictions, as certain routes carry heavy goods vehicles gaining legitimate access to sites. The difficulty of ensuring that information passed to satellite navigation providers is updated for users in a timely fashion is understood.
Resolved to:
(i) Endorse the study approach for identifying and addressing rural Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) issues. (ii) Support the proposed direction of the project to coordinate it with the work of the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Quiet Lanes and De-Cluttering Working Group, including trialling the decluttering approach developed by Norfolk County Council. Reasons
A certain level of HGV activity on this area’s rural road network is inevitable, due to agricultural and local business activity and the need for local deliveries. However, it is perceived that many HGV movements through this area are unnecessary and having a detrimental impact on the safety and character of rural lanes. It is expected that some problems on minor lanes can be eased by a combination of defining and signing the most appropriate routes for HGVs through rural areas together with low cost measures identified through discussions with parish councils. Some of these measures are already being promoted by the Surrey Hills Quiet Lanes and De-Cluttering Working Group.
[Mrs N Barton left the meeting.] |
|
To consider an analysis of 2014/15 school performance, comprising both the outcomes of statutory end of Key Stage assessments and Ofsted judgements.
Additional documents: Decision: Resolved
(i) To note the content within the report for information only purposes.
(ii) To congratulate schools in Waverley on their achievements and to ask the Chairman to write to head teachers in these terms.
Reasons
Having noted the progress reported and the planned support being provided to schools in Waverley, the committee wished to notify schools of its appreciation of the work being done. Minutes: The item was taken after Item 13/16.
While recognising the significant achievements of many schools, a number of members expressed their concerns that the progress made by children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds remains unsatisfactory. The extent of interventions to promote inclusion was noted, but it was understood that under proposed reforms of school governance the Local Education Authority’s focus would become narrowed towards providing support for more vulnerable children. The committee discussed the benefits of multi-agency engagement activity in communities experiencing disadvantage and of developing support and co-ordination arrangements to promote this.
The committee expressed its thanks to the Area Education Officer and her team and to Babcock 4S in supporting schools. The chairman proposed an additional recommendation (set out at (ii) below) which was agreed by the committee.
Resolved:
(i) To note the content within the report for information only purposes.
(ii) To congratulate schools in Waverley on their achievements and to ask the Chairman to write to head teachers in these terms.
Reasons
Having noted the progress reported and the planned support being provided to schools in Waverley, the committee wished to notify schools of its appreciation of the work being done. |
|
To receive an update on the proposals. Additional documents: Decision: Resolved to note the update on the 3SC devolution proposals contained in the report and attached annex.
Reasons
The committee had an opportunity to consider the implications of the proposals, with particular reference to Waverley. Minutes: The following points were raised in discussion:
· The Assistant Director for Highways and Transport felt that the proposals would lead to greater influence with central government and agencies such as Network Rail and Highways England; there may also be benefits from greater collaboration across the three county councils. · The value of “triple” devolution, i.e. involving town/parish councils was noted (e.g. the contribution of Godalming Town Council to the flood alleviation group). · Significant cultural change is needed to enhance joint working between the county and borough/district councils and might be effected through a thematic review and re-alignment of activities in the public realm, having regard to economies of scale. A radical re-assessment of the strategic/local division of responsibilities was also suggested as a prerequisite for significant change. · It was hoped that the initiative would not cost more money than it saves.
Resolved to note the update on the 3SC devolution proposals contained in the report and attached annex.
Reasons
The committee had an opportunity to consider the implications of the proposals, with particular reference to Waverley. |
|
|
LOCAL COMMITTEE FORWARD PROGRAMME (SERVICE MONITORING AND ISSUES OF LOCAL CONCERN)
To review the forward programme for 2016-17. Additional documents: Decision: Resolved to note the Forward Programme for 2016/17, as outlined in Annex 1 of the report.
Reasons
The committee was invited to consider arrangements for its future activities so that officers can publicise the meetings and prepare the necessary reports.
Minutes: Resolved to note the Forward Programme for 2016/17, as outlined in Annex 1 of the report.
Reasons
The committee was invited to consider arrangements for its future activities so that officers can publicise the meetings and prepare the necessary reports.
The committee asked that its appreciation of the work of David North, on his retirement from the post of Community Partnership and Committee Officer for Waverley, be recorded. |