Issue - meetings

This report seeks approval for construction of a parking lay-by in Woodfield Lane, Ashtead and authority to advertise and make Traffic Regulation Orders to introduce a No Right Turn restriction and waiting restrictions as part of the scheme, with any objections being considered under delegated authority.

The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to agree that :

(i)    The proposal for a parking lay-by in Woodfield Lane, Ashtead, as shown in Annex 2 to this report, is approved for construction;  

(ii)   The intention of the County Council to make a Traffic Regulation Order under the relevant part of the Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is advertised, the effect of which will be to implement a No Right Turn from the northern end of the Woodfield Lane service road into the main carriageway of Woodfield Lane, and that if no objections are maintained, the Order is made;

(iii)  The intention of the County Council to make a Traffic Regulation Order under the relevant part of the Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is advertised, the effect of which will be to implement no waiting restrictions in the parking lay-by to operate Mondays to Saturdays between the hours of 8am and 6pm, restricting parking to 1 hour with no return within 1 hour, and to revoke any existing traffic orders as necessary, and that if no objections are maintained, the Order is made; and

(iv)Authority be delegated to the Area Highway Manager in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Local Committee, and the relevant local Divisional Member to resolve any objections received in connection with the proposals.

Reason for recommendations:

To enable construction of the parking lay-by proposal in Woodfield Lane, Ashtead to proceed.

No declarations of interest received.

Officers present:

Anita Guy (AG), Principal Engineer

Zena Curry (ZC), Area Highway Manager

Paul Anderson (PA), Strategic Parks and Parking Manager

Member discussion:

The Chairman advised committee members that he had received varied correspondence on this item, some of which had been inaccurate or misleading.

AG outlined report highlights that addressed the queries raised at the September meeting around a commitment from SCC to the replacement of trees, parking and enforcement issues and funding for the scheme.

Cllr Rosemary Dickson asked whether the webbing would protect exposed roots and if the cost of re-surfacing the path because of roots pushing through had been taken into account; she also requested clarification (s 2.7 main report) on what test would be used to determine whether any damage was attributable to the tree works.

AG explained that the methods being used were accepted as ‘best practice’ and that they had been assured by the contractors that the resin bound material should guard against roots pushing through. The tree survey informs of the condition of each tree, so if any damage occurs after the works they will talk to MVDC about what action is to be taken.

Cllr Mary Huggins (MH) asked how many vehicles would be able to park in the new lay-by and this was confirmed to be around 24.

Mrs Helyn Clack (HC) commented that the independent tree survey had been particularly useful and expressed concern over the diseased trees. PA confirmed that it would be up to MVDC to replace any that fell over due to this in the future.

Chris Hunt (CH) (Mole Valley District Councillor) expressed his view that the deferment from the September meeting had resulted in the commitment by SCC to replace damaged trees. Chris Townsend (CT) raised a point of order that this undertaking had been included in the September report with which the Chairman agreed. CH voiced further objections including the use of s106 money, one hour parking limit not being to the benefit of commuters or shop-workers, insufficient enforcement officers, 25% reduction of trees not in line with BS standard and shorter pavement life.

The Chairman reminded members that the scheme would be paid for using PIC money rather than s106 funds.

CT apologised for his earlier interruption but insisted there was nothing new in today’s report and addressed the following points:

a)    The one hour parking limit is there to assist residents using the common, shopping in Craddocks parade or using St Stephens doctor’s surgery.

b)    The independent tree survey is excellent and at s 3.9 states that no health and safety work needs to be done.

c)    The bollards are already there to deter travellers and have so far not damaged the trees

d)    The aim of the scheme was not to reduce car usage and double yellow lines would have the same effect as to spread traffic across Ashtead village.

e)    With regard to funding there was still £100,000 available for use on projects  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6