Councillors and committees

Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: St Marys Church Hall, Park Road, Camberley, GU15 2SR

Contact: Nicola Thornton-Bryar  Surrey County Council Surrey Heath Borough Council, Surrey Heath House, Knoll Road, Camberley, GU15 3HD

Items
No. Item

67/14

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

    • Share this item

    To receive any apologies for absence.

    Minutes:

    Apologies were received from Cllr Paul Ilnicki.

68/14

MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING pdf icon PDF 53 KB

69/14

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

    • Share this item

    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 interests in the following:-

    ·        Item 6 on Pine Ridge as he is a Member of the Advisory Board of the Children’s Centre

    ·        Item 7 on Cordwalles School as he lives in Berkshire Road (but not near the school).

70/14

WRITTEN PUBLIC QUESTIONS

    • Share this item

    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.

     

    One question has been received from Mr Paul Chapman as follows:-

     

    Back in August 2013 there was much fanfare and trumpeting that a solution had been found to the problems on Red Road and in particular the dangerous right turn out of MacDonald Road.  This was covered widely in the local press, quote "Mike Goodman, Denis Fuller, Adrian Page and Bill Chapman threw their weight behind placing a roundabout at Lightwater Road" and on social media including interviews with Councillors Goodman and Fuller on the Surrey Heath Residents’ Network where the plans were described as a "significant breaking news for the community".


    That was over a year ago, and since then very little has been mentioned about the solution and nothing much seems to have changed at the junction. 

     

    Can the committee please give an update on what progress has been achieved over the past 14 months since this "significant breakthrough.”

     

     

     

     

    Minutes:

    Four questions were presented to the Committee:-

     

    Q. Written question from Mr Paul Chapman

     

    Back in August 2013 there was much fanfare and trumpeting that a solution had been found to the problems on Red Road and in particular the dangerous right turn out of MacDonald Road.  This was covered widely in the local press, quote "Mike Goodman, Denis Fuller, Adrian Page and Bill Chapman threw their weight behind placing a roundabout at Lightwater Road" and on social media including interviews with Councillors Goodman and Fuller on the Surrey Heath Residents’ Network where the plans were described as a "significant breaking news for the community".


    That was over a year ago, and since then very little has been mentioned about the solution and nothing much seems to have changed at the junction. 

     

    Can the committee please give an update on what progress has been achieved over the past 14 months since this "significant breakthrough.

     

    A.    Response from Chairman on behalf of the Committee:

     

    A number of safety improvement options have been considered for Red Road, with a roundabout being one of these. However, as a number of measures were introduced in 2013, it was decided to monitor the impact of these prior to implementing any further changes. 

     

    As the monitoring period has now ended, a meeting has been arranged for 8 October to review the accident record of Red Road and determine if further works are required.  The meeting will include local Members, and representatives from Surrey Police and Surrey County Council's Road Safety team.

     

    Members further discussed the measures implemented (which included vehicle activated signage, chevrons and a speed limit reduction) and the fact that accident figures were being closely monitored prior to any further works.  It was noted that this has not been communicated well, but that the accident figures indicated that measures were working.  It was also noted that if the decision were for no immediate further improvements, the road would still be kept under review, especially as changes to Deepcut and DERA would have a potential impact.

     

    Q. Written question from Sarah Taylor, Local Resident

     

    We still have ongoing parking issues in Station Road, Bagshot. This was taken to the council several years ago and was under review last year, but not prioritised at all. I see that it is no-where on the list this year. What needs to happen in order to get this reviewed again? Has it now dropped off the list? I was under the impression that once on the list, it would be looked at each year. There are now staff from several companies that use Station Road to park in whilst at work. This is extremely frustrating and sometimes dangerous. There are some days that cars are parked pretty much all the way from the traffic lights at the A30 junction, back to the chicane, plus further round the road. During the summer I had to go into one of these companies and get their staff to move  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70/14

71/14

WRITTEN MEMBERS QUESTIONS

    • Share this item

    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 were no written member questions.

72/14

PETITIONS

    • Share this item

    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.

     

    An on-line petition for Pine Ridge (closing deadline 16 August) will be presented to the meeting. 

     

    ·        We, the parents, residents and concerned members of this community are urging the council to assess the lack of road safety measures outside Pine Ridge Infant & Nursery School, Esher Road, Camberley. It is becoming increasingly dangerous for our children making their daily journeys to & from school. It is indeed an accident waiting to happen. 4yr old Finley Fitzpatrick was involved in an RTA on the 1st May 2014 while crossing Mitcham Road due to instruction from the school to only use the entrance from Mitcham Road & the lack of school warning signs. Therefore we would like the council to implement improved road safety to provide our children with the safer environment they deserve.

     

     

     

     

    Minutes:

    PINE RIDGE SCHOOL

     

    An online petition was presented to the meeting by Mr Terry Beaumont (on behalf of Mr John Wilson, Petitioner).

     

    The petition stated: “We, the parents, residents and concerned members of this community are urging the council to assess the lack of road safety measures outside Pine Ridge Infant & Nursery School, Esher Road, Camberley. It is becoming     increasingly dangerous for our children making their daily journeys to & from school. It is indeed an accident waiting to happen.   4yr old Finley Fitzpatrick was involved in an RTA on the 1st May 2014 while crossing Mitcham Rd due to instruction from the school to only use the enterance from Mitcham Rd & the lack of school warning signs. Therefore we would like the council to implement improved road safety to provide our children with the safer environment they deserve.

     

    The online petition had been set up by concerned parents and had received 63 signatures.

     

    Mr Beaumont outlined that a second petition from residents (with 44 signatures) had also been presented to the school regarding their decision to close the school entrance to parents and pupils. 

     

    Members were very concerned with road safety in the area.  The Road Safety Team had already been investigating the issue (alongside Cordwalles School) and it was anticipated that a report would be presented at the December meeting.

     

    HEATHERLEY ROAD AND THE AVENUE

     

    A second petition was handed in by Jeremy Wilson, at the meeting.  Although 14 days’ notice had not been given, the petition was accepted by the Chair. 

     

    The petition, signed by 109 residents of The Avenue and Heatherley Road stated that “There is an urgent need for traffic reduction and calming methods to be employed in these residential roads.”

     

    The petitioner posed a number of questions to the Committee: “18 months on from our first petition, was The Avenue added and ranked within the ITS works program as per item 4 of agenda to meeting 5th December 2013? Could we please have an update, are the ITS works program tables published?  Do the Council accept that while increasing visitor numbers and revenues in to Camberley, they also have a durty to protect the amenity of residents and rate payers living near to what is already a choked town centre?  How is this to be delivered, other than the A30 plan?”

     

     It was anticipated that a response would be given at the next meeting.

     

73/14

PETITION RESPONSE - CORDWALLES SCHOOL

    • Share this item

    To receive a report in answer to the petition presented at the March Committee as follows:-

     

    The petition stated "We, the parents, residents and concerned members of this community are urging the Council to assess the lack of road safety measures outside Cordwalles Junior School, Berkshire Road, Camberley.  It is becoming increasingly dangerous for our children making their daily journeys to and from school.  It is indeed an accident waiting to happen.  Therefore we would like the council to implement improved road safety to provide our school children with the safer environment they deserve."

     

    Minutes:

    Members received a short update report (tabled at the meeting) in answer to the petition presented at the March Committee.

     

    The petition stated "We, the parents, residents and concerned members of this community are urging the Council to assess the lack of road safety measures outside Cordwalles Junior School, Berkshire Road, Camberley.  It is becoming increasingly dangerous for our children making their daily journeys to and from school.  It is indeed an accident waiting to happen.  Therefore we would like the council to implement improved road safety to provide our school children with the safer environment they deserve."

     

    Members were concerned that a full report was not available, due to school holidays, however, they were pleased to note that a number of key meetings had taken place, to look at both changes outside the school and also road safety training of the young people.

     

74/14

HIGHWAYS UPDATE pdf icon PDF 105 KB

    • Share this item

    To report progress made with the delivery of proposed highways schemes, developer funded schemes, and revenue funded works for the 2014/15 financial year.

     

    The report also aims to seek approval of the contingency plans as laid out in section 2.1.14 of the report, to report on relevant topical highways matters, and to provide an update on the latest budgetary position for highway schemes, revenue maintenance and Community Enhancement expenditure.

     

    Decision:

    The Committee received a report on progress made with the delivery of proposed highways schemes, developer funded schemes, and revenue funded works for the 2014/15 financial year.   

     

    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 2014/15 financial year,           

    (ii)    Note progress with budget expenditure,

    (iii)  Approve the contingency plans as laid out in section 2.1.14 of the report,    

    (iv)  Note that a further Highways Update will be brought to the next meeting of the Committee,

     

    Minutes:

    The Committee received a report on progress made with the delivery of proposed highways schemes, developer funded schemes, and revenue funded works for the 2014/15 financial year.    Members noted that the M3 managed motorway works were due to commence shortly and asked for an update from Balfour Beatty, who were to be invited to a private meeting.  Calls for a 60mph limit on the M3 had not been agreed by the Highways agency, although, as it is a managed motorway, speeds can be reduced as necessary.  It was also noted that air quality adjacent to the M3 is continuously monitored and reported online.  A public meeting was being held by the Highways Agency in Windlesham on 16 October.

     

    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 2014/15 financial year,           

    (ii)    Note progress with budget expenditure,

    (iii)  Approve the contingency plans as laid out in section 2.1.14 of the report,    

    (iv)  Note that a further Highways Update will be brought to the next meeting of the Committee,

     

75/14

WOODLANDS LANE BRIDGE - TEMPORARY WEIGHT AND WIDTH RESTRICTION pdf icon PDF 43 KB

    • Share this item

    M3 Woodlands Lane Bridge is located to the east of Windlesham where it carries the single carriageway Woodlands Lane (C4) over the M3 motorway.  The United Kingdom has been required to accept 40 tonne vehicles on roads since 1st January 1999 and at the same time has a requirement to assess highway bridges designed prior to 1973. A report, following a structural assessment in March 2001, resulted in a permanent weight limit of 25 tonnes on the structure.

    Recent assessment of the structure has shown that its strength has degraded since the 2001 report and now requires a 7.5 tonne weight limit.

    Decision:

    M3 Woodlands Lane Bridge is located to the east of Windlesham where it carries the single carriageway Woodlands Lane (C4) over the M3 motorway.  The United Kingdom has been required to accept 40 tonne vehicles on roads since 1st January 1999 and at the same time a requirement to assess highway bridges designed prior to 1973.   Recent assessment of the structure has shown that its strength has degraded since the 2001 report and now requires a 7.5 tonne weight limit.  Although a 7.5 tonne weight limit would be sufficient, this does not prevent the structure being used by heavier vehicles.

    Reducing the weight limit and introducing a width restriction will allow for the inclusion of a structure that physically restricts access of larger vehicles and stops any mistreatment of the restriction.

    The Local Committee (Surrey Heath) agreed to:-

     

    (i)     Implement a temporary (18 month) traffic regulation order on Woodlands Lane, Windlesham, to reduce the weight limit to 3 tonnes and include a width restriction of 6’6”

    (ii)    Following the advertisement of the order, any objections to the order could be resolved by the Local Area Manager (Andrew Milne) in consultation with the Chairman and Local Member

     

    Minutes:

    M3 Woodlands Lane Bridge is located to the east of Windlesham where it carries the single carriageway Woodlands Lane (C4) over the M3 motorway.  The United Kingdom has been required to accept 40 tonne vehicles on roads since 1st January 1999 and at the same time a requirement to assess highway bridges designed prior to 1973.   Recent assessment of the structure has shown that its strength has degraded since the 2001 report and now requires a 7.5 tonne weight limit.  Although a 7.5 tonne weight limit would be sufficient, this does not prevent the structure being used by heavier vehicles.

    Reducing the weight limit and introducing a width restriction would allow for the inclusion of a structure that physically restricts access of larger vehicles and stops any mistreatment of the restriction.

    Members noted that the restriction would require clear redirection of traffic.

    The Local Committee (Surrey Heath) agreed to:-

     

    (i)     Implement a temporary (18 month) traffic regulation order on Woodlands Lane, Windlesham, to reduce the weight limit to 3 tonnes and include a width restriction of 6’6”

    (ii)    Following the advertisement of the order, any objections to the order could be resolved by the Local Area Manager (Andrew Milne) in consultation with the Chairman and Local Member

     

76/14

CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE - EARLY HELP pdf icon PDF 76 KB

    • Share this item

    Services for Young People is re-commissioning services for 2015-2020 and the new service model will be presented to Cabinet on 23 September 2014. The current Local Prevention commission ends on 31 August 2015 and new funding agreements will be awarded for provision to start on 1 September 2015, subject to Cabinet approval of the new service model.

     

    The Youth Task Group has developed a set of priorities for Local Prevention in Surrey Heath which is based on local needs. Providers who bid for Local Prevention will be asked to respond to the local needs and priorities identified.   The Local Committee is asked to approve the Surrey Heath local priorities so that the procurement exercise can start in October.

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    Services for Young People are re-commissioning services for 2015-2020 and the new service model will be presented to Cabinet on 23 September 2014. The current Local Prevention commission ends on 31 August 2015 and new funding agreements will be awarded for provision to start on 1 September 2015, subject to Cabinet approval of the new service model.

     

    Local Prevention has been in place across Surrey Heath since 1 April 2012. It has contributed significantly to the reduction in young people becoming Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET).  It is therefore recommended that early help services are re-commissioned for 2015-20.

     

    The Local Committee (Surrey Heath) agreed to :

     

    (i)     Approve the local priorities (Annex 1), to be considered by providers, focusing on the identified needs of Surrey Heath and the geographical neighbourhoods prioritised by the Youth Task Group.

    (ii)    Note the changes to the council scheme of delegation which provides increased decision making to local commissioning in relation to youth work and Surrey Outdoor Learning and Development (SOLD) (Annex 1A).

     

    Minutes:

    Services for Young People are re-commissioning services for 2015-2020 and the new service model will be presented to Cabinet on 23 September 2014. The current Local Prevention commission ends on 31 August 2015 and new funding agreements will be awarded for provision to start on 1 September 2015, subject to Cabinet approval of the new service model.

     

    Local Prevention has been in place across Surrey Heath since 1 April 2012. It has contributed significantly to the reduction in young people becoming Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET).  It is therefore recommended that early help services are re-commissioned for 2015-20.

     

    Members asked for further clarification of the engagement events held to gather feedback (which included specialist conferences, booklets of options, feedback surveys and staff events).  Members were particularly pleased with the significant reduction of numbers of young people classified as NEET and congratulations were given.

     

    On Annex 1, it was noted under priority areas, that work with travelling families needed to include generational and cultural pressures.

     

    The Local Committee (Surrey Heath) agreed to :

     

    (i)     Approve the local priorities (Annex 1), to be considered by providers, focusing on the identified needs of Surrey Heath and the geographical neighbourhoods prioritised by the Youth Task Group.

    (ii)    Note the changes to the council scheme of delegation which provides increased decision making to local commissioning in relation to youth work and Surrey Outdoor Learning and Development (SOLD) (Annex 1A).

     

77/14

LOCAL COMMITTEE AND MEMBERS ALLOCATION FUNDING - UPDATE pdf icon PDF 48 KB

    • Share this item

    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 2014/15 the County Council has allocated £10,300revenue funding to each County Councillor and £35,000 capital funding to each Local Committee. This report provides an update on the projects that have been funded since April 2014 to date.

     

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    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 2014/15 the County Council allocated £10,300revenue funding to each County Councillor and £35,000 capital funding to each Local Committee. Greater transparency in the use of public funds is achieved with the publication of what Members’ Allocation funding has been spent on.

     

    The Local Committee (Surrey Heath) noted:

     

    (i)     The amounts that have been spent from the Members’ Allocation and Local Committee capital budgets, as set out in Annex 1 of the report.

     

    Minutes:

    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 2014/15 the County Council allocated £10,300revenue funding to each County Councillor and £35,000 capital funding to each Local Committee. Greater transparency in the use of public funds is achieved with the publication of what Members’ Allocation funding has been spent on.

     

    The Local Committee (Surrey Heath) noted:

     

    (i)     The amounts that have been spent from the Members’ Allocation and Local Committee capital budgets, as set out in Annex 1 of the report.

     

78/14

FORWARD PLAN pdf icon PDF 34 KB

    • Share this item

    This report is produced for each meeting of the Local Committee (Surrey Heath) so that members can review the forward plan.

     

    Decision:

    The forward plan report is produced for each meeting of the Local Committee (Surrey Heath) so that members can review the reports that are currently anticipated will be received

    .

    The Local Committee (Surrey Heath) noted the forward plan.

     

    Minutes:

    The forward plan report is produced for each meeting of the Local Committee (Surrey Heath) so that members can review the reports that are currently anticipated will be received

    .

    The Local Committee (Surrey Heath) noted the forward plan.