Agenda, decisions and minutes

Surrey Heath Local Committee
Thursday, 30 June 2016 6.00 pm

Venue: Portesbery School, Newfoundland Road, Deepcut, Camberley GU16 6TA

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

Note: Official Meeting starts at 6.30pm 

Items
No. Item

19/16

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

20/16

APPOINTMENT OF CO-OPTED MEMBERS FROM SURREY HEATH BOROUGH COUNCIL

    To note that Surrey Heath Borough Council has nominated 6 current Borough Councillors to serve on the Surrey Heath Local Committee for the municipal year 2016/17.

     

    Decision:

    It was noted that Surrey Heath Borough Council had renominated the six current Borough Councillors to serve on the Surrey Heath Local Committee for the municipal year 2016/17.

     

    Minutes:

    It was noted that Surrey Heath Borough Council had renominated the six current Borough Councillors to serve on the Surrey Heath Local Committee for the municipal year 2016/17.

     

21/16

APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN

22/16

MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING

23/16

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:

    There were no pecuniary declarations of interest made at the meeting.

     

24/16

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.

     

    One new petition has been received since the last meeting:

     

    Petition to reduce the speed limit on Gibbet Lane and Larchwood Glade to 20 mph.

     

    Gibbet Lane, a very popular shortcut for cars between the A30 and Portsmouth Road, and also Larchwood Glade are becoming increasingly dangerous for those pedestrians that use the daily.  This is due to the excessive speed of the traffic and the problem is worsened by the poor parking of drivers dropping off and picking their children up from the neighbouring schools in the morning and the afternoon.  Both roads are very narrow and Larchwood Glade has several tight corners and I fear that an accident is looming which is totally unacceptable.  I therefore propose that there is a lowering of the speed limit to 20 mph on these two roads to ensure the safety of all those people using them.

     

    The petition closed in April 2016 and was signed by 106 people.

     

    The lead petitioner Martin Hanson is unable to attend the meeting but Trefor Hogg and Jerry Brownlee will attend and address the Committee in his absence.

     

    Minutes:

    One petition was received at the meeting regarding a reduction in the speed limit on Gibbet Land and Larchwood Glade to 20 mph.  Trefor Hogg and Jerry Brownlee presented the petition.  Although there had been no accident reports in the past three years, a speed survey would be undertaken and a full report presented to the next Committee meeting with recommendations on appropriate action.

     

25/16

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:

    One written question was received from Andrew Willgoss

     

    The question received stated:- “The response and recommendation to the petition, 'stop through traffic using Bagshot village as a short cut to and from the M3 ' was based on a false premise. The response provided little factual evidence and was mostly opinion. This mislead the committee and gave the wrong impression that there is not a serious traffic problem through Bagshot and erroneously that the closure of the High Street had been requested. There is sufficient data available to show that the amount of commuter through traffic is excessive and that there is a significant speeding problem.

    At the previous LAC the traffic problem was reduced to a statement that the average speed was 17.9 mph (the data collected showed it was actually 21.4 mph). It ignored that an average figure is meaningless and the traffic flow is reduced to a walking pace for about 3 to 4 hours daily and therefore there is a far more serious problem.

    Could the committee review the available statistics that show there is a traffic problem all through Bagshot?


    Could the committee investigate further and review the decision on not taking any action?”

     

    The written answer given (and read out at the Committee) stated – “The Surrey Heath Local Committee has recently considered this matter, after listening to the views expressed in the previous Committee meeting, and taking into account the contents of the officer report presented by Surrey Highways.

     

    It is recognised that speed data requires careful interpretation, and it is for this reason that the professional views of Highways Officers are of assistance to the Committee in reaching decisions.

     

    In the case of the High Street, Bagshot, there is good compliance with the existing speed limit, and the Committee does not intend to review this matter again.

     

    If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided by Surrey Highways, then the appropriate way to address this is to make a formal complaint directly to Surrey Highways.  Details of how to raise a service complaint are found on the Surrey County Council website.”

               

     

     

     

     

     

26/16

WRITTEN MEMBERS QUESTIONS

27/16

DECISION TRACKER pdf icon PDF 132 KB

28/16

PETITION RESPONSE - ADDRESS THE ROAD SAFETY CONCERNS RELATING TO INAPPROPRIATE/UNSUITABLE HGV/PSV USE OF LUCAS GREEN ROAD, WEST END pdf icon PDF 341 KB

    This report outlines the issues raised in the petition and seeks to address the concerns.  Mr Andrew Milne, Area Highways Manager will present this report.

     

    Decision:

    It was agreed that TDP Officers would check the position with the Traffic Commissioner and a meeting would then be arranged with Mrs Loney to clarify the position.

     

    Minutes:

    The Local Committee considered a report responding to a petition received at the previous meeting signed by 132 local residents requesting the Local Committee address the amount of HGV and PSV traffic using Lucas Road, Bisley. 

     

    It was noted that Surrey County Council objected to HGV operator licence applications, but limitations on the grounds under which objections can be made meant that highway conditions away from the entrance to the site would not be considered.

     

    Surrey County Council were also concerned about Planning Application SU/12/0235, but considered that the proposed vehicle size and length would be no different to that which the site could generate under its the existing lawful use.

     

    A proposal to introduce an informal one-way system for HGVs along Lucas Green Road (between Kerria Way and Ford Road) is included in the list of schemes to be considered for inclusion in the Local Committee’s 2017/18 programme of works.  The proposal is currently ranked 26 in the list of 47 schemes.

     

    Other options to improve the current layout had been considered but were found to not be suitable.

     

    It was noted that there was some confusion regarding the advice that Mrs Loney had received from the Traffic Commissioner and the information held by TDP. It was agreed that TDP Officers would check the position with the Traffic Commissioner and a meeting would then be arranged with Mrs Loney to clarify the position.

     

29/16

PETITION RESPONSE - STOP DIRECTING HGV TRAFFIC THROUGH WEST END, BISLEY, KNAPHILL, BROOKWOOD TO WOKING pdf icon PDF 370 KB

    This report outlines the issues raised in the petition and seeks to address the concerns.  Mr Andrew Milne, Area Highways Manager will present this report.

     

    Decision:

    The local Committee agreed that the existing signing remains unchanged and that no action is taken to encourage HGV traffic to use alternative routes to the A322 and A324 when travelling to Woking from Junction 3 of the M3.

     

    Minutes:

    The Local Committee considered a report responding to a petition received at the previous meeting requesting that HGV traffic is not encouraged to use the A322 through West End and Bisley.

     

    It was noted that the A322 and A324 are strategically important roads within Surrey’s highways network and would be expected to be used by HGVs when crossing the county. Diverting traffic via the M3 and M25 would require traffic to use the A320 (a road of similar character to the A322 and A324) and extensive changes to existing signing.

     

    The route from Junction 3 of the M3 to Woking is approximately 6 miles longer when travelled via the M3, M25 and A320 than it is when travelled via the A322 and A324.

     

    HGV drivers now extensively use navigation technology to determine routes to meet demands on them to maximise efficiency. As a result, highway signs are unlikely to have an impact on driver behaviour.

    The local Committee agreed that the existing signing remains unchanged and that no action is taken to encourage HGV traffic to use alternative routes to the A322 and A324 when travelling to Woking from Junction 3 of the M3.

     

30/16

HIGHWAYS UPDATE pdf icon PDF 484 KB

    This report summarises progress with the ITS highways and developer funded schemes, and revenue funded works for the 2016/17 financial year and asks the Committee to note the budgetary position.  Mr Andrew Milne, Area Highways Manager will present this report.

     

    Minutes:

    It was noted that the majority of the planned work had been completed.  Concern was expressed that in the forthcoming Horizon programme only two roads in Surrey Heath had been identified.  It was agreed that Members should advise Andrew Milne of any other roads that they considered a priority.

     

    It was noted that a new post had been identified funded to move forward the A30 proposals by both SCC and Surrey Heath Borough Council.

     

31/16

LOCAL COMMITTEE TASK GROUP REPRESENTATION pdf icon PDF 195 KB

    To review and agree the terms of reference and membership of the task groups set by the Committee.

     

    Decision:

    The terms of reference of the three task groups were approved and the membership agreed as set out in paragraphs 2.4, 2.7 and 2.10 of the report.

     

    Membership of outside bodies was agreed as set out in paragraph 2.12.

     

    Minutes:

    The terms of reference of the three task groups were approved and the membership agreed as set out in paragraphs 2.4, 2.7 and 2.10 of the report.

     

    Membership of outside bodies was agreed as set out in paragraph 2.12.

     

32/16

MEMBER ALLOCATIONS pdf icon PDF 154 KB

33/16

FORWARD PLAN pdf icon PDF 73 KB

    This report is for information and indicates some of the items which will be considered at the future Local Committee meetings, and gives an opportunity for members to suggest further items.

     

    Decision:

    The Local Committee noted the Forward Plan and requested that a presentation be made to a future Private Members’ Meeting outlining the merger of Windle Valley Youth Group and ICON.

     

    Minutes:

    The Local Committee noted the Forward Plan and requested that a presentation be made to a future Private Members’ Meeting outlining the merger of Windle Valley Youth Group and ICON.