Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 1 MBVenue: Reigate Town Hall, Castlefield Road, Reigate, Surrey RH2 0SH
Contact: Sarah Quinn, Community Partnership and Committee Officer Reigate Town Hall, Castlefield Road, Reigate, Surrey RH2 0SH
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (AGENDA ITEM ONLY)
To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Victor Broad. Apologies for lateness were received from Mrs Kay Hammond. |
|
|
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING (AGENDA ITEM ONLY)
To approve the minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record. The minutes will be available in the committee room half an hour before the start of the meeting, or online at www.surreycc.gov.uk/reigateandbanstead or by contacting the Community Partnership and Committee Officer. Additional documents: Minutes: The following correction was made to the minutes:
69/13 – second paragraph, seventh line: replace ‘he’ with ‘she’.
Subject to the above amendment, the minutes were agreed as a true and accurate record of the meeting.
[Cllr Newstead noted that he had not received a response to his supplementary question from the previous meeting. The Community Partnership and Committee Officer agreed to follow this up and a response from the Property Team has now been received as follows: “The answer to the question is that we are not seeking a temporary alternative site. A review of the space availability will be conducted during the period in which the maintenance works are being undertaken and will take account of a structural engineers assessment of any change of use required in the various rooms, in the light of recent events and new permitted safe maximum loadings.”] |
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (AGENDA ITEM ONLY)
To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.
Notes: · Each Member must declare any interest that is disclosable under the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, unless it is already listed for that Member in the Council’s Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests.
· As well as an interest of the Member, this includes any interest, of which the Member is aware, that relates to the Member’s spouse or civil partner (or any person with whom the Member is living as a spouse or civil partner).
· If the interest has not yet been disclosed in that Register, the Member must, as well as disclosing it at the meeting, notify the Monitoring Officer of it within 28 days.
· If a Member has a disclosable interest, the Member must not vote or speak on the agenda item in which it arises, or do anything to influence other Members in regard to that item. Minutes: None received. |
|
|
PETITIONS (AGENDA ITEM ONLY)
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 petition received before deadline: Parking obstruction at Texaco Garage, Lower Kingswood – response attached
Minutes: The Committee received a petition signed by 220 residents, agreeing with the statement: “When exiting this forecourt I find my view of oncoming traffic obscured by parked cars.”
The Committee NOTED the response of the Parking Strategy and Implementation Team Manager. |
|
|
FORMAL PUBLIC QUESTIONS (AGENDA ITEM ONLY)
To answer any questions from residents or businesses within the Reigate and Banstead 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 4 working days before the meeting. Minutes: None received. |
|
|
FORMAL MEMBER QUESTIONS (AGENDA ITEM ONLY)
To receive any questions from Members under Standing Order 47. Notice should be given in writing to the Community Partnership and Committee Officer before 12 noon 4 working days before the meeting. Minutes: None received. |
|
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 can be reasonably alleged to support a modification and where under section 31(1) and (2) of the Highways Act 1980 (HA 1980) an unrebutted presumption of dedication of a way as a public right of way arises as a result of 20 years of use without force, secrecy or permission; the 20 year period ending with the date when the right of the public to use it was brought into question. This duty also applies if rights can be reasonably alleged to subsist on the basis of dedication at common law as implied from evidence of use by the public and of acquiescence to that use by the landowner.
On 7 March 2009 Surrey County Council (SCC) received an application from Mr Simon Elson under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for a Map Modification Order to modify the definitive map and statement by the addition of public footpaths between A-S-T-B-R-J-E-O-P-W-V-C and B-Q-F-X-Y-G-D as shown on drawing 3/1/37/H64 (Annex B1) to the SCC DMS. Report and Annexes A – D attached Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Daniel Williams, Countryside Access Officer and Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements:
In accordance with Standing Order 67, three objectors to the application spoke (Ms Helen Boddy; Mr Oliver Moses and Mr Matt Burgess). Their statements are attached to the minutes as Appendix A. The applicant, Mr Simon Elson, spoke in response to the objectors, stating that he had made the application in a private, individual capacity, and that the 57 claim forms received demonstrated that the route had been in use for at least 20 years.
Member Discussion – key points:
· The local Member for Reigate expressed the view that the evidence did not stand up, and that there were a myriad of alternative routes that members of the public could take that did not involve walking through the grounds of Reigate Priory School.
· Concerns were raised regarding making a right of way through school grounds and the potential risk that this would cause.
· Members asked what the difference between “by right” and “as of right” meant. The Countryside Access Officer explained that users could be considered to be using the park “by right” for recreational use which meant that permission was in place. He informed Members that counsel’s advice had been that the public had been using the route as a highway rather than for recreational use so this permission might be deemed not to apply and therefore a public right might be acquired as a result of use “as of right” (i.e. without force, secrecy or permission).
· Other Members felt that since the route had operated as a right of way for more than 20 years, that it should be approved. They accepted the arguments of the objectors, but felt that it was necessary to follow the legal and officer advice given.
· Members wished to know what the consequences would be if they refused the application. The officer explained that the applicant had the right of appeal to the Secretary of State, and that it was likely that the appeal would be granted. If Members were minded to approve the application, a legal order would be made and advertised. Any objections would be referred to the Secretary of State and a public inquiry would be held. It was emphasised that the same legal rules would apply in this event, and the planning inspector would not be able to take into account safeguarding concerns. If the right of way was approved, the school would have the right to apply for a diversion or extinguishment. The Principal Lawyer confirmed that this could be applied for on safeguarding grounds if there was a threat of danger or harassment.
· Members wished to know if the route could be time-limited to non-school hours. The officer explained that this was not possible as rights of way must be open 24 hours, 7 days a week in perpetuity. Gating orders were possible but there were none currently in Surrey. It was noted that Map ... view the full minutes text for item 7/14 |
|
Each year Surrey Highways receives requests to change existing or introduce new parking restrictions. These requests are compiled and reviewed in a district wide process.
To progress the 2014 review the committee is asked to approve statutory consultation for changes to on-street parking restrictions at the locations listed in the report annexes.
Report and Annexes A – L attached Additional documents: Decision: The Committee AGREED:
(i) The proposals in Annexes A to L to the report submitted.
(ii) That if necessary, adjustments can be made to the proposals agreed at the meeting by the Parking Team Manager in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and local Member prior to statutory consultation.
(iii) That the intention of the County Council to make Traffic Regulation Orders under the relevant parts of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to impose the waiting and on street parking restrictions in Reigate and Banstead as shown in the Annexes (and as subsequently modified by (ii)) is advertised and that if no objections are maintained, the Order is made.
(iv)That 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 and Vice-Chairman of this Committee and the appropriate County Councillor.
(v) That if necessary, the Parking Team Manager will report the objections back to the Local Committee for resolution.
(vi)To allocate funding of £15,000 in 2014/15 to implement the parking amendments.
(vii)To consolidate (without material change) the Traffic Regulation Orders for the Quality Street/Old Mill Lane ‘Restricted Parking Zone’.
REASONS:
Changes to the highway network, the built environment and society mean that parking behaviour changes and consequently it is necessary for a Highway Authority to carry out regular reviews of waiting and parking restrictions on the highway network.
The agreed waiting restrictions will help to:
· Improve road safety · Increase access for emergency vehicles · Help residents park nearer their homes · Improve access to shops, facilities and businesses · Increase access for refuse vehicles, buses and service vehicles · Ease traffic congestion · Better regulate parking Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: David Curl, Parking Strategy and Implementation Team Manager and Adrian Harris, Engineer
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements:
Cllr Jim Blackmore, Chairman of Salfords and Sidlow Parish Council raised concerns regarding parking around Salfords Station, particularly where motorists were parking on verges. Cllr Blackmore agreed to discuss this with the local Member for Horley West, Salfords and Sidlow outside the meeting.
Member Discussion – key points:
· The local Member for Nork and Tattenhams requested small changes to the proposals for Nork Way and St Leonard’s Road, which he would discuss with officers outside the meeting.
· The local Member for Tadworth and Walton raised concerns regarding enforcement in Heathcote. The Parking Team Manager noted that Surrey County Council works closely with Reigate and Banstead Borough Council’s Enforcement Team, and that this location had been flagged previously. He agreed to raise it again and ensure that enforcement took place.
· The local Member for Reigate raised Beverley Heights, Alma Road, Brokes Road and Brokes Crescent as requiring attention and would discuss this with officers.
· The local Member for Redhill West and Meadvale raised concerns that double yellow lines from the previous review had not yet been installed, and raised concerns regarding Daneshill where there was parking on both sides of the road. She thanked officers for their work in Brooklands Way and around Reigate Police Station. Officers noted that the contractor was working to complete double yellow lines from the previous review but this work had been affected by the recent bad weather. He would look into the issues at Daneshill.
· The local Member for Redhill East thanked officers for their work with the Redhill Parking Task Group. He welcomed the residents’ parking scheme proposed for Lynwood Road and the future plans for the Redstone Hill and Whitepost Hill areas. He asked whether some of the roads on the “unprogressed” list could be revisited next year, and asked whether the area around the new school at Battlebridge Lane could also be taken into consideration.
· The local Member for Merstham and Banstead South noted that he wished to discuss Grange Close, Josephine Avenue and Albert Road (Merstham) outside the meeting.
· The Chairman thanked the officers for their report.
Resolution:
The Committee AGREED:
(i) The proposals in Annexes A to L to the report submitted.
(ii) That if necessary, adjustments can be made to the proposals agreed at the meeting by the Parking Team Manager in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and local Member prior to statutory consultation.
(iii) That the intention of the County Council to make Traffic Regulation Orders under the relevant parts of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to impose the waiting and on street parking restrictions in Reigate and Banstead as shown in the Annexes (and as subsequently modified by (ii)) is advertised and that if no objections are maintained, the Order is made.
(iv)That if there are unresolved objections, they will be dealt with in accordance with the County Council’s scheme of delegation ... view the full minutes text for item 8/14 |
|
This report records the progress made in the first year of the 5-year carriageway investment maintenance programme, any changes to the year one programme and the success of the countywide Operation Horizon project to date. Progress of the supporting surface treatment programme of roads in Reigate and Banstead that have been carried out this financial year is also reported.
It sets out the proposed Operation Horizon roads within Reigate and Banstead for the year two programme (financial year 2014/15), along with the remaining approved roads to be completed in years three to five (2015 – 2018).
Report and Annex 1 attached Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Anita Guy, Acting Area Highways Manager
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None
Member Discussion – key points:
· Concerns were raised regarding the reprioritisation of works due to flooding; Members acknowledged that the current situation was unprecedented, but the condition of some roads in the borough was extremely poor; Linkfield Lane in Redhill was a specific example, and had been deferred again due to drainage issues. It was noted that only 23 roads had been completed in Reigate and Banstead which was far less than other areas, and it was felt that more time and effort was required.
· Concerns were raised regarding the list of roads in the Banstead, Woodmansterne and Chipstead division, as it was felt that other roads were more in need of work than those listed. The Chairman explained that the roads had been identified by the previous local Member, and the Acting Area Highways Manager added that they had been prioritised according to technical need; in some cases, the damage was beneath the road surface.
· Members asked if the priority of some roads could be revisited following the bad weather. The officer reported that a Recovery Programme was being drawn up which would include roads damaged by the winter weather.
· Discussion took place regarding the criteria for emergency works to address safety defects. The Acting Area Highways Manager assured Members that these issues would be addressed; however, there was a backlog of works and some temporary fixes had been necessary.
· It was noted that Waterlow Road, Reigate had been completed and therefore should not be on the list. Members wished to know if the funding could be reallocated. The officer agreed to take this back to the Operation Horizon team.
· A number of locations in Nork and Tattenhams were raised; the local Member agreed to email a list to the Acting Area Highways Manager.
· Concerns were raised regarding the poor quality of works complete in the last year. The officer was aware of the issues and reported that they would be addressed. The Chairman requested a future agenda item regarding standards of highways work.
· Issues in Shelvers Way, Cross Road, Tadworth Street and The Avenue, Tadworth were reported.
· It was noted that many cars had suffered tyre damage due to potholes in Gatton Bottom, Merstham. The officer reported that extra funding had been allocated for flood damage, and that these holes would be filled.
Resolution:
The Committee NOTED:
(i) The success of the countywide 5-year programme in year one.
(ii) The progress of Operation Horizon roads, Surface Treatment roads, and changes in year one in Reigate and Banstead in Annex 1 to the report submitted.
(iii) The proposed programme of Operation Horizon roads for Reigate and Banstead for year two (2014/15) and the remaining approved roads to be undertaken in years three to five (2015 to 2018) listed in Annex 1 to the report submitted. |
|
|
ROAD SAFETY POLICY UDPATE [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR INFORMATION]
To present to the local committee a draft update to the county council’s policy on setting local speed limits and a new draft policy to address road safety outside schools, including school crossing patrols.
Report and Annexes A and B attached Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Duncan Knox, Road Safety Team Manager and Rebecca Harrison, Sustainable Community Engagement Team Leader
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None
Member Discussion – key points:
· Members raised the issue of school expansion and the safety issues this would bring. They wished to know if funding for new safety measures was expected to come from the Local Committee’s budget. The Road Safety Team Manager informed Members that there was no additional funding for safety measures available. However, the Schools Expansion Programme had set up a task group to look at incorporating such measures into the planning process. The Road Safety Outside Schools Policy would apply regardless of whether schools were expanding or not.
· Members wished to know if special speed limits (e.g. 20mph) could be restricted to school hours only. The Road Safety Team Manager explained that every site had to be considered on its own merits. In many cases, speed was not the biggest issue and parking and unsafe crossing were the main safety issues.
· Discussion took place regarding school crossing patrols. The Sustainable Community Engagement Team Leader explained that it was difficult to recruit crossing patrols, and that the County Council had funded advertisements in local papers. There were currently 15 to 20 vacancies across Surrey at schools with varying levels of risk. She noted that the County Council was also willing to train volunteer crossing patrols.
· Members felt that whilst there was a strong argument for a more robust speed limit policy, there was also an issue of police enforcement. The Road Safety Team Manager explained that signage alone would not necessarily change prevailing speeds, and that engineering measures were often required too.
· Concerns were raised that residents were not being listened to with regards to safety concerns. The officer explained that where requests were made, existing speeds and casualty figures would be investigated.
· Discussion took place regarding speeding outside schools. At the Royal Alexandra and Albert School there had already been a request for a reduction to 20mph and the local Member would be speaking to officers about this outside the meeting. At other locations, for example, in Tadworth, it was noted that the number of parked cars meant speeding was impossible and a reduction in speed limit would not make a difference to safety. Members felt that there was a need to educate parents and ensure that they pay attention to where they park and cross the road. The officer noted these points and reported that the police would be involved in speed measurement at the Royal Alexandra and Albert School. He agreed that it was important to involve parents as the problems would only be solved with their co-operation.
Resolution:
That the Local Committee’s comments as above on the draft policies be taken into account prior to the policies being submitted to Surrey County Council’s Cabinet for approval. |
|
|
TRAVEL SMART 2014-15 PROGRAMME AND CYCLING PROGRAMME [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR DECISION]
In June 2012, Surrey County Council was successful in securing an award of £14.3 million in grant funding from the Department for Transport’s Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF). This is in addition to the award of £3.9 million LSTF Key Component secured in July 2011.
Both grants are for the period up to 31 March 2015 and jointly form the Surrey Travel SMART programme. As part of the Surrey Travel SMART programme, a total of £4.8million has been allocated for sustainable travel improvements in Redhill / Reigate.
This report provides an update to the committee on the progress of the Travel SMART programme in Redhill and Reigate and asks members to consider the proposed 2014/15 programme, and approval of the A23 London Road walking and cycling improvement.
Report and Annexes A – F attached Additional documents: Decision: The Committee AGREED:
(i) The proposed 2014/15 Travel SMART programme for Redhill and Reigate.
(ii) That the decision on minor amendments to the 2014/15 programme be delegated to the Chairman of the Local Committee and the Chairman of the Travel SMART Delivery Board in consultation with Members of the Reigate and Banstead Local Committee LSTF Task Group.
(iii) The segregated pedestrian and cycle scheme for A23 London Road attached as Annex C to the report submitted.
(iv)That the western footway of London Road, Redhill between Princess Way (Lombard Roundabout) and Colesmead Road be converted to segregated pedestrian and cycle use.
(v) To note the new funding opportunity made available by the Department of Transport for additional revenue funding for 2015/16.
REASONS:
To enable the successful completion of the Travel SMART programme to March 2015. Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: None (Harris Vallianatos, Travel SMART Engagement Officer sent apologies).
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None
Member Discussion – key points:
· It was noted that the proposals had all been agreed in principle by the Local Sustainable Transport Fund Task Group.
Resolution:
The Committee AGREED:
(i) The proposed 2014/15 Travel SMART programme for Redhill and Reigate.
(ii) That the decision on minor amendments to the 2014/15 programme be delegated to the Chairman of the Local Committee and the Chairman of the Travel SMART Delivery Board in consultation with Members of the Reigate and Banstead Local Committee LSTF Task Group.
(iii) The segregated pedestrian and cycle scheme for A23 London Road attached as Annex C to the report submitted.
(iv)That the western footway of London Road, Redhill between Princess Way (Lombard Roundabout) and Colesmead Road be converted to segregated pedestrian and cycle use.
(v) To note the new funding opportunity made available by the Department of Transport for additional revenue funding for 2015/16. |
|
To inform the Local Committee of the outcome of the 2013/14 Integrated Transport and highways maintenance schemes programmes in Reigate and Banstead.
Report and Annex 1 attached Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Anita Guy, Acting Area Highways Manager
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None
Member Discussion – key points:
· Members wished to know if the Highways Localism initiative would be taking place in 2014/15. The Acting Area Highways Manager confirmed that it would be.
· Discussion took place regarding a suggestion that the scale of the Local Structural Repairs budget be reviewed in order for more short term repairs to take place. The officer reminded Members that the forward programme had already been agreed in December 2013, and any changes to the balance would need to be agreed by the Committee. The Chairman felt that this needed to be discussed outside the meeting with officers.
· Clarification was sought regarding the A23 Brighton Road junction improvements in Salfords, and whether the design would be carried out or if this was subject to developer contributions. The officer reported that this scheme was with the design team who were working on feasibility study and access arrangements for the new fire station. This also included access arrangements to the Days site and the back of Salfords Station.
Resolution:
The Committee NOTED the report. |
|
|
LOCAL COMMITTEE AND MEMBERS ALLOCATION FUNDING - UPDATE [FOR INFORMATION]
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 2013/14 the County Council has allocated £12,876revenue 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 May 2013 to date.
Report and Annex 1 attached Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Sarah Quinn, Community Partnership and Committee Officer and Rowena Zelley, Local Support Assistant
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None
Member Discussion – key points:
· An updated spreadsheet was tabled and is attached to the minutes as Appendix B.
· Mrs Kay Hammond reported that she had allocated her remaining £575 to Riding for the Disabled.
· Members thanked the Local Support Assistant for her hard work on this.
Resolution:
The Committee NOTED the report. |
|
|
CABINET FORWARD PLAN [FOR INFORMATION]
Report attached Minutes: The Committee NOTED the report. |
|
|
LOCAL COMMITTEE FORWARD PLAN [FOR INFORMATION]
Report attached Minutes: The Committee NOTED the report. |
|
Flanchford Bridge was damaged by the extreme weather events from 24 December 2013. Although the parapet was damaged, the more significant damage was caused to the foundations of the bridge by the actions of fast moving deep water from the flooded River Mole.
For safety reasons the bridge has been closed to vehicular traffic, until permission can be granted by the Environment Agency for working in the River Mole to carry out repair work and temporary traffic management.
In the longer term, and subject to funding, it is planned to replace the bridge with a new single span bridge. The feasibility design of this is being carried out and, subject to constraints, it is planned that this new bridge could be built in the next financial year.
Report TO BE TABLED Minutes: The Committee NOTED the report. |
|
|
Additional documents: |
|