Agenda, decisions and minutes

Reigate and Banstead Local Committee
Wednesday, 21 June 2017 2.00 pm

Venue: Reigate Town Hall, Castlefield Road, Reigate, Surrey RH2 0SH

Contact: Sarah Smith, Partnership Committee Officer  Reigate Town Hall, Castlefield Road, Reigate, Surrey RH2 0SH

Items
No. Item

129/17

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (AGENDA ITEM ONLY)

130/17

MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING (AGENDA ITEM ONLY) pdf icon PDF 212 KB

    To approve the minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record.

     

    Members are requested to read the attached minutes document and inform the Partnership Committee Officer of any amendments they wish to make prior to the meeting.

     

    Minutes attached

    Minutes:

    The minutes were agreed as being a true record of the meeting held on Monday 27 February 2017.

131/17

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (AGENDA ITEM ONLY)

    All Members present are required to declare, at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter:

     

        (i)        Any disclosable pecuniary interests and / or

       (ii)        Other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this meeting

     

    NOTES:

    ·         Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest.

    ·         As well as an interest of the Member, this includes any interest, of which the Members 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)

    ·         Members with a significant personal interest may participate in the discussion and vote on that matter unless that interest could be reasonably regarded as prejudicial

    Minutes:

    No declarations of interest were received.

132/17

PETITIONS (AGENDA ITEM ONLY) pdf icon PDF 118 KB

    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.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Officers present:

     

    Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

     

     

    1.         Petition (79 signatures) received from Nicola Turrell calling for the installation of a pelican crossing on Woodhatch Road, Reigate. The petitioner was not present but the petition was supported by the divisional member. Officer comment included in tabled papers (attached).

     

    2.         Petition (31 signatures) received from Dennis Brett calling for implementation of a 20mph speed limit and installation of ‘adult and child’ signage on Epsom Lane South between Cross Road and Shelvers Way. The petitioner was not present but the Chairman, in his capacity as divisional member, expressed his support for the signage. Officer comment included in tabled papers (attached).

     

    3.         Petition (50 signatures) received from the Beaufort Close Residents Association represented at the meeting by Simon Morris and Tony Morgan. Both the divisional member and ward member supported the proposals. It was suggested that a parking strategy in partnership with the borough council was urgently needed to address parking issues across the whole area. Officer comment included in tabled papers (attached.)

133/17

FORMAL PUBLIC QUESTIONS (AGENDA ITEM ONLY) pdf icon PDF 14 KB

    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:

    Officer present:

     

    Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

     

     

    A written question had been submitted by District Councillor Tarrant regarding Somerset Road, Meadvale. Question and response are included in the tabled papers (attached).

     

    1.         The divisional member suggested that vehicles were unlikely to be travelling at more than 30mph due to the nature of the road. Most of the properties do not have their own drive and residents rely on being able to park on the street.

     

    2.         The problem is made worse by staff at the recently opened nursery at the village hall parking nearby and offered to speak to them to request they park further away.

     

    3.         There is no highway funding available to carry out a speed survey however  the divisional member for Merstham and Banstead South offered the use of a handheld device so that the extent of the problem could be determined.

     

    4.         Mr Kulka (representing) Cllr Tarrant was signposted to the county council’s speed limit policy in response to his supplementary query on how schemes were prioritised.

               

134/17

FORMAL MEMBER QUESTIONS (AGENDA ITEM ONLY) pdf icon PDF 12 KB

    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:

    A written question had been received from Nick Harrison regarding part-night lighting. Officer’s response is included in tabled papers (attached.)

     

    1.         Members discussed anecdotal evidence on the consequences of the scheme, including one incident in Redhill caused by a set of  road works not being illuminated.

     

    2.         Members were also reminded that applications for a review on part-night lighting in a specific location can be submitted, although the process is likely to take around 12 weeks.

     

135/17

LOCAL COMMITTEE DECISION TRACKER [FOR INFORMATION] pdf icon PDF 236 KB

    To note progress against decisions taken at previous meetings.

     

    Report attached

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Officer present:

     

    Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

     

     

    1.         A revised tracker was included in the tabled papers (attached)

     

     

    2.         There was general agreement that the tracker is not an effective document as:

                            a. No ‘due by’ dates are given

                            b. There are a number of schemes with no update given.

                          

    3.         Partnership Lead officer to take back members’ comments for review of tracker.

     

    4.         Specific queries raised:

     

    a.    ZC will chase for the locations of ANPR cameras

    b.    Pendleton Road – progress on this has been delayed due to officer             

                long-term sickness.

    c.    ZC will check and feed back on variable messaging for car parks in Redhill

    d.    Hazelwood Close – the divisional member disappointed with results of the speed survey. Area Highways Manager to discuss further at RA meeting.

    e.    Online cycling plan – to be added to forward plan for a future  informal.

       

     

    5.          The Local Committee (Reigate & Banstead) noted the contents of the recommendations tracker.   

                                                                              

136/17

HIGHWAYS FORWARD PROGRAMME 2017/18 - 2018/19 [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION FOR INFORMATION] pdf icon PDF 140 KB

    In February 2017 Reigate and Banstead Local Committee authorised delegated authority for the Area Highway Manager, in consultation with the Local Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman, to agree a revised programme of highway works should the Local Committee’s devolved budget change. 

    This report sets out the revised Reigate and Banstead capital and revenue highway works programmes agreed under this delegated authority following Cabinet approval of the Medium Term Financial Plan on 28 March 2017.

     

    Report and Annexes 1 and 2 attached

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    No declarations of interest received.

     

    Officers present:

     

    Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

     

    Discussion highlights:

     

     

    1.         Divisional member for Banstead, Woodmansterne and Chipstead will be contacted about a reduced scheme for protecting the verges in Rectory Lane. This was to be funded out of the revenue budget last year but was delayed by utility works. Revenue funding cannot be carried forward and has been drastically reduced for 2017/18.

     

    2.         Members expressed concerns that when they had taken the decision on what  roads should be included in the Horizon programme (20% of schemes nominated by the local committee), they had not been informed that there would be no budget for Local Structural  Repair work in 2017/18. It was generally acknowledged that the drastic reduction in the delegated Highways budget leaves a gap in funding for the maintenance of the road network.

     

    3.         Members were reminded of the county council’s very serious financial position and the level of savings that need to be made.

     

    4.         It was highlighted that various schemes would still receive funding from the central budget and that Reigate & Banstead’s share amounted to around 25% of the total available.

     

    5.         The Chairman agreed to write to the county council on behalf of the local committee to set out its members’ concerns.

     

    6.         The Area Highways Manager made a verbal correction to p19 s 2.5 (at bullet point 5) which should read ‘Community groups who have previously bid for funding under the Localism initiative will be advised’.

     

    The Local Committee (Reigate and Banstead) agreed to:

     

                (i)         note the contents of the report.

137/17

HIGHWAYS SCHEMES UPDATE [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION FOR INFORMATION] pdf icon PDF 107 KB

    The county council’s budget was agreed by Council on 7 February 2017, with the Medium Term Financial Plan and detailed programme of schemes agreed by Cabinet on 28 March 2017.

     

    At the 27 February 2017 Local Committee, Members agreed to give delegated authority to enable the forward programme to be progressed without the need to bring further reports to the Local Committee for decision. This report sets out recent progress on highway schemes following the agreed budget.

     

    The report also updates Members on the A217 LEP Resilience Scheme and the number of enquiries and complaints received from customers.

     

    Report and Annex 1 attached

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    No declarations of interest received.

     

    Officers present:

     

    Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

     

    Discussion highlights:

     

     

    1.         Annex 1 page 37 – Epsom Lane North (Accident remedial scheme) -  concerns raised that the improvements would be insufficient in view of the number of accidents in that location. Area Highways Manager to discuss further outside of the meeting.

     

    2.         Annex 1 page 35 – A23 Brighton Road/Salbrook Road/Lodge Lane, Salfords (junction improvement) – concerns raised that the proposed installation of the traffic lights would create more problems. Area Highways Manager to discuss further outside of the meeting.

     

     

    The Local Committee (Reigate and Banstead) agreed to:

     

                (i)         note the contents of the report.

     

     

     

138/17

GREATER REDHILL SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT PACKAGE AND EPSOM BANSTEAD SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT PACKAGE - UPDATE [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION FOR INFORMATION] pdf icon PDF 114 KB

    Work on the Epsom Banstead Sustainable Transport Package and the Greater Redhill Sustainable Transport Package is continuing. This report provides an update to Members on the progress of each of these schemes.

     

    Report attached

    Minutes:

    No declarations of interest received.

     

    Officer present:

     

    Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

     

    Discussion highlights:

     

     

    1.         It was confirmed that the Epsom- Banstead Transport Package (with the exception of the ‘Horseshoe crossing’) was on hold pending a decision on funding from the Local Enterprise Partnership (Coast to Capital).

     

    2.         There was a query on how users of the shared cycle path (2.7) would be separated as this aspect had not been discussed with the task group. The Area Highways Manager to check this with the Programme Manager and update members.

     

     

    The Local Committee (Reigate and Banstead) agreed to:

     

                (i)         note the contents of the report.

     

     

     

     

     

139/17

A217 BRIGHTON ROAD, BANSTEAD - PROPOSED SIGNALISED TOUCAN CROSSING NEAR THE HORSESHOE [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION FOR DECISION] pdf icon PDF 98 KB

    A scheme is currently being designed to provide a signalised toucan crossing on the A217 Brighton Road, Banstead in the vicinity of the footpath between the A217, Brighton Road and The Horseshoe.  This report seeks authority to widen two sections of existing footway on the A217 to create two sections of shared pedestrian cycle path to link with the proposed crossing.

     

    Report and Annexes 1 and 2 attached

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    The Local Committee (Reigate & Banstead) agreed to:

     

    (i) to approve the change from a footway to a shared pedestrian cycle path on those sections of the A217 Brighton Road, Banstead as shown in Annex 2 and detailed below:

     

    ·         The footway on the east side of the southbound carriageway of the A217 Brighton Road between the proposed crossing and the existing shared pedestrian cycleway to Dunnymans Road.

    ·         The footway on the west side of the northbound carriageway of the A217 Brighton Road between the proposed crossing and the junction of Burgh Wood, extending into Burgh Wood as far as the existing informal crossing point.

    REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:

    .

    To enable two sections of the existing A217 Brighton Road footway to be changed to a shared pedestrian cycle path to link to the proposed signalised toucan crossing.

     

    Minutes:

    No declarations of interest.

     

    Officer present:

     

    Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

     

    Discussion highlights:

     

     

    1.         Members raised concerns over the location of the pedestrian crossing; in particular that it may be too near to the junction for those vehicles turning left onto the A217 from Burgh Wood.

     

    2.         It was suggested that a community safety officer should visit the local schools specifically to inform pupils about the new crossing and how to use it.

     

    3.         The Area Highways Manager explained that leaflets would be published and distributed to schools, youth centres etc.

     

    4.         Members also suggested that there was a lack of support for the shared cycle paths along the A217.

     

    5.         The Area Highways Manager assured the Committee that a safety audit would be carried out at every stage of the scheme and that it would be safer for cyclists to rider on the paths than on the main road.

     

     

    The Local Committee (Reigate & Banstead) agreed to:

     

    (i) to approve the change from a footway to a shared pedestrian cycle path on those sections of the A217 Brighton Road, Banstead as shown in Annex 2 and detailed below:

     

    ·         The footway on the east side of the southbound carriageway of the A217 Brighton Road between the proposed crossing and the existing shared pedestrian cycleway to Dunnymans Road.

    ·         The footway on the west side of the northbound carriageway of the A217 Brighton Road between the proposed crossing and the junction of Burgh Wood, extending into Burgh Wood as far as the existing informal crossing point.

    REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:

    .

    To enable two sections of the existing A217 Brighton Road footway to be changed to a shared pedestrian cycle path to link to the proposed signalised toucan crossing.

     

140/17

ALBERT ROAD AND LUMLEY ROAD, HORLEY - PROPOSED REMOVAL OF NO ENTRY SIGNS - RESULTS OF CONSULTATION [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION FOR DECISION] pdf icon PDF 167 KB

    There are existing one-way traffic orders over short sections of the southern ends of Albert Road and Lumley Road in place in order to prevent place “No Entry” signs at their southern ends.

     

    Concerns have been raised by residents that these existing “No Entry” signs are being ignored by motorists.

     

    A scheme to revoke these orders and remove these signs was added to the forward programme for funding for this current financial year. Public consultation has been carried out on the proposals to remove the “No Entry” signs.

     

    Following a request from the divisional member, the public consultation also asked if residents/businesses would support the introduction of a 20mph speed limit in these roads. Should the results of the consultation support the introduction of a 20mph speed limit, a scheme to install a 20mph speed limit will be added to the Integrated Transport Scheme list for possible future funding.

     

    This report presents the results of the public consultation.  The Local Committee is asked to note the results of the consultation and to make a decision on how they wish to proceed.

     

    Report and Annexes 1 to 3 attached

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    The Local Committee (Reigate & Banstead) agreed to:

     

    (i)    Note the results of the public consultation as set out in this report, particularly that there is no overwhelming support to revoke the existing one-way working order and remove the “No Entry” sign in Albert Road and limited support for revoking the existing one-way working order and remove the “No Entry” sign in Lumley Road.

    And agreed on:

    (ii)   OPTION 3: Do not proceed with proposals to revoke the existing one-way traffic order and remove the existing “No Entry” signs in Albert Road and Lumley Road. Agree to reallocate the £10,000 identified within the Integrated Transport Scheme Forward Programme to support an existing scheme which is to be funded in the current financial year.

    REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:

     

    To inform the Local Committee of the results of the public consultation and to seek authority to develop a revised scheme that takes the views of those consulted into consideration. 

     

    Minutes:

    No declarations of interest received.

     

    Officer present:

     

    Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

     

     

    Discussion highlights:

     

    (Graham Knight joined the meeting)

     

     

     

    1.         The divisional member explained the scheme had been proposed because of inadequate enforcement of the ‘no entry’ signs but that the results of the consultation showed there was little support to implement.

     

    2.         It was noted in particular that the nearby Horley Infant School sited in Lumley Road, did not support the proposals.

     

    3.         Members agreed it would be better value for money for the £10,000 budget to be reallocated to other schemes.

     

    4.         Members discussed the 20mph speed limit aspect of the consultation and it was suggested that out of 450 questionnaires sent out, the response was not sufficient to consider taking this measure forward.

     

    4.         The Chairman agreed to write on behalf of the local committee to the Borough Inspector regarding increasing enforcement.

     

    5.         Members agreed (District Councillor White abstained) on option 3.

     

     

    The Local Committee (Reigate & Banstead) agreed to:

     

    (i)    Note the results of the public consultation as set out in this report, particularly that there is no overwhelming support to revoke the existing one-way working order and remove the “No Entry” sign in Albert Road and limited support for revoking the existing one-way working order and remove the “No Entry” sign in Lumley Road.

    And agreed on:

    (ii)   OPTION 3: Do not proceed with proposals to revoke the existing one-way traffic order and remove the existing “No Entry” signs in Albert Road and Lumley Road. Agree to reallocate the £10,000 identified within the Integrated Transport Scheme Forward Programme to support an existing scheme which is to be funded in the current financial year.

    REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:

     

    To inform the Local Committee of the results of the public consultation and to seek authority to develop a revised scheme that takes the views of those consulted into consideration. 

141/17

LOCAL COMMITTEE COMMUNITY SAFETY FUNDING AND REPRESENTATION ON TASK GROUPS AND EXTERNAL BODIES [DECISION ITEM] pdf icon PDF 126 KB

    The Reigate & Banstead Local Committee has a delegated budget of £3,000 for community safety projects in 2017/18. This report sets out the process by which this funding should be allocated to the East Surrey Community Safety Partnership and/or other local community organisations that promote the safety and wellbeing of residents. The report also seeks the approval of local committee task group members and the appointment of representatives to external bodies.

     

    Report and Annex 1 attached

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

     

    The Local Committee (Reigate & Banstead) resolved to:

     

    (i)                    Agree that the committee’s delegated community safety budget of £3,000 for 2017/18 be retained by the Community Partnership Team, on behalf of the Local Committee, and that the East Surrey Community Safety Partnership and/or other local organisations be invited to submit proposals for funding that meet the criteria and principles set out at paragraph 2.3 of this report.

    (ii)                   Agree that authority be delegated to the Community Partnership Manager, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the local committee, to authorise the expenditure of the community safety budget in accordance with the criteria and principles stated at paragraph 2.3 of this report.

    And agreed to:

    (iii)                  Approve the membership of the task groups and appointments to outside bodies, as detailed in paragraphs 2.7 and Annex 1 of this reportand as set out in tabled paper subject to changes agreed in this meeting.

    REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

    The report sets out a process for allocating the committee’s delegated community safety budget of £3,000 to local organisations. It also proposes local committee task group membership for the forthcoming year to enable the provision of informed advice and recommendations to the committee. The appointment of councillors of the local committee to external bodies enables the committee’s representation on and input to such bodies. 

    Minutes:

    No declarations of interest.

     

    Officer present:

     

    Sarah J Smith, Partnership Committee Officer

     

     

    Discussion highlights:

     

    1.         The process for applying for the community safety budget is the same as for last year.

     

    2.         Last year the money was not spent in Reigate and Banstead.

     

    3.         Members discussed the membership of the parking task group as it did not include representation from the north of the borough. The committee therefore agreed that the Chairman would be appointed as an  ‘ex officio’ member.

     

     

     

     

    The Local Committee (Reigate & Banstead) resolved to:

     

    (i)                    Agree that the committee’s delegated community safety budget of £3,000 for 2017/18 be retained by the Community Partnership Team, on behalf of the Local Committee, and that the East Surrey Community Safety Partnership and/or other local organisations be invited to submit proposals for funding that meet the criteria and principles set out at paragraph 2.3 of this report.

    (ii)                   Agree that authority be delegated to the Community Partnership Manager, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the local committee, to authorise the expenditure of the community safety budget in accordance with the criteria and principles stated at paragraph 2.3 of this report.

    And agreed to:

    (iii)                  Approve the membership of the task groups and appointments to outside bodies, as detailed in paragraphs 2.7 and Annex 1 of this reportand as set out in tabled paper subject to changes agreed in this meeting.

    REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

    The report sets out a process for allocating the committee’s delegated community safety budget of £3,000 to local organisations. It also proposes local committee task group membership for the forthcoming year to enable the provision of informed advice and recommendations to the committee. The appointment of councillors of the local committee to external bodies enables the committee’s representation on and input to such bodies.