Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 219 KBVenue: Reigate Town Hall, Castlefield Road, Reigate, Surrey RH2 0SH
Contact: Sarah Smith, Partnership Committee Officer Reigate Town Hall, Castlefield Road, Reigate, Surrey RH2 0SH
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
The questions and responses given during the open forum are annexed to the minutes. Additional documents: |
|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies were received from Mr Bob Gardner. |
|
|
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Agenda item only Minutes: The chairman made the following announcements: · St Bede’s School will be expanding by two forms of entry from September 2019. · The online form is now open for residents wishing to request changes to on-street parking restrictions, such as double yellow lines, or permit zones. The form will be open until the end of November. Residents can find the form by going online to www.surreysays.co.uk · All outstanding actions from the previous parking review are with the lining crew so that they can be finished. This may well include working at night in difficult locations. · A reminder to all members to submit their requests for the Member Highways Fund to the Highway Maintenance Engineer as soon as possible. · Parents can now apply for their child’s September 2019 secondary school place using the online school admissions system. The deadline for applications is Wednesday 31 October 2018 but it’s recommended parents apply by Friday 19 October before the half term holiday. · The committee has fed back concerns over Highways England proposals for M25 Junction 8 and Highways England have subsequently requested to come back to the January informal to give a further update. · At the last meeting members reported that two speed cameras on the A217 were not working. Officers have since advised all cameras are working and enforcement is taking place, with approximately 4000 offences to date. · Preliminary design work is advanced for Chetwode Road, and officers will shortly be looking to speak to the relevant divisional and ward members and then move towards public consultation. |
|
|
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
To approve the minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record.
Minutes: It was noted that minute 20/18 in the Highways Update (Item 8) referred to ‘Epsom hospital’, which was incorrect, as it should have referred to ‘East Surrey hospital’.
With this amend, the minutes were agreed. |
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
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. |
|
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.
Two petitions have been received:
· Petition to reduce traffic speeds on the service road off London Road North, Merstham, brought by the Residents Action Group for the Environment, (RAGE), which represents local environmental concerns of residents of London Road North and Glebe Road, Merstham.
· Petition to Surrey County Council to cut back and clear vegetation on or adjacent to bridleways around Reigate Heath, brought by Mrs Helen Slade.
The petitions and responses will be published in a supplementary agenda pack ahead of the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager, Claire Saunders, Senior Countryside Access Officer
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: Two petitions were received.
Mr Jeff Harris, Chairman, had to leave the meeting at this point so Ms Barbara Thomson, Vice-Chairman, assumed the chair for the remainder of the meeting.
Petition 1 – Mr John Goldney brought a petition asking to reduce traffic speed on the service road off London Road North, Merstham. Mr Goldney presented the petition on behalf of the Residents Action Group for the Environment (RAGE) - representing local environmental concerns of residents of London Road North and Glebe Road, Merstham, Surrey.
The petition had secured 20 signatures from the residents of the road. The petition and response were published as supplementary agenda papers.
During his presentation to the committee Mr Goldney made the following points: · Increasing problems of congestion and pollution, as well as a growing safety concern; · 50mph is too high for a short residential road with a blind bend; · Drivers use this stretch of road as a rat run to avoid queuing traffic; · Drivers do not realise the road is two-way; · Pavement needs to be cut back as pedestrians are currently forced to walk on the road at points. · Road should be 30mph with clear signage.
The Area Highway Manager stated that the first step, in line with the council’s ‘Setting Local Speed Limits’ policy is to undertake a speed survey. The sign will be changed to make it visible, and vegetation cut back.
Member Discussion – key points:
· Before leaving the meeting, Mr Jeff Harris, Chairman, noted that the divisional member was away for this meeting, but that he had expressed his full support for the petition. · Members expressed support for the petition, and queried why the road was 50mph at present. The Area Highway Manager explained that speed limits nationally can only be 30mph if there are street lights, unless it has been expressly changed by the county council. · The Lead Cabinet Member for Highways, Mr Colin Kemp, confirmed that speed enforcement is the role of Surrey Police, and that the council needs their support – they will not enforce speed limits that are not set in line with the council’s policy. The junction is being looked at with Highways England, as it does need reviewing. Mr Kemp agreed to take the petition with him to the next meeting with Highways England.
Resolved:
The Local Committee is RESOLVED to agree:
(i) That a speed survey in London Road North service road is carried out to assess whether or not vehicle speeds comply with Surrey County Council’s speed limit policy for a reduction to 30mph. (ii) That the feasibility of relocating the existing two way traffic sign is investigated and that if this is not possible improvements are made to the existing sign. Petition 2 – Mrs Helen Slade brought a petition asking Surrey County Council to cut back and clear vegetation on or adjacent to bridleways around Reigate Heath. Vegetation ... view the full minutes text for item 27/18 |
|
|
FORMAL PUBLIC QUESTIONS
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.
Questions and responses will be published in a supplementary agenda pack ahead of the meeting. Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: One question was received.
Borough Councillor Mrs Anna Tarrant asked if the committee would consider funding a refuge / crossing island at the junction of The Chase and Ringley Park Avenue in Reigate?
The question and response was published with the supplementary agenda papers.
Councillor Tarrant asked what would be the cost of a refuge, and argued that the focus should be on preventing accidents before they happen.
The Area Highway Manager stated that measures need to be carefully designed. In this instance, the footway is not to the width required. Costings would be only be very approximate at this stage as detailed design can uncover many hidden costs, such as pipes under the road. To have a refuge, there would need to be a footway there.
Member discussion – key points
· The divisional member stated that there had not been any accidents at this location, and therefore she could not support this request. · Members felt this was not the top priority for the committee or residents, but acknowledged that the road is very wide and residents would be advised to cross elsewhere. |
|
|
FORMAL MEMBER QUESTIONS
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.
Questions and their responses will be published in a supplementary agenda pack ahead of the meeting. Minutes: No written member questions had been received. |
|
Presentation from the county council’s Lead Cabinet Members for People and Place, and the Director of Transformation at Surrey Heartlands Health and Care Partnership, on working together with district and borough councils, with a key focus on health and wellbeing.
(Presentation to be circulated with the minutes). Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Sarah Parker, Director of Transformation, Surrey Heartlands Health and Care Partnership; Mr Colin Kemp, Lead Cabinet Member for Place; Mr Tim Oliver, Lead Cabinet Member for People.
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None.
Mr Oliver introduced the presentation. The aim of the session was to raise awareness locally of how council and partners are working together on health and wellbeing. The emphasis is on prevention and early intervention, to try and reduce the number of people needing critical care.
The presentation given by Mr Oliver and the Director of Transformation is attached to the minutes as an annex.
The following points were made:
· The county faces significant financial challenges, and cannot deliver on its own. During the recent ‘vision for 2030’ consultation, the most common theme raised was that of the environment, and this is something that does link closely to health and wellbeing. There are ‘wider determinants of health’ that contribute to an individual, and community’s wellbeing, such as neighbourhood design, transport and pollution. · While many parts of the county are affluent, other areas suffer real deprivation. Life expectancy varies significantly. · Surrey Heartlands covers approximately 80% of Surrey, and part of Reigate and Banstead. Surrey and Sussex Healthcare cover the rest of Reigate and Banstead. Both work closely together. · The Health and Wellbeing Board will be expanding so that all acute hospitals are represented on the Board. · Surrey Heartlands are really keen to improve partnerships locally. · They are working towards a devolved decision making role, where they can focus on local priorities, rather than having to bid for pots to address national priorities. · There have been a number of successes to highlight – such as co-locating midwives with paramedics, so that they can provide telephone advice to patients. This has allowed them to stand down a number of ambulances. · A campaign will be starting shortly to try and reduce strokes. · The county council are waiting for the government’s green paper on health and social care integration to be published.
Member discussion – key points:
· Members noted that Surrey Heartlands cover the north of the borough, but not the south. The north of the borough receives higher funding than the south. · Members questioned how Surrey Heartlands and Surrey and Sussex Healthcare work together. The Director of Transformation confirmed that they are in regular conversation, often work from the same offices, and are working on improving information sharing. · SCC needs to support the local CCG that has a high deficit, with their recovery. Welcome news that all acute hospitals will be represented on the health and wellbeing board. · Would like to hear from Surrey and Sussex Healthcare as well. · Public Health budget and highways budgets have been reduced, which impacts on health and wellbeing. · The Ebbisham Centre has an extended surgery opening during the holidays – Surrey Heartlands need to feed this into their communications, so that residents know this resource is there. The extra public holidays at Christmas this year could stretch A&E ... view the full minutes text for item 30/18 |
|
The purpose of this report is to update all members of Local Committee with regard to the preliminary design for improvements at this junction; its estimated costs and benefits; and to seek authority to progress the scheme to the next stage.
(Report and Annex attached) Additional documents: Decision: Resolved:
The Local Committee (Reigate & Banstead) RESOLVED to:
·
Agree the
Redhill STP Member Task Group recommendation to proceed with the
preferred scheme option and to progress to public
consultation and then detailed design stage
· Note that the next steps will involve: o An application being made to the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to deregister the necessary common land at the junction and to offer equivalent exchange land. o The acquisition of land at the Maple Road allotment site from Reigate and Banstead Borough Council. o Applications being made to secure additional funding to enable the delivery of the scheme.
· Delegate authority to the Area Highways Manager in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman, Transport Strategy Project Manager and Electoral Division Member covered by the scheme to agree the consultation material.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Capacity improvements are needed at the junction to allow for current and expected increased future traffic volumes to operate effectively along the A23 corridor and through the junction with Three Arch Road and Maple Road.
2. Sustainable transport improvements are required at this junction to provide safer routes for cyclists and pedestrians travelling through the junction.
3. Improved traffic flow through the junction combined with measures to provide bus priority are needed to make bus travel in the area more reliable and attractive in order to increase passenger numbers, and provide a quality alternative to using the car.
4. Capacity and sustainable travel improvements to the junction are required for improved emergency and visitor access to East Surrey Hospital.
5. Further work is required to develop the scheme and associated costs; this includes identifying the extent of ground utility stats that will be affected by the proposed works, providing a plan for any displaced local parking, undertaking the process for common land exchange and proposed way forward, and developing a programme with provisional timescales for scheme delivery.
6. Holding a consultation with Council Members, stakeholders, local residents and businesses, and other members of the public will assist the development of a final detailed scheme design.
7. A number of possible funding sources have been identified for the anticipated costs of constructing this scheme. Greater detail and refinement of scheme costs is needed before a business case bid can be prepared to secure the full funding necessary for the scheme. Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Neil Mcclure, Transport Strategy Project Manager; Peter Boarder, Horley Regeneration Project Manager
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: Question received from Salfords and Sidlow Parish Council, which was asked during the Open Forum. The question is annexed to the minutes of the open forum agenda item.
The Transport Strategy Project Manager gave a verbal correction to the report – the affected division was listed as Salfords and Sidlow, but should have read Earlswood and Reigate South. He introduced the report, reminding members of the need for improvements at this junction, and the recommendations within the report.
Member discussion – key points:
|
|
|
HIGHWAYS SCHEMES UPDATE (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION)
To inform the Local Committee on the progress of the 2018/19 Integrated Transport and highways maintenance programmes in Reigate and Banstead, as well as other projects that are not funded through the Local Committee such as the Winter Recovery Programme, the M23 Smart Motorway project, the Horley Masterplan, centrally funded maintenance and the A23 Network Resilience Project.
(Report and 2 annexes attached). Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager, Neil Mcclure, Transport Strategy Project Manager; Peter Boarder, Horley Regeneration Project Manager
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None.
Member discussion – key points:
· Members noted they had been asked to give feedback on winter gritting routes but had not heard anything further since. Members would like to know which suggestions were incorporated, and which had not. The Area Highway Manager confirmed that this list would be circulated shortly. Members wishing to fund grit bins should put their request to the Area Highway Maintenance Engineer. · Members would like to see the pending list of what’s programmed under the signs and markings budget heading. The Area Highway Manager agreed to circulate the prioritised list. · Were the traffic light issues at Burgh Wood junction now resolved? · Would the Transport Strategy Project Manager note that Mr Nick Harrison had sent through some points regarding Drift Bridge. · Horley Masterplan work is now 4 months behind schedule – will it be completed by the end of the year? The Horley Regeneration Project Manager confirmed that costs had come out higher than expected, and so there had been some reviewing of the plan. A contractor is lined up and the works should be completed by the end of March. · Drift Bridge should be looked at as a priority given the presentation from Mr Tim Oliver, Lead Cabinet Member for People, about the impact of neighbourhoods on people’s health and wellbeing. · Do the A217 average speed cameras generate any extra revenue? The Area Highway Manager confirmed they are not for income generation, but are there for road safety. |
|
|
FORWARD PLAN [FOR INFORMATION]
The Local Committee (Reigate and Banstead) is asked to note the contents of the forward plan.
(Report attached). Minutes: The forward plan was noted. |
|
|
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECISIONS TRACKER [FOR INFORMATION]
The tracker monitors the progress of the decisions and recommendations that the Local Committee has agreed.
The Local Committee is asked to note the progress made and agree to remove from the tracker any items marked ‘complete’.
(Report attached).
Minutes: The decision tracker was noted. |