Agenda, decisions and minutes

Reigate and Banstead Local Committee
Monday, 4 March 2019 2.00 pm

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

Contact: Jess Edmundson, Partnership Committee Officer  Reigate Town Hall, Castlefield Road, Reigate, Surrey RH2 0SH

Items
No. Item

48/19

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

49/19

CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS [AGENDA ITEM ONLY]

    Minutes:

    The Chairman gave the following announcements:

     

    ·         The Junior Citizens event; an event to teach young people about how to keep safe; would be running again this year. Funding for the event had come from some of the utility companies including SES Water, Total Oil and Gas and SGN.

    ·         Members were reminded about the Member Highways Fund and that this would be dicussed later in the agenda. They were reminded that this wasn’t a huge amount of money. The Chairman encouraged members to be creative and innovative in their approach to spending.

    ·         SCC Cabinet would shortly be taking a decision about the future for Wray Park and the closure and relocation of the training facility.

     

    ·         The Parking Task Group that hadn’t met for some time would reconvene in the coming weeks.

     

    ·         The Surrey Fire and Rescue Service Consultation had opened online and would remain open until the end of May. It was important that as many people as possible responded to the consultation.

     

    ·         The Chairman had recently written to the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) about the vast number of illegal immigrants, namely children that had entered the county. The children came at a huge financial cost to the county to house and look after. He also added there was an additional impact on Surrey Police and the borough when such incidences occurred and areas were left bare of Police for hours.

OPEN FORUM SESSION pdf icon PDF 57 KB

The questions and responses are included as an annex to these minutes.

50/19

MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING pdf icon PDF 91 KB

51/19

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:

    There were none

52/19

PETITIONS pdf icon PDF 77 KB

52/19a

PETITION TO CONSTRUCT A SAFE FOOTPATH FOR PEDESTRIAN USE FROM THE ENTRANCE OF ELIZABETH DRIVE ESTATE TO BANSTEAD HIGH STREET; TO IMPROVE ROAD SAFETY FOR PEDESTRIANS

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager, SCC

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: The petition and officer response was published in the supplementary agenda.

     

    Ms Finbow attended the meeting to raise her concerns. She state that the road that leads from Elizabeth Drive Estate to Banstead High Street, Holly Lane wasn’t on a public transport route and didn’t have a suitable path for walking that wasn’t muddy. She added the vegetation growth made it even harder to walk down what little path there was. The petition had gained a lot of support including the head teacher of the local school in the push to get more children walking to school.

     

    Ms Finbow also presented the committee with historical information of planning conditions from Reigate & Banstead Borough Council from when the estate was built. One condition stated the developer should make a financial contribution towards cycle and footway improvements.

     

     

    Key points from the discussion:

     

    ·         The divisional member noted that in recent years there had been an increase in demand for a pedestrian walkway along this route and questioned whether it was possible to improve the surface in the worst parts along the route as a starting point. He asked also if the scheme could be added to the Integrated Transport Scheme (ITS) list.

     

    ·         The Area Highways Manager (AHM) stated she had not appreciated developer funding had been available. She added that improvements may not have meant new infrastructure but a contribution to improve what was already in existence.

     

    ·         Although possible to add to the ITS list, the scheme would be of low priority due to the lack of accidents that had occurred at the site.

     

    ·         Members and the AHM said they’d look in to where the funds had been allocated and would report back to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman on her findings.

     

    ·         The AHM noted she would urge the Safer Travel Team to review the route for children travelling to school.

     

    Resolution:

     

    The local committee (Reigate & Banstead) agreed to note the officers comment.

     

52/19b

PETITION FOR SAFE CROSSING ON FRENCHES ROAD, REDHILL

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager, SCC

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: The petition and response was published within the supplementary agenda.

     

    Mr and Mrs West attended the meeting and addressed the committee with their concerns over the lack of safe formal pedestrian crossing on Frenches Road. They added that many school children used this route and the road was particularly hard to navigate.

     

    Key points from the discussion:

     

    ·         The officer response was welcomed by members although questions were raised about the type of formal crossing that was likely to be implemented, how the scheme was to be funded and how the scheme was to progress.

    ·         The AHM confirmed the crossing was likely to be a zebra crossing due to the lower cost and discussions would be had with the borough council to look at the possibility to utilise Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) monies or other funding opportunities; liaising directly with developers.

     

    Resolution:

     

    The local committee agreed to add a scheme to provide a formal crossing of Frenches Road in the vicinity of Wiggie Lane to the Integrated Transport Schemes list for consideration for future funding.

     

    Reason for decision:

     

    The above decision was made to improve pedestrian road crossing safety on Frenches Road.

52/19c

PETITION TO INSTALL PEDESTRIAN PATH SAFETY BOLLARDS OUTSIDE FURZEFIELD PRIMARY SCHOOL, DELABOLE ROAD, MERSTHAM

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager, SCC

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: The petition and response was published within the supplementary agenda.

     

    There was no public representation at the meeting to address the committee.

     

    Key points from the discussion:

     

    ·         The divisional member was unable to attend the meeting but sent his comments via the Chairman. He stated he was fully in support of the petition and urged officers to take action to improve the safety of the children.

     

    ·         The Chairman and Vice-Chairman, in the absence of the divisional member had visited the site to view the concerns for themselves. They added they were in agreement with the divisional member.

     

    ·         The AHM stated that the divisional member had met with the officers and there was an agreement to wait for the results of the Road Safety outside schools audit before agreeing any course of action.

     

     

    Resolution:

     

    The Local Committee agreed to:

          i.        Allow the county councils Safer Travel Team to investigate concerns raised by the petition using the Road Safety Outside Schools Policy.

         ii.        Note the outcome of the safety assessment will be reported to the school and local County Councillor containing the results of the road safety education assessment and a description of any potential highway improvements and estimated costs.

        iii.        Note that recommendations with include measures to encourage more sustainable travel which Furzefield Primary School will be responsible for implementing

     

    Reason for decision:

     

    To assess the road safety outside the school and determine the most appropriate course of action.

52/19d

PETITION TO CHANGE THE ROAD LAYOUT WHERE ORCHARD DRIVE & CROSS OAK LANE MEET

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager, SCC

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: The petition and response was published within the supplementary agenda.

     

    [15.00 - Mr Harris left the meeting and Ms Thomson resumed the chair]

     

    Mr Saunders, The Acres Residents Association attended the meeting to address the committee with the concerns of the residents. He stated that the current road layout was unsafe as many cars either make illegal U-turns, legal U-turns in nearby Titan Travel driveway or illegally drive on the wrong side of the road to avoid the island at the junction. The design of the junction was such that it encouraged risky and dangerous behaviour.

     

    Cllr Jill Ashton, Salfords and Sidlow Parish Council attended  to represent the views of the Parish Council. She stated the Parish Council had considered the junction could be redesigned without its use being compromised.

     

    Key points from the discussion:

     

    ·         One of the two divisional members fully supported the views of the officers and the Parish Council, stating that it would cost money to redesign the junction. She said she understood the concerns of the petitioning residents but had to support the other residents who would be impacted by any change.

    ·         The other divisional member stated the junction required redesigning; despite being looked at previously, it still wasn’t correct. He added it was unlikely that people would use this route as a short cut as they would only be driving towards gridlocked traffic.

    ·         The AHM noted the junction had experienced a cluster of accidents over time and currently the junction has been optimised as much as practically possible.

    ·         However the AHM put forward the recommendation that the local committee could refer this back to the Road Safety Team to relook at the junction to see what further design work could be undertaken.

     

    Resolution:

     

    The Local Committee (Reigate and Banstead) agreed:

     

    i)              That the issue be referred back to the Road Safety Team to look more broadly at the junction to look at further design work that could be undertaken.

    ii)             That a meeting be arranged between the 2 divisional members and the Area Highways Manager to discuss possible ways forward.

     

    Reason for decision

     

    The above decisions were made in order to review the current junction layout and look at ways the layout could be improved.

     

53/19

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.

    Minutes:

    None were received

54/19

FORMAL MEMBER QUESTIONS

55/19

ANNUAL PARKING REVIEW [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR DECISION] pdf icon PDF 78 KB

    Each year Surrey Highways receives requests to change existing or introduce new parking restrictions. These requests are compiled and reviewed in a borough wide process.

     

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    The Local Committee (Reigate and Banstead) agreed:

          i.        That the county council’s intention to introduce the proposals in Annex 1 is formally advertised, and subject to statutory consultation.

         ii.        That if necessary, adjustments can be made to the proposals by the parking team manager in consultation with the chairman, vice-chairman and county councillor prior to advertisement.

        iii.        That if no objections are received when the proposals are advertised, the traffic regulation orders are made.

       iv.        That if there are unresolved objections, they are dealt with in accordance with the county council’s scheme of delegation by the parking team manager, in consultation with the chairman/vice chairman of the 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.        And to note that funding in 2019/20 would be required to implement the parking amendments, subject to availability – see paragraph 4.1.

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Rikki Hill, Parking Project Team Leader, SCC

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None

     

    The Parking Project Team Leader introduced the report noting there were a couple of additions to make. These were:

     

    1.    Tattenham Grove – extension of double yellow lines (DYL)

    2.    Carlton Road – there are already measures in place but to look further at what else can be done

    3.    Frenches Road – short extension of the DYL near the junction with Elmwood Road

    4.    A23, Horley – issue with cars parking between the Air Balloon pub and the Massetts Road junction and so causing passing traffic to drive onto the hatching in the centre of the road.

     

    Key points from the discussion:

    ·         Members raised concerns about how the parking review was being funded, as it didn’t seem to fit within any budget. It was noted that the 2017/18 Parking Review had received a £5000 contribution from the local committee but going forward, as the local committee had no revenue budget, the review would need to be funded through other means. The Parking Project Team Leader said that the parking team had its own budget, some of which was normally used to help fund parking reviews, but this budget was yet to be finalised and approved. However officers were hopeful that they would be able to find funding for the review.

     

    ·         Members raised queries about specific locations in their wards and divisions. The Chairman advised members they should take such matters up with the Parking Project Team Leader directly.

     

     

    Resolution:

     

    The Local Committee (Reigate and Banstead) agreed:

          i.        That the county council’s intention to introduce the proposals in Annex 1 is formally advertised, and subject to statutory consultation.

         ii.        That if necessary, adjustments can be made to the proposals by the parking team manager in consultation with the chairman, vice-chairman and county councillor prior to advertisement.

        iii.        That if no objections are received when the proposals are advertised, the traffic regulation orders are made.

       iv.        That if there are unresolved objections, they are dealt with in accordance with the county council’s scheme of delegation by the parking team manager, in consultation with the chairman/vice chairman of the 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.        And to note that funding in 2019/20 would be required to implement the parking amendments, subject to availability – see paragraph 4.1.

     

    Reason for decisions:

     

    The above decisions were made to help to:

    ·         Improve road safety

    ·         Increase access for emergency vehicles

    ·         Increase access for refuse vehicles, buses and service vehicles

    ·         Ease traffic congestion

    ·         Better control parking

56/19

HIGHWAYS SCHEMES 2018/19 - END OF YEAR UPDATE AND 2019/20 FORWARD PROGRAMME AMENDMENTS TO CAPITAL BUDGET [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR INFORMATION] pdf icon PDF 116 KB

    To inform the local committee on the outcome of the 2018/19 Integrated Transport Scheme (ITS) and highway maintenance programmes in Reigate & Banstead and the amendments to the 2019/20 local committee capital budget.

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    The Local Committee (Reigate & Banstead) agreed to:

     

          i.        Note the contents of this report.

         ii.        Note the increased capital budget for 2019/20; and

       iii.        Agree that the capital maintenance budget for 2019/20 is used to fund either local footway works or to match fund schemes on the existing centrally delivered wetspots programme improvements schemes as agreed by the Maintenance Engineer in consultation with each divisional member.

       iv.        Agree that the capital improvement schemes allocation for Reigate and Banstead be used to progress the Integrated Transport Schemes programme set out in Annex 3;

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Zen Curry, Area Highway Manager, SCC

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None

     

    The AHM introduced the report invited the committee members to make any comments.

     

    Key points from the discussion:

     

    ·         Members discussed the need to make money go further and it was suggested by the AHM that they could look at opportunities to match fund. Possible options were Parish Councils, Town Councils or Neighbourhood CIL.

    ·         There were concerns raised over guidance for spending divisional members’ Members’ Community Allocation and Members’ Highways Fund. The AHM confirmed guidance was being looked at and would be available for the members shortly.

     

    ·         It was felt recommendation iii) of the report was limiting what members could fund with the capital maintenance budget and therefore the AHM proposed an amendment to the wording so as to not restrict members.

     

    The Local Committee (Reigate & Banstead) agreed to:

     

          i.        Note the contents of this report.

         ii.        Note the increased capital budget for 2019/20; and

        iii.        Agree that the capital maintenance budget for 2019/20 is used to fund either local footway works or to match fund schemes on the existing centrally delivered wetspots programme improvements schemes as agreed by the Maintenance Engineer in consultation with each divisional member.

       iv.        Agree that the capital improvement schemes allocation for Reigate and Banstead be used to progress the Integrated Transport Schemes programme set out in Annex 3;

     

     

57/19

HIGHWAYS FORWARD PROGRAMME 2019/20 - REVENUE UPDATE [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR DECISION] pdf icon PDF 82 KB

58/19

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECISIONS TRACKER [FOR INFORMATION] pdf icon PDF 260 KB

    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’.

     

    Minutes:

    The local committee noted the decision tracker and agreed to remove all items marked as ‘complete’ and highlighted in grey.

59/19

FORWARD PLAN [FOR INFORMATION] pdf icon PDF 52 KB