Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 291 KBVenue: Reigate Town Hall, Castlefield Road, Reigate, Surrey RH2 0SH
Contact: Jess Edmundson, Partnership Committee Officer Reigate Town Hall, Castlefield Road, Reigate, Surrey RH2 0SH
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
The questions and responses are included as Annex A to these minutes. |
|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies were recevied from Mr Jeff Harris, Cllr Rod Ashford and Cllr Gemma Adamson. |
|
|
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS [AGENDA ITEM ONLY]
The chairman to give any announcements to the local committee. Minutes: The vice-chairman, welcomed the new Reigate & Banstead Borough Council co-optees to the committee and on behalf of the Chairman invited them to attend the next informal meeting of the local committee on Monday 15 July. She added that this would include a short induction session.
Key points from the discussion
· Members noted the informal date clashed with a meeting of the cabinet and requested for the date to be amended so members who were required at both could attend. It was noted this had been raised with the Chairman outside the meeting. |
|
|
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
To approve the minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record.
Minutes: The following corrections were made to the minutes:
Minute - 49/19 Chairman’s Announcements
3rd paragraph to be changed to:
‘SCC Cabinet would shortly be taking a decision about the future of Wray Park and the closure and relocation of the training facility.’
Minute – 52/19d Petition to change the road layout where Orchard Drive and Cross Oak Lane meet
2nd paragraph to include the addition:
‘She stated the Parish Council had considered the junction could be redesigned whilst maintaining its integrity and not compromising its over-riding function of preventing traffic avoiding the A23 through rat-running.’
Minute – 55/19 Annual Parking Review
Point 2 to be amended as follows:
‘Carlton Road - A full review of the entire road was agreed with Mr Rikki Hill owing to the potential removal of a planning condition with regard to St Bedes School Planning Permission for the construction of a new classroom block. The building had now been completed, so it was imperative that a review is carried out so that additional measures can be implemented.’
On review of this by the Parking Project Team Leader after the meeting, it was determined the amendment was not a true record of what was said and therefore no amendment should be made to the minutes.
Subject to the above amendments, the minutes were agreed as a true and accurate record of the meeting.
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
PETITIONS
To receive any petitions in accordance with Standing Order 68. Notice should be given in writing or by email to the Community Partnership and Committee Officer at least 14 days before the meeting. Alternatively, the petition can be submitted on-line through Surrey County Council’s e-petitions website as long as the minimum number of signatures (30) has been reached 14 days before the meeting.
Minutes: One petition was received.
|
|
|
PETITION TO: INTRODUCE 20 MPH SPEED RESTRICTIONS ON ROUNDWOOD WAY, BANSTEAD
The full wording of the petition and officer comment will be published within the supplementary agenda. Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers Attending: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager, SCC
Petitions, Public Questions and Statements: The petition and officer response was published within the supplementary agenda.
Mrs Ward attended the meeting to address her concerns about the speed of vehicles down the road. She stated that the road was bendy in nature and often drivers would not change their speed to reflect this. She added the road was a popular cut through to avoid traffic lights and that accidents were a frequent occurrence. Mrs Ward noted she had two children and given there were two schools in the vicinity there were other parents who were concerned about their children’s safety.
The officer response that had been received was appreciated but Mrs Ward did question whether the handheld speed device was the most effective way to measure speed; arguing that perhaps a seven day average would provide more meaningful results.
Key points from the discussion:
·
The divisional member agreed with the comments put forward by Mrs
Ward and noted that both schools (infant and junior) should be
taken in to account when any assessment took place. It was
confirmed that the Road Safety Outside Schools Assessment which was
planned for Autumn 2019 would take in to account the whole road and
not just the area directly outside the school. · Members questioned whether any signage could be added to indicate there were schools in the area. The Area Highways Manager (AHM) confirmed there should be signage in place but checks would be made first to ensure this was the case.
Resolution:
The Local Committee agreed to note:
i)
The
officers comment ii) That Surrey County Council’s Safer Travel Team will carry out a road safety assessment as set out in the policy in the Autumn Term of 2019. The results of the assessment will be reported to the Local Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman and the divisional Member.
|
|
|
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.
All written public questions received before the deadline will be published along with the response in the supplementary agenda.
Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager, SCC
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: The question and officer response was published within the supplementary agenda.
Mr Thrilwall attended the meeting and asked the following supplementary question.
The response I have received from officers refers me to the Highways England (HE) website which as a response is very vague and unhelpful. The residents believe the scheme should be stopped. Kate Jackson, HE in her correspondence with residents refers to consultations with SCC but there is nothing available for the public to view. Can we have a proper response to the matters asked in the question?
Key points from the discussion:
·
It was noted that the A23 was a trunk road that was managed by HE
and therefore any decisions about works happening on the road were
outside the remit of the local committee and Surrey Highways. That
was therefore why the response provided was in relation to a
freedom of information request to gather the sought after
information. · Members of the local committee suggested that a response to the question would be best answered by the SCC Cabinet Member for Highways. It was requested that the question therefore be passed on to him for answering. |
|
|
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.
All written member questions received before the deadline will be published along with the response in the supplementary agenda.
Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager, SCC
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: The question and officer response was provided within the supplementary agenda.
Mr Essex asked the following supplementary question.
Thank you for the response, if I were to go back to the head teacher at the Warwick School may they have the formal assessment done to see about adoption?
Key points from the discussion:
· The AHM confirmed it was an expensive process to get a road adopted, but if the school decided they wanted to do this they could put in the application, pay for the assessment and the road could be adopted.
|
|
|
LOCAL COMMITTEE COMMUNITY SAFETY FUNDING [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR DECISION]
The local committee has a delegated budget of £3,000 for community safety projects in 2019/20. This report sets out the process by which this funding should be allocated to the Community Safety Partnership and/or other local community organisations that promote the safety and wellbeing of residents. The report also provides a progress update regarding last year’s funding.
Decision: The Local Committee (Reigate & Banstead) agreed that:
i.
The committee’s delegated community safety
budget of £3,000 for 2019/20 be retained by the Community
ii.
Authority be delegated to the Community Safety
Manager, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the
local committee and divisional members as appropriate, to authorise
the expenditure of the community safety budget in accordance with
the criteria and principles stated in section 3 of this
report. iii. The committee receives updates on the project(s) that are funded, the outcomes and the impact it has achieved.
The
Local Committee (Reigate & Banstead) noted: iv. The update from the YMCA East Surrey regarding the use of the funds in 2018-19 and SCC Community Safety Manager response.
Reason for decisions
The above decisions were made to set out a process for allocating the committee’s delegated community safety budget of £3,000 to local organisations. Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Gordon Falconer, Community Safety Manager, SCC
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None
The Community Safety Manager introduced the report noting that since the publication of the report, further enquiries has been made with the recipient of the funding to investigate the lack of expenditure for 2018/19. It was confirmed that there had been an issue with staffing; an employee had left and recruitment was needed to continue the work. It was reported however that the recruitment had since taken place and almost all the money allocated in 2018/19 had been spent.
The Community Safety Manager made the amendment that in recommendation i) of the report, it should read Community Safety Team and not Community Partnership Team.
Key points from the discussion:
·
Members noted
that in previous years the Community Safety money had been
allocated to the East Community Safety Partnership (ECSP) to enable
a greater amount of work in a larger area than just Reigate &
Banstead. The work still had a significant impact on residents
living in the borough though. The Community Safety Manager stated
that other boroughs in Surrey had previously pooled funds to make
it go further, he added there was large scope for what community
safety projects could be funded.
·
It
was noted by members there was a concern over the spending of funds
from 2018/19 and whether measures were in place for 2019/20 to
ensure the expenditure took place in good time. It was confirmed
there was a new application form this year and the timescales would
be clearly laid out. It was noted that the plan for this year was
to award the funding in September 2019; allowing enough time for
full spend by the end of the financial year. · Some members continued to raise concerns over the monitoring of the spending, stating they needed certainty the funds would be spent in the given time. Other members urged their colleagues to not delay in agreeing the recommendations, as this would have led to further delays and the likelihood of the funding not being spent.
· It was suggested the application form should include a focus on partnership working; asking applicants about the groups they hoped to work with on their projects. This would ensure resources were used efficiently and duplication of work was avoided.
The Local Committee (Reigate & Banstead) agreed that:
i.
The committee’s delegated community safety
budget of £3,000 for 2019/20 be retained by the Community
ii.
Authority be delegated to the Community Safety
Manager, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the
local committee and divisional members as appropriate, to authorise
the expenditure of the community safety budget in accordance with
the criteria and principles stated in section 3 of this
report. iii. The committee receives updates ... view the full minutes text for item 9/19 |
|
|
REPRESENTATION ON TASK GROUPS AND EXTERNAL BODIES [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR DECISION]
The Local Committee (Reigate & Banstead) is asked to review and agree the terms of reference and membership of task groups set by the Committee.
Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Reigate & Banstead) agreed:
i.
The terms of reference for the Parking Task Group
and the membership of this task group as set out in Annex 1
with the addition of Cllr Ritter, Mrs
Bramhall, Cllr Turner, Mr Gulati, Cllr Sachdeva, Cllr Blacker and
Cllr Whinney ii. The terms of reference for the Greater Redhill Sustainable Transport Task Group and the membership of this task group as set out in Annex 1 with the addition of Cllr Sachdeva, Cllr Blacker, Cllr Schofield and Mr Essex.
iii. The nominations to outside bodies (Community Safety Partnership) as set out in Annex 1.
The
Local Committee (Reigate & Banstead) noted: iv. That the representative nominated by the committee in June 2018 (Kay Hammond) will remain as the local committee representative on the Early Help Advisory Board pending review of this board (Paragraphs 2.7 – 2.8 of this report).
Reason for decisions
The above decisions were made in order to update the list of representatives on Task Groups andnominations to outside bodies. Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Jess Edmundson, Partnership Committee Officer, SCC
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None
The Partnership Committee Officer introduced the report, asking for additional nominations for the various task groups.
The Local Committee (Reigate & Banstead) agreed:
i.
The terms of reference for the Parking Task Group
and the membership of this task group as set out in Annex 1 with
the addition of Cllr Ritter, Mrs Bramhall, Cllr Turner, Mr Gulati,
Cllr Sachdeva, Cllr Blacker and Cllr Whinney ii. The terms of reference for the Greater Redhill Sustainable Transport Task Group and the membership of this task group as set out in Annex 1 with the addition of Cllr Sachdeva, Cllr Blacker, Cllr Schofield and Mr Essex.
iii. The nominations to outside bodies (Community Safety Partnership) as set out in Annex 1.
The
Local Committee (Reigate & Banstead) noted: iv. That the representative nominated by the committee in June 2018 (Kay Hammond) will remain as the local committee representative on the Early Help Advisory Board pending review of this board (Paragraphs 2.7 – 2.8 of this report).
Reason for decisions
The above decisions were made in order to update the list of representatives on Task Groups andnominations to outside bodies. |
|
|
HIGHWAYS SCHEMES UPDATE [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR INFORMATION]
To inform the Local Committee on the progress of the 2019/20 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 Severe Weather Recovery Programme, the Greater Redhill STP, Chetwode Road, centrally funded maintenance and the A23 Resilience Project.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager, SCC
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None
The Area Highways Manager (AHM) introduced the report adding there were no decisions for the committee to make and the report was for noting.
Key points from the discussion:
·
The AHM thanked members who had taken the time to go out and meet
with the new Maintenance Engineer and urged anyone who
hadn’t, to do so. ·
Several members questioned the AHM about specific scheme details
that were listed in the report. ·
Members raised concerns about work being allocated to the Revenue
Maintenance Gang, stating they and their residents were requesting
work and not receiving a confirmation of the requests or schemes
that were on the list. They also said they didn’t know when
any work had been completed. The AHM confirmed the Maintenance
Engineer would shortly be sending members a document of works
completed and outstanding. She hoped this would then make things
clearer for members. · There was some confusion over the various scheme lists and the work that appeared on each. The AHM confirmed the map on the horizon web page should include all programmed works. It was confirmed that the Asset Management Team were likely to attend a future local committee informal meeting to discuss with members about the prioritisation of work and various scheme lists.
Resolution:
The local committee noted the contents of the report. |
|
Surrey County Council has developed proposals for a scheme to improve the A23 Three Arch Road and Maple Road junction.
The A23 Three Arch Road and Maple Road junction currently suffers from major congestion which causes severe queues and traffic delays. The proposed scheme is expected to reduce congestion and delays to benefit all traffic including private vehicles and buses. The scheme would also provide improved crossings for pedestrians and cyclists.
We consulted publicly on the proposals between 1 November 2018 and 6 January 2019. A questionnaire was provided for the public and interested organisations and groups to provide their views.
We have analysed the consultation responses to understand level of support for the scheme and understand common issues raised which may be taken into account, where possible, in the detailed design phase of the scheme.
The purpose of this paper is to update all members of the Local Committee with regard to the outcomes of the consultation. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Neil McClure, Transport Strategy Project Manager
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: The chairman reminded members that information with regards to the A23 Three Arch Road junction had previously been received by the committee, and lengthy discussions had occurred. She requested members to only ask questions or make comment on information that was new.
Key points from the discussion:
· Members commented that they were supportive of the scheme but noted the estimated costs of £2.8 - £3.3 million and questioned what money was already in place and how much was needed to be found. It was confirmed that approximately 2/3 of the funding had been found and the Coast2Capital Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) advised funding was likely to become available this year for schemes that were in a position to go ahead. These schemes must have already had 50% of the total funding in place.
· A question was asked about the timescales of the project. The information on this was provided to the local committee in September 2018 and can be found within those agenda papers.
· Concerns were raised over the proposal for the removal of the parking bays on the A23 and the impact this would have on the residents who used and needed them. It was confirmed that although some residents were against the removal there was also a lot of support for their removal. It was stated that without the removal and implementation of two lanes of traffic the scheme would be unable to provide its full benefits. It was confirmed that efforts were being made to look at suitable alternatives to the current parking bays.
· A question was raised about the consideration given to pedestrians and cyclists using the junction as the focus was very much on improving the junction for vehicles. It was confirmed that the aim of the scheme was to increase the capacity at the junction as the need for the junction was there. Consideration was being given to connections in and around the junction too.
Resolution:
The Local Committee (Reigate & Banstead) noted the results of the analysis of the public engagement on the proposed A23 Three Arch Road junction improvement scheme. |
|
|
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’.
Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Jess Edmundson, Partnership Committee Officer, SCC
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None
Key points from the discussion:
·
A question was raised with regards to Frenches Road petition
showing as ‘open’ on the tracker. The action column
seemed to indicate there was no action to take place as the item
was now on the Integrated Transport Scheme (ITS) list. It was
questioned whether this would then remain on the list as open until
it took place. The AHM confirmed there were two ITS lists –
the long list that contained all schemes and a short list that
contained the schemes the local committee agree on each October, to
be prioritised in the next financial year. This scheme was
currently sat on the long ITS list. · A question was raised about the length of time the advertising of any Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) was taking following the agreement from the local committee in March 2019 as part of the parking review. It was confirmed that this was a normal amount of time and in previous years the process had taken 18 months – 2 years to complete.
Resolution:
The local committee noted the decision tracker and agreed to remove all items marked as ‘complete’ and highlighted in grey.
|
|
|
FORWARD PLAN [FOR INFORMATION]
The Local Committee (Reigate and Banstead) will note the contents of the forward plan. Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Jess Edmundson, Partnership Committee Officer, SCC
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None
Key points from the discussion:
·
Members requested that an item on Youth Service Provision be
brought to a future local committee meeting. It was suggested that
this may be best provided at an informal meeting first. · Members questioned why the forward plan didn’t include items for informal meetings. It was confirmed that only the formal meeting, where members of the public could attend, were made public but the informal forward plan could be circulated to the local committee outside the meeting if they’d like to see it.
Resolution:
The local committee noted the forward plan of items expected to be received at future meetings. |