Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 458 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 | |
|---|---|---|
|
OPEN FORUM SESSION No members of the public attended to ask a question during the open forum session. |
||
|
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS The Chairman gave the following announcements:
·
Pre-election period – We are
currently in the pre-election period and I am to remind all members
that whilst the committee’s business may continue, I would
ask everyone to ensure they focus on the business at hand, and to
please steer clear of entering into a political
discussion. ·
New Task Group and Local Partnership
Boards (LPB’s) - Members will
recall we talked about the need for positive and collaborative
action on sustainable travel, cycling and air quality, and we had
proposed setting up a task group through the local committee.
Given that air quality, cycling and sustainable
transport are priorities for both the borough council and for the
county council, as well as partners in Health, it therefore seems
to be an opportunity for this cross-cutting priority to feed into
the new partnership board as a first area of focus, starting in the
new year. This will enable us to take a joined up approach across
all relevant bodies, to secure the necessary officer time and
energies, and to develop a plan of action. I fully expect the local
committee to be able to feed into this piece of work going
forwards, and will be liaising with officers to secure a discussion
for us all on the new board and how we can support this new
partnership model early in the new year. ·
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) - At the informal meeting in October we talked
about some of the bids for CIL funding that SCC had applied to RBBC
for. We haven’t yet heard the outcome of these bids but as
soon as I have formal notice of any decision I will circulate this
to the committee. ·
Members Highways Funding – I
am pleased to report that all monies allocated to members for
2019-20 to spend on highways bar £35 has been committed or
spent. ·
Members Community Allocation (MCA) – There are members that still have some MCA to
spend in this year. A reminder that the deadline for this is 31
January 2020. If people wish to commit some money to the Junior
Citizens Award it’s still possible to do so. Please let me
know. ·
M25 J8 Improvements Work – Since I last updated you there has been no
further update on these works and they are still scheduled to begin
in January 2020. If I hear anything else I will let the committee
know.
|
||
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies were received from Cllr Michael Blacker, Cllr Kanika Sachdeva and Cllr Christopher Whinney. |
||
|
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
To approve the minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record.
Minutes: The minutes from the meeting on 9 September 2019 were agreed as a true record and signed by the Chairman. |
||
|
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: Ms Thomson declared an interest in item 7. As the divisional member who had shown a lot of support publically for the application she believed she could not evidence she had come to the meeting with an open mind and therefore would abstain from the discussion and vote.
There were no other declarations of interest. |
||
|
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: There were two petitions received before the deadline. |
||
The full wording of the petition and officer response will be provided within the supplementary agenda. Decision: The
Local Committee agreed:
i.
To note the officer’s comment ii. That a proposed scheme for a formal pedestrian crossing where National Cycle Network Route 21 crosses Wheatfield Way be added to the Integrated Transport Scheme (ITS) List for consideration for future funding.
Reason for decision:
The above decision was made to enable the scheme to be included on the ITS to be considered for implementation when funding becomes available. Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None Officers Attending: Anne-Marie Hannam, Senior Traffic Engineer (STE), SCC
The lead petitioner, Ms Diana Udul was unable to attend the meeting and nominated Mr Martin Saunders to speak on her behalf. Mr Saunders addressed the committee with his concerns detailing that the current informal crossing was confusing due the raised table. It was unclear, particularly for children who should stop – the vehicles in the road or the pedestrians and cyclists trying to cross Wheatfield Way. A formal crossing would help and shouldn’t be too difficult or expensive to achieve.
Key points from the discussion:
·
The divisional member gave his full support to the
residents and the petition; agreeing that it caused much confusion
and adding that the bendy nature of the road exacerbated the
problem. He asked what the exact cost of a formalised crossing
would be.
·
The STE confirmed it wasn’t possible to give
an exact figure at this moment for a formalised crossing but a
zebra crossing on average cost around £70,000.
·
Other local members were supportive of the petition
as it appeared to be the obvious place on the road to include a
crossing.
·
It was suggested better signage could be included to
make the footpath more obvious and apparent to vehicles using the
road. However it was noted that there were limitations to what
signage could be introduced. · The committee recognised there could be smaller pieces of work that could be completed to help alleviate some of the problems associated with the footpath crossing the road and asked officers to take a look at these.
Resolution:
The
Local Committee agreed:
i.
To note the officer’s comment ii. That a proposed scheme for a formal pedestrian crossing where National Cycle Network Route 21 crosses Wheatfield Way be added to the Integrated Transport Scheme (ITS) List for consideration for future funding.
Reason for decision:
The above decision was made to enable the scheme to be included on the ITS to be considered for implementation when funding becomes available. |
||
The full wording of the petition and officer response will be provided within the supplementary agenda.
Decision:
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. The outcome of the safety assessment being reported to the school and local divisional member as well as the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the local committee, containing the results of the road safety education assessment and a description of any potential highway improvements and estimated costs.
Reason for decisions:
The above decisions were made to enable the SCC Safer Travel Team to conduct a Road Safety Outside Schools Assessment and report back their findings and recommendations for improvements that could be implemented, if appropriate. Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None Officers Attending: Anne-Marie Hannam, Senior Traffic Engineer (STE), SCC
The lead petitioner Ms Claire Mehrai attended the meeting and addressed the committee with details of the petition. She made the point that improving safety along the route to St Anne’s Catholic Primary School would also be of benefit to children travelling to other schools in the vicinity. She added there was some signage in place to notify vehicles of the short 20mph zone outside the school; this however was currently covered in foliage so couldn’t be easily seen. The problem of cars parking right outside the school made it difficult with children often having to cross unsafely between cars, where visibility was poor.
Key points from the discussion:
·
The divisional member expressed support for the
petition in principle, noting the area was particularly busy at
school drop off and pick up time when the roads were also busy with
commuter traffic. · Other members suggested that a pedestrian controlled crossing could be a solution as well as parking measures. It was confirmed that the issue with introducing parking measures was that they were hard to enforce particularly as the issue only occurred for a short period during each school day.
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. The outcome of the safety assessment being reported to the school and local divisional member as well as the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the local committee, containing the results of the road safety education assessment and a description of any potential highway improvements and estimated costs.
Reason for decisions:
The above decisions were made to enable the SCC Safer Travel Team to conduct a Road Safety Outside Schools Assessment and report back their findings and recommendations for improvements that could be implemented, if appropriate. |
||
|
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: Declarations of Interest: None Officers Attending: Anne-Marie Hannam, Senior Traffic Engineer (STE), SCC
The questioner, Katie Fulbrook attended but did not ask any supplementary questions.
Key points from the discussion:
·
The divisional member asked what the timescale for
getting the traffic lights fixed was. She noted she had previously
reported this on numerous occasions and it had not yet been fixed
and was causing delays at the junction.
·
Other members of the committee were in agreement
that the traffic lights needed to be treated as a matter of urgency
and not as a routine job.
·
It was suggested that the Chairman write directly to
the Cabinet Member for Highways to address the concerns of the
committee and request urgent action be taken as it was causing
considerable delay at a busy junction and affecting emergency
service vehicles accessing the East Surrey Hospital.
·
It was suggested the questions asked by the resident
were in relation to how the Three Arch Junction would operate after
the improvements were made and not how it currently operated which
had already been established was insufficient. · The Chairman suggested inviting the officers and project team involved with the Three Arch Road improvements to the next Local Committee Informal meeting and then to a future formal meeting to provide an update on where the project was at.
|
||
|
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. Minutes: None were received. |
||
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: Ms Barbara
Thomson declared an interest. As divisional member she had
publically supported the applicant’s request and therefore
would abstain from the vote. Officers Attending: Daniel Williams, Countryside Access Officer, SCC
There were no speakers in support of the application.
Mr John English, Broadhaven Estates attended to speak in objection to the application and had three minutes to do so.
He made the following points:
·
Broadhaven Estates owned part of the land that the
path in question crossed.
·
It was believed that people had presumed because
Broadhaven Estates hadn’t physically stopped people using the
path it was a suggestion they were supportive of its use as a
public right of way. · When Broadhaven Estates bought the land in 2013 they made their intention known to the planning authority that they planned to move the footpath from across their land to the edge.
After Mr English had spoken the Chairman noted that he had been made aware by the Countryside Access Officer that some of the points made by Mr English were new ones that had no previously been submitted during the consultation and could therefore not be considered by the committee when making their decision.
Mrs Pauline Young, the applicant attended the meeting and had three minutes to respond to the comments made by Mr English.
She made the following
points: ·
Much of what had just been said by Mr English was
new information she had not previously heard before. ·
She had been using the footpath since the mid
1950’s and argued this was sufficient to establish it as a
right of way. ·
She noted that there was no objection to the new
footpath proposed by Broadhaven Estates but it was her
understanding that the right of way needed to exist in the first
place before it could be considered to be moved. · The main reason for submitting the application was to ensure access to and from the estate remained as it was used daily by many people including school children attending Reigate School.
The Countryside Access Officer then introduced the report stating there had been no challenge to the usage until 2017 and the 20 year period of undisputed usage ran backwards from then to 1997.
Key points from the discussion:
·
The divisional member spoke on behalf of the borough
councillors who were unable to attend to indicate their support as
the path was well used by many people. ·
Some members expressed sympathy towards Broadhaven
Estates as at the time of making the planning application in early
2017 there was no right of way established or application until
mid-late 2017. · Members were advised that the introduction of a new path, the surface of the route in question and signage were irrelevant to the determination of the route being a right of way. As even without the path being surfaced and signed it could still exist as a right of way.
Resolution:
The local committee voted by a show of hands ... view the full minutes text for item 35/19 |
||
|
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 Major Scheme work, including the centrally funded major maintenance works, the Greater Redhill STP and the A23 Resilience Project.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None Officers Attending: Anne-Marie Hannam, Senior Traffic Engineer (STE), SCC
Key points from the discussion:
·
A query was raised about the Horizons programme;
questioning why only certain areas appeared to have footways that
were scheduled for work. The STE confirmed that the Horizon
programme was coordinated by a different team and the assessment
process considered the usage as well as the condition.
·
It appeared to some members that Slipshatch Road could be an issue with the
maintenance of the road surface and verge associated with erosion
caused by water runoff. It was confirmed it was not a maintenance
issue and the design team would be looking at it.
·
The CIL Panel at Reigate & Banstead Borough
Council had met last week to discuss bids put forward for
neighbourhood CIL. Informally it was confirmed that none of the
projects listed in the report were to be considered at this time
for funding. · With regards to the Chetwode Road improvements it was noted that Raven Housing had agreed some small amendments to the proposals.
Resolution:
The local committee noted the contents of the report.
|
||
|
HIGHWAYS SCHEMES FORWARD PROGRAMME 2020-21 AND 2021-22 [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR DECISION]
This report seeks approval of a programme of highway works for Reigate and Banstead funded from the Local Committee’s delegated capital and revenue budgets.
Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee agreed:
General
i.
To note that the Local Committee’s devolved
highways budget for capital works in 2019/20, subject to approval
by full Council on 10 December 2019, is £211,111
ii.
That the devolved capital budget for highway works
be used to progress both capital improvement schemes and capital
maintenance schemes.
iii.
To note
that should there be any changes to the programme of highway works
as set out in this report, a report will be taken to a future
meeting of Reigate and Banstead Local Committee to inform members
of the changes. Capital Improvement Schemes (ITS)
iv.
That the
capital improvement schemes allocation for Reigate and Banstead be
used to progress the Integrated Transport Schemes programme set out
in Annex 1;
v.
To authorise that the Area Highway Manager, in
consultation with the Local Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman,
be able to vire money between the
schemes agreed in Annex 1, if required;
vi.
That the
Local Committee Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Area Team Manager,
together with the local divisional Member are able to progress any
scheme from the Integrated Transport Schemes programme, including
consultation and statutory advertisement that may be required under
the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, for completion of those
schemes. Where it is agreed that a scheme will not be progressed,
this will be reported back to the next formal meeting of the Local
Committee for approval. Capital Maintenance Schemes (LSR)
vii.
That the capital maintenance schemes allocation for
Reigate and Banstead be divided equitably between County
Councillors to carry out capital maintenance works in their
divisions, and that the schemes to be progressed be agreed by
divisional members in consultation with the Area Maintenance
Engineer. Revenue Maintenance
viii.
To note that members will continue to receive a
Member Local Highways Fund allocation of £7,500 per county
member to address highway issues in their division; and ix. That the Member Local Highways Fund be managed by the Area Maintenance Engineer on behalf of and in consultation with members.
Reason for decisions:
The above decisions were made to agree a forward programme of highways works in Reigate and Banstead for 2020/21 – 2021/22, funded from the Local Committee’s devolved budget. Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None Officers Attending: Anne-Marie Hannam, Senior Traffic Engineer (STE), SCC
Resolution:
The Local Committee agreed:
General
i.
To note that the Local Committee’s devolved
highways budget for capital works in 2019/20, subject to approval
by full Council on 10 December 2019, is £211,111
ii.
That the devolved capital budget for highway works
be used to progress both capital improvement schemes and capital
maintenance schemes.
iii.
To note that should there be any changes to the
programme of highway works as set out in this report, a report will
be taken to a future meeting of Reigate and Banstead Local
Committee to inform members of the changes. Capital Improvement Schemes (ITS)
iv.
That the capital improvement schemes allocation for
Reigate and Banstead be used to progress the Integrated Transport
Schemes programme set out in Annex 1;
v.
To authorise that the Area Highway Manager, in
consultation with the Local Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman,
be able to vire money between the
schemes agreed in Annex 1, if required;
vi.
That the Local Committee Chairman, Vice-Chairman and
Area Team Manager, together with the local divisional Member are
able to progress any scheme from the Integrated Transport Schemes
programme, including consultation and statutory advertisement that
may be required under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, for
completion of those schemes. Where it is agreed that a scheme will
not be progressed, this will be reported back to the next formal
meeting of the Local Committee for approval. Capital Maintenance Schemes (LSR)
vii.
That the capital maintenance schemes allocation for
Reigate and Banstead be divided equitably between County
Councillors to carry out capital maintenance works in their
divisions, and that the schemes to be progressed be agreed by
divisional members in consultation with the Area Maintenance
Engineer. Revenue Maintenance
viii.
To note that members will continue to receive a
Member Local Highways Fund allocation of £7,500 per county
member to address highway issues in their division; and ix. That the Member Local Highways Fund be managed by the Area Maintenance Engineer on behalf of and in consultation with members.
Reason for decisions:
The above decisions were made to agree a forward programme of highways works in Reigate and Banstead for 2020/21 – 2021/22, funded from the Local Committee’s devolved budget. |
||
|
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: The local committee noted the decision tracker. |
||
|
FORWARD PLAN [FOR INFORMATION]
The Local Committee (Reigate and Banstead) will note the contents of the forward plan. Minutes: The local committee noted the forward plan and asked for an update on the Libraries Transformation Consultation to be received at the next informal meeting in January 2020. |