Councillors and committees

Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, Elmbridge Civic Centre, High Street, Esher, KT10 9SD. View directions

Contact: Damian Markland, Community Partnership & Committee Officer  Elmbridge Civic Centre, High Street, Esher, KT10 9SD

Items
No. Item

33.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

    • Share this item

    To receive any apologies for absence and notices of substitutions from Borough members under Standing Order 39.

    Minutes:

    Apologies for absence were received from County Councillors Mike Bennison, Peter Hickman, Nigel Cooper, Tony Samuels, Ernest Mallet, and Borough Councillors Barry Fairbank, Ramon Gray, Peter Harman and Neil Luxton.

     

    Borough Councillor Chris Sadler substituted for Borough Councillor Peter Harman.

34.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

    • Share this item

    To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.

     

    Notes:

     

    ·         In line with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, declarations may relate to the interest of the member, or the member’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom the member is living as husband or wife, or a person with whom the member is living as if they were civil partners and the member is aware they have the interest.

     

    ·         Members need only disclose interests not currently listed on the Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests.

     

    ·         Members must notify the Monitoring Officer of any interests disclosed at the meeting so they may be added to the Register.

     

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

    Minutes:

    No interests were declared.

35.

CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

    • Share this item

    To receive any Chairman’s announcements.

    Minutes:

    No announcements were made.

36.

PETITIONS & LETTERS OF REPRESENTATION

    • Share this item

    To receive any petitions in accordance with Standing Order 65 or letters of representation in accordance with the Local Protocol. An officer response will be provided to each petition / letter of representation.

    Minutes:

    No petitions or letters of representation were received.

37.

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

    • Share this item

    To receive any questions from Surrey County Council electors within the Elmbridge area in accordance with Standing Order 66.

    Minutes:

    No public questions were received.

38.

MEMBER QUESTION TIME

    • Share this item

    To receive any written questions from Members under Standing Order 47.

    Minutes:

    No Member questions were received.

39.

A307 TARTAR HILL PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PROPOSALS FOLLOWING THE REMOVAL OF TARTAR HILL FOOTBRIDGE pdf icon PDF 116 KB

    • Share this item

    The local committee (elmbridge) is asked to consider and comment on the solution being put forward.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The Local Committee received a report from the North East Area Team Manager which set out alternative pedestrian crossing facilities along the A307, Portsmouth Road, following the removal of Tartar Hill Footbridge.

     

    The North East Area Team Manager, Nick Healey, explained that Tartar Hill Footbridge had been removed after it had sustained significant damage in January 2012 and that new crossing facilities were now required. The matter had previously been considered by the Local Committee in July 2012 and Members had, at the time, supported the introduction of a controlled pedestrian crossing facility. However, following a full analysis of the situation, the County Council’s highway engineers had proposed alternative crossing facilities that would help ensure the safety of both pedestrians and motorists.

     

    The North East Area Team Manager outlined the proposed crossing, as detailed in section 3.18 of the report. It was explained that the benefits of the proposed scheme were that it not only provided a number of safe crossing points but also addressed the issues of speeding and risky overtaking, both common issues on the stretch of road in question. It was explained that in addition to the introduction of pedestrian refuges, the County Council was also proposing to install rumble strips and ‘slow down’ road markings.

     

    The North East Area Team Manager stated that the original proposal to install a controlled pedestrian crossing was not recommended for the following reasons:

     

    ·         It would only provide a crossing point in a single location whereas, in practice, individuals attempted to cross the road at various points and were unlikely to walk to a controlled pedestrian crossing to do so;

     

    ·         A controlled pedestrian crossing was likely to see little use outside of peak hours. Given that research indicated that motorists were likely to disregard crossings that saw little use, it was felt the introduction of one in this location would provide a false sense of security for pedestrians;

     

    ·         A pedestrian crossing would not allow the County Council to regulate speeds and overtaking on the road.

    It was stressed that if the proposed scheme was implemented, officers would continue to monitor the situation and, should the need arise, could install additional crossing facilities.

     

    Following questions from Members of the Local Committee, the Local Area Highways Manager clarified the following points:

     

    ·         The cost of installing a fully controlled pedestrian crossing would be in the region of £100,000 to £150,000. Structurally speaking, it would take the same amount of time to install as the proposed scheme. However, the legal process for the installation of a controlled pedestrian crossing was more complex and would therefore the scheme as a whole would take more time to implement;

     

    ·         The main concerns raised by members of the public in relation to the proposed scheme were the vulnerability of pedestrians, the ability of children to make use of the crossing facilities, a continued desire for a signalised crossing and worries about speeding vehicles. However, it was felt that the proposed scheme would in fact make pedestrians less vulnerable, particularly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.