Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 623 KBVenue: Council Chamber, Elmbridge Civic Centre, High Street, Esher, KT10 9SD
Contact: Cheryl Poole, Community Partnership & Committee Officer Elmbridge Civic Centre, High Street, Esher, KT10 9SD
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Mr Ernest Mallett, Cllr Brian Fairclough, Cllr John O’Reilly and Cllr Peter Szanto. |
|
|
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
To approve the Minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 8th June were approved subject to the following amendment: ‘Mrs Nockles, a petitioner, made a statement at this point’ to be added in immediately before the paragraph starting ‘To help resolve...’ in section 27/15. |
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
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: There were no declarations of interest. |
|
|
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
To receive any Chairman’s announcements. Minutes: The Chairman updated the Local Committee on the applications from organisations in Elmbridge borough which had been received by the SCC Community Improvements Fund. The decisions on the successful applications will be known in October. She encouraged other organisations to bid for similar funding in the future. |
|
|
LOCAL COMMITTEE DECISION TRACKER (FOR INFORMATION)
This document provides an update on the decisions made at previous meetings of the Elmbridge Local Committee starting from June 2015. Minutes: The updates on the Local Committee Decision tracker were noted. |
|
To receive any petitions in accordance with Standing Order 68. Notice should be given in writing or by e-mail 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.
The following petitions have been received:
1.
A petition requesting a change to the traffic flow in Faulkners Road, Hersham
2.
A petition requesting residents parking permits in Faulkners Road, Hersham 3. A petition requesting the proposed changes for youth provision in Claygate to be reconsidered
Minutes: Three petitions had been received.
Details of the petitions are attached at Annex A.
Request to change traffic flow in Faulkners Road
1. Jan Roberts, a resident of Faulkners Road, spoke on behalf of the petition to change the traffic flow in Faulkners Road. She explained that there had been an increase in the amount of traffic, often travelling at dangerous speeds turning into Faulkners Road, often unnecessarily due to the incorrect guidance of SATNAVs, and that the narrow road with cars parked on both sides increased the potential for accidents.
She added that an one way system along Faulkers Road from Burwood Road had been proposed but this would not have helped prevent the volume of traffic, but that creating a no left turn from Burwood Road and a no right turn from Queens Road would not hinder residents, but would stop the road being used as a ‘cut through’.
She said the road was used by a lot of families to access the green, the playground and the church hall so the road needed to be made safer for everyone.
Request for controlled parking with residents permits in Faulkners Road
2. Cyatana Curham, a resident of Faulkners Road, spoke on behalf of the petition explaining that a large number of people who live, work, shop and use the amenities in the area, park in Faulkners Road, some all day and some cars are not moved for weeks. She proposed some solutions to resolve the problem. Residents’ parking from the Queens Road end up to the old St Johns Ambulance building from 7.00 am to 11.00 am and thereafter parking restricted to 2 hours. Beyond the St John’s Ambulance building no restrictions at all with the removal of the yellow marking outside the nursery school.
Cyatana explained the second problem is parking on both sides of this narrow road and on the kerb, which had prevented the refuse lorry from collecting refuse and restricted access to the cottages. She proposed the introduction of double yellow lines on the cottages side up to the St John’s Ambulance building.
Thirdly the petitioners would like a ban on commercial vehicles parking anywhere in Faulkners Road.
The Chairman explained responses to both petitions would be provided at the next meeting, at which point the discussion on the items would be opened up to the whole Committee. She added that she is meeting with the local ward councillors to discuss the second stage of the works in the Burwood Road area.
As the 3rd petition related to Item 9, it was taken with that Item.
|
|
|
PETITION RESPONSE: REQUEST FOR PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ON HURST ROAD (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION)
This report provides a response following a petition by Mr Ralph to the June 2015 meeting of the Local Committee requesting that highway budgets should be allocated to fund a zebra or pelican crossing on the A3050 Hurst Road, West Molesey, outside the new Hurst Park Primary School.
Decision: The Local Committee resolved to:
(i) Fund a feasibility study for a zebra or pelican crossing on the A3050 Hurst Road, West Molesey, outside the new Hurst Park Primary School, in view of an anticipated reduction in the number of pedestrians needing to cross the road at this location, subject to the decision at Item 13, whereby normal practice would be for it to be funded from the local Member’s share of the highways budget.
Reason: to identify whether a crossing in this location would be feasible, should funding for the crossing become available and its implementation be agreed. Minutes: Frank Apicella, the Highways Senior Engineer, introduced the report. He explained it was for the Local Committee to decide whether to fund a feasibility study for the crossing, but he emphasised that there was no guarantee that a crossing would be feasible in the location and it was also reliant on funding being available.
The SCC Councillor, Stuart Selleck, spoke on behalf of the Divisional Member, Ernest Mallett, who had given his apologies for this meeting, offering to allocate £5,000 to fund a feasibility study. Ernest had acknowledged it could be a waste of money as it was possible there would be no funding available for any construction, but crossings are crucial for safety. Cllr Nigel Cooper expressed his support for the suggestion made on behalf of Ernest Mallett. Members expressed concern that the crossing had not been funded as part of the school expansion.
In response to questions from the petitioner, Matt Ralph, it was explained that whether or not all highway works needed to be completed before the school opened, depended on what conditions had been imposed when the planning application had been agreed.
The amendment to the recommendation was proposed by the Chairman, Margaret Hicks, and seconded by both Stuart Selleck and Rachael I Lake. 12 Members of the Committee voted in favour of funding a feasibility study.
The Local Committee resolved to:
(i) Fund a feasibility study for a zebra or pelican crossing on the A3050 Hurst Road, West Molesey, outside the new Hurst Park Primary School, in view of an anticipated reduction in the number of pedestrians needing to cross the road at this location, subject to the decision at Item 13, whereby normal practice would be for it to be funded from the local Member’s share of the highways budget.
Reason: to identify whether a crossing in this location would be feasible, should funding for the crossing become available and its implementation be agreed. |
|
|
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
To answer any questions from residents or businesses within the Elmbridge 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 four working days before the meeting.
Additional documents: Minutes: Four written public questions were received. The questions and responses are attached at Annex B.
1.After considering the response to his question Ken Huddart (Claygate Parish Council) stated that an onstreet survey had been carried out in Claygate and the views were that excessive controls should be avoided and there were concerns about the car park charges. He added that it was thought that the 4 fold increase in the charge for the first 30 minutes would increase on-street parking.
The Chairman said that the issues would be looked into when Claygate was considered in year 2 of the Parking Strategy.
SCC Cllr Peter Hickman expressed the view that the philosophy of parking charges should be considered early in the review. Cllr Dorothy Mitchell reminded the Local Committee that the car parks are the responsibility of Elmbridge Borough Council, which had reviewed their charges and considered them fair and low compared to some areas.
2. Mark Sugden asked as a supplementary question what was going to happen in November 2015 as EBC had given one year’s notice on both the Dittons and Claygate Children’s Centres in November 2014, expressing the consternation of the local residents as there appears to be no sign of any end result.
The Chairman explained that the Committee really did not have any further information, no decision had been made and that the communities would know as soon as possible.
3.Chris Evans, (Chairman of Beechwood RA) asked whether the Local Committee had seen the briefing note he had sent with his question. As an error had been made and officers had not considered the contents of the note before preparing their response, the question was deferred to the following meeting.
Question 4 was linked to Item 12 so was taken at that Item. |
|
|
MEMBER QUESTION TIME
To receive any written questions from Members under Standing Order 47. Minutes: No Member questions were received. |
|
|
CHANGES TO THE COMMUNITY YOUTH WORK SERVICE IN ELMBRIDGE (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION)
This paper seeks the approval of the Local Committee for the proposals which Services for Young People is making for changes to how Community Youth Work is delivered in Elmbridge. These changes are designed so that the Community Youth Work Service (CYWS) is able to deliver youth work in areas where there is the greatest need of supporting young people into employability.
Decision: The Local Committee resolved to agree:
(i) The below proposals set out in 3.1 as formal guidance for the Community Youth Work Service.
Reason: These changes are designed to: enable the Community Youth Work Service (CYWS) to better support the Council’s strategic goal of employability for young people; implement a County Council Cabinet steer to allocate more of our resources to the areas of greatest need; and respond positively to an overall funding reduction of 11% for Community Youth Work across Surrey. Minutes: Jeremy Crouch, Community Youth Work Service Practice Lead, introduced the report. The main direction for SCC Services for Young People is to support as many young people as possible into employability. To achieve this aim the service needs to place its resources (youth workers) where there are the most young people who are NEET. In Elmbridge this means extending the reach of the work and delivering in new places.
The proposals went out to public consultation from 29 June to 21 August 2015. 3 public consultation events were held and an online consultation was available. The service listened to the feedback and made some adjustments.
Jeremy explained that where less youth work was being proposed this would be a phased approach and places would not be left without any provision. For example in Claygate a long transition, with a staged approach, was planned to mitigate against any lack of support.
Nick Bragger, Senior Practitioner, explained how the areas of highest need were identified including the data that was used.
At this point Mark Sugden, the Chairman of Claygate Parish Council, was invited to present his petition, detailed in Annex A. He explained that he had visited the youth club, which currently open 3 evenings per week, a number of times recently and it was always busy, providing an important facility for local young people.
He added that Elmbridge actually had received an increase of 5% in its budget and yet Claygate was being decimated with a reduction of 9 to nil hours of SCC paid for youth worker provision with a ‘hope’ to work with the VCFS to provide 1 evening per week. Local residents had expressed extreme concern through the consultation that the young people of Claygate were being neglected in favour of young people elsewhere in the borough and that there was the potential for an increase in ASB. Mark read out the comments of a two young people and closed by urging the Committee to review the proposal in order to provide a fairer more reasonable provision for Claygate.
The Local Committee Members’ comments included:
· Agreement with basing the resource allocation on evidence · Concern that the ‘hub & spoke’ system was new and hadn’t been tested · Request for details of the current youth provision from youth centres in Elmbridge · Details of how youth work has been successfully provided by voluntary groups in other areas of the borough
Two Claygate ward councillors were allowed share their concern.
In response to questions Jeremy Crouch confirmed he would circulate the current provision, reassured the new proposals would be monitored and that they would consider different organisations coming together to provide youth work. He also explained that any group delivering youth work linked to SCC, must remain neutral and cannot be seen to be advancing their cause. In addition SCC would support the transition to provision by other groups, so hopefully there would not be any loss in provision by the time the transition was complete.
Mike Bennison, the ... view the full minutes text for item 44/15 |
|
This report updates the Local Committee on how Services for Young People has supported young people to develop their employability during 2014/15, which is the overall goal of Services for Young People.
Additional documents: Minutes: Emily Pentland, the YSS Team Manager, Elmbridge introduced the report, which was to update the Local Committee on how the Services for Young People had supported young people to be employable during 2014/15.
She explained how although the number of NEETs had increased since 2014 the trend since 2013 generally was downwards. The Optin programme which aimed to get young people ready for work had helped many young people into work, college or other purposeful activity. Together with the Family Support Programme the team had run the Sliding Doors Programme which teaches young people how to protect themselves from Child Sexual Exploitation. She continued that for young people with significant additional needs they joined forces with Walton Charity to run the Protected Work Placements Scheme and through a short case study demonstrated how it runs and how it can benefit such young people.
Emily informed the Committee about the Streets Apart Project, which was unique to Elmbridge, and how the joint approach has had a positive effect on young people.
Moving on to the Centre Based Youth Work, she explained how 100 more hours of youth work had been delivered in 2014/15 at Molesey Youth Centre and that Walton now had a permanent youth worker and the attendance had increased.
Local Committee Members’ comments and questions included:
· That requests for anger management sessions had been received · As the Surrey economy is growing it seemed strange that the number of NEETs had increased from 2014 to 2015
Officers explained that some group anger management sessions are already being run, that anger management could be an option with 121 work and if it concerns a young person who the service are already dealing with then it would become part of their package. As regards the NEET figures, it is partly the way they are counted, but it is only a snapshot and generally young people are NEET for a shorter time, and the service are working more with those who are long term NEET.
The Local Committee agreed
i) To note How Services for Young People has supported young people to be employable during 2014/15, as set out in the appendix to this report. |
|
|
ELMBRIDGE YOUTH TASK GROUP TERMS OF REFERENCE (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION)
The Local Committee is asked to agree new terms of reference for the youth task group to widen its remit. Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee resolved to agree:
(i) The terms of reference for the Youth Task Group attached in Annex A
Reason: the new terms of reference widen the remit of the task group to allow it to additionally oversee the implementation of the new Joint Youth Strategy. Minutes: Cheryl Poole, the Community Partnership & Committee Officer, introduced the report.
She explained that since 2011 the Youth task group’s role had been to make recommendations to the local committee on youth related matters, mainly on local prevention work and more recently on Community Youth work. However, the work on the Streets Apart report had highlighted the benefits of joined up support for young people, which had led to work to develop a joint youth strategy by SCC and EBC.
As the local committee youth task group was already well established with an equal number of both borough and county councillors it seemed logical to seek to extend its remit.
It remains a non decision making group, which will monitor the youth work of the county and partners and provide advice and local knowledge so helping with the success of the strategy.
The Local Committee resolved to agree:
(i) The terms of reference for the Youth Task Group attached in Annex A
Reason: the new terms of reference widen the remit of the task group to allow it to additionally oversee the implementation of the new Joint Youth Strategy. |
|
|
RYDENS RD CONSULTATION RESPONSES (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION)
This report updates the Local Committee following the recent public consultation carried out in the area. It was intended to gauge the level of support or otherwise to the closure of the Meadowside junction to facilitate the introduction of a pedestrian refuge island along Rydens Road. (Annex 4 to follow)
Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee resolved:
(i) Not to continue with the initiative to introduce a pedestrian refuge island by way of closure of the Meadowside junction based upon the consultation responses received.
Reason: the Local Committee believed that on balance there was not sufficient evidence for the refuge island to be currently considered a priority. Minutes: Annex 4 to this item was tabled at the meeting. It is attached as Annex C to the minutes.
Frank Apicella introduced the report explaining officers were alerted by Members to concerns about Rydens Road raised by residents. A feasibility study was carried out and a location found, but due to a disabled resident’s home fronting the site and the type of vehicle he required this refuge location would have raised safety issues. As a result a public consultation was carried out to gauge the level of support for the proposed scheme. The result was no particularly strong feeling for or against.
Borough Cllr Chris Elmer said he had not received any requests for this crossing and thanked officers for the analysis, but felt that there was a lack of statistical evidence on which to base a decision. SCC Cllr Rachael I Lake expressed concern that residents who were in favour of the crossing had not expressed their views as strongly as those against. She added it was a safety issue and that it would take all her share of the Local Committee highways budget and some of the share of the Walton South & Oatlands County Councillor Tony Samuels, so she would have to justify to the residents in her division as to why her share had been spent in another division. Tony Samuels said he was not convinced the crossing would be used and that the evidence didn’t indicate that it was a high enough priority.
At this point the Chairman allowed the resident, Mick Flannigan, who had submitted a written question on the issue, to speak. The question and response are attached as Annex B. He asked where the evidence was that it is a struggle to cross the road and said this is contrary to both his experience and observations. Ward Cllr Christine Elmer was also allowed to speak and added that from all the comments and emails she had received, those against much outweighed those in favour.
Other Committee Member comments included · how it was difficult to find out whether an island was really needed as officers based it on statistics, but people’s perception of danger was different · pedestrian refuges narrow the road making it dangerous for cyclists. · on balance there was no evidence for it.
Tony Samuels proposed and Stuart Selleck seconded the amendment to the recommendation to not continue with the introduction of the island. 13 Members voted for the amendment and there was one abstention.
The Local Committee resolved:
(i) Not to continue with the initiative to introduce a pedestrian refuge island by way of closure of the Meadowside junction based upon the consultation responses received.
Reason: the Local Committee believed that on balance there was not sufficient evidence for the refuge island to be currently considered a priority. |
|
|
HIGHWAYS UPDATE (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION)
This report summarises progress with the Local Committee’s programme of Highways works for the current Financial Year 2015-16. The Committee is asked to approve the strategy for allocation of budgets for next Financial Year. Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee resolved to:
(i) Authorise the Area Highway Manager in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and the relevant Divisional Member(s), to prioritise schemes as necessary to ensure the remainder of this Financial Year’s budgets are fully invested in the road network in Elmbridge (paragraph 2.5 refers); (ii) Approve the strategy for allocation of next Financial Year’s budgets as detailed in Table 4 (paragraphs 2.19 to 2.27 refer); (iii) Authorise the Area Highway Manager in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and the relevant Divisional Member(s) to undertake all necessary procedures to deliver the agreed programmes.
Reason: The recommendation is intended to facilitate delivery of the 2015-16 Highways programmes funded by the Local Committee and to facilitate development of Committee’s 2016-17 Highways programmes, while at the same time ensuring that the Chairman, Vice Chairman and relevant Divisional Members are fully and appropriately involved in any detailed considerations. Minutes: Nick Healey, the Area Team Manager (NE), introduced the report. He explained that the budgets for next year, 2016-17, had not been confirmed yet, so officers had to make the assumption that there would be a £1m reduction in the local highways revenue budget. Full council had already agreed £0.5 m cut to the capital budget over 4 years. The officer was recommending continuing with the same strategy as in 2015-16 so the priorities already identified could be delivered over the 2 year programme agreed in February 2015.
Committee Member, Stuart Selleck, suggested that the Local Committee write to put pressure on the leader regarding the budgets.
Nick Healey added that a £1m cut across Surrey would make a difference of £100,000 to this Local Committee and with the current recommendation the day to day maintenance aspect of the highways work would receive the greatest impact.
SCC Cllr Mike Bennison expressed his concern about the constant reductions in the local committee budgets.
Nick Healey ended by saying the impact of the reduction on the divisional shares of the budget was tiny with a projected reduction from £41,061 in 2015-16 to £39,333 in 2016-17.
The Local Committee resolved to:
(i) Authorise the Area Highway Manager in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and the relevant Divisional Member(s), to prioritise schemes as necessary to ensure the remainder of this Financial Year’s budgets are fully invested in the road network in Elmbridge (paragraph 2.5 refers); (ii) Approve the strategy for allocation of next Financial Year’s budgets as detailed in Table 4 (paragraphs 2.19 to 2.27 refer); (iii) Authorise the Area Highway Manager in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and the relevant Divisional Member(s) to undertake all necessary procedures to deliver the agreed programmes.
Reason: The recommendation is intended to facilitate delivery of the 2015-16 Highways programmes funded by the Local Committee and to facilitate development of Committee’s 2016-17 Highways programmes, while at the same time ensuring that the Chairman, Vice Chairman and relevant Divisional Members are fully and appropriately involved in any detailed considerations. |
|
|
MEMBERS' ALLOCATIONS (SERVICE MONITORING & ISSUES OF LOCAL CONCERN)
This report provides an update on the projects that have been funded from the Members’ Allocation since April 2015. Additional documents: Minutes: The Local Committee noted
(i) The amounts that have been spent from the Members’ Allocation budget, as set out in Annex1 of this report. |