Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 238 KBVenue: REMOTE
Contact: Nicola Morris, Partnership Committee Officer Community Partnerships & Safety Team, 2nd Floor, Epsom Town Hall, The Parade, Epsom KT18 5BY
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE LOCAL COMMITTEE FOR 2020/21 [FOR INFORMATION]
To note the appointment by Council of County Councillor Peter Szanto as Chairman and County Councillor Rachael I Lake as Vice-Chairman of the Local Committee for the current municipal year. Additional documents: Minutes: Noted the appointment of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman for the 2020/21 municipal year. |
|
|
APPOINTMENT OF BOROUGH COUNCIL SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR DECISION]
Under the County Council's Constitution (Part 4. Standing Orders, Part 3 40 (f)) no substitutes are permitted for district/borough council co-opted members of local committees, unless a local committee agrees otherwise at its first meeting following the Council’s annual meeting and in relation to all meetings in the following year, upon which named substitutes will be appointed to the Local Committee on the nomination of the relevant district/borough council.
The Local Committee is therefore asked to decide whether it wishes to co-opt substitutes in the municipal year 2020/21. Elmbridge Borough Council has nominated 9 Borough Councillors and 9 substitutes to serve on the Local Committee for the municipal year 2020-2021. Jonanna Killian, Chief Executive, has been asked to confirm these appointments as follows, subject to the agreement by the Committee to permit substitutes:
ELMBRIDGE BOROUGH COUNCIL APPOINTED MEMBERS [9] Cllr David Archer [Esher] Cllr Steve Bax [Molesey East] Cllr Barry Fairbank, Long Ditton Cllr Roy Green [Hersham Village] Cllr Peter Harman [Weybridge St George’s Hill] Cllr Mrs Mary Marshall [Claygate] Cllr Mrs Christine Richardson [Walton Central] Cllr Mrs Mary Sheldon [Hersham Village] Cllr Graham Woolgar [Walton Central]
Elmbridge Borough Council Substitutes [9] Cllr Andrew Burley [Oxshott & Stoke D'Abernon] Cllr Mrs Christine Elmer [Walton South] Cllr Neil Houston, Long Ditton Cllr Alan Kopitko [Walton North] Cllr Mrs Dorothy Mitchell [Cobham & Downside] Cllr Chris Sadler [Walton Central] Cllr Stuart Selleck [Molesey East] Cllr Mrs Janet Turner [Hinchley Wood and Weston Green] Cllr Simon Waugh [Esher] Additional documents: Decision: That the Local Committee [Elmbridge] agreed:
To co-opt the substitutes for Borough Council members for the municipal year 2020/21 as listed in the report.
Reasons: Standing Order 40(f) requires the Committee, at its first meeting in the municipal year, to agree whether it wishes Borough Council members to be permitted to have substitutes Minutes: Resolved:
To co-opt the substitutes for Borough Council members for the municipal year 2020/21 as listed in the report.
Reasons: Standing Order 40(f) requires the Committee, at its first meeting in the municipal year, to agree whether it wishes Borough Council members to be permitted to have substitutes |
|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
To receive any apologies for absence and notices of substitutions from Borough members under Standing Order 39. Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Ernest Mallet and Borough Councillors David Archer and Roy Green |
|
|
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:
Additional documents: Minutes: There were no declarations of interest. |
|
|
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
To receive any Chairman’s announcements. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman welcomed everyone to the virtual meeting of the Committee, which he was pleased to report was the first Local/Joint Committee to meet in this way. He thanked all the Borough and County officers and local volunteers for their efforts in supporting the community, especially the vulnerable during this time. |
|
|
WRITTEN PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND STATEMENTS
To answer any questions or receive a statement from any member of the public who lives, works or studies in the Elmbridge Borough area in accordance with Standing Order 69. Notice should be given in writing or by email to the Partnership Committee Officer at least by 12 noon four working days before the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: Five questions were received. The questions and responses are set out in the supplementary agenda for the meeting. The following additional questions were asked:
Question 1: Mr O’Kane referred to an e-mail he had sent to all members which included a number of additional questions and which he read out at the meeting. The following points were included:
Prior to the Local Committee meeting of 5th December 2019 the 2019/20 Parking Review did not include these roads. There was no compelling evidence of congestion, disruption, poor access, resident complaints, excessive parking on the pavement, pinch points, road accidents involving pedestrians or vehicles. In fact these roads did not have any aspect of the profile of the other roads in the plan. Do you agree or did you see any evidence of such issues prior to the 5th December meeting or in fact since?
The situation for these roads changed after a petition was presented by a resident and was supported by today’s sponsor. That petition was the only new factor. So the question now is - in the future after the Council has assessed need, obtained evidence and decided not to include a particular road then will the Council change it’s plan because a resident organises a petition? Such a change would of course be very powerful for residents in a number of situations. I can see many wishing to follow suit or at least ask why their petition previously presented was ignored?
A total of 5 written questions have been sent to your Committee raising a number of specific issues. Those questions have all received a response from Adrian Harris. Have you been convinced by his answers and the post decision logic being applied? He also raised a number of issues relating to the replies given in relation to other questions asked.
The Parking Engineer was not able to respond to all the individual pointes raised, but undertook to respond in writing after the meeting. He stated that the proposal is for a parking scheme which will be subject to advertisement for comment before a final decision is made.
A member said she had received correspondence indicating that the petition previously received had not been valid. Officers responded that there was no reason to indicate that the petition had not met the relevant criteria.
[The meeting was adjourned for approximately 30 minutes due to sound issues with the webcast]
|
|
|
WEY ROAD AND ROUND OAK ROAD PARKING PROPOSALS [FOR DECISION - EXECUTIVE FUNCTION]
At the local committee meeting of 5 December 2019, the committee agreed to the development of a parking scheme for Wey Road and Round Oak Road, which was to be advertised along with the other parking schemes approved at that meeting as part of the 2019/20 Elmbridge Parking Review.
This report brings forward a scheme and asks for approval to advertise it accordingly.
Additional documents: Decision: That the Local Committee (Elmbridge) agreed that:
i.
The county council’s intention to introduce the proposal
shown in Annex 1 is formally advertised, and subject to statutory
consultation.
ii.
If objections are received the Parking Strategy and Implementation
Team Manager is authorised to try and resolve them; iii. If any objections cannot be resolved, the Parking Strategy and Implementation Team Manager, in consultation with the Chairman/Vice Chairman of this committee and the county councillor for the division, decides whether or not they should be acceded to and therefore whether the order should be made, with or without modifications.
Reasons: To better manage parking demand in Wey Road and Round Oak Road, so as to improve access for short term parking for visitors to the Weybridge area, whilst maintaining parking as needed by residents and their visitors. Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None.
Officers attending: Adrian Harris, Parking Engineer
Petitions, Public Questions/Statements: 5 questions received, see minute 6/20 above
Member discussion –key points
The Parking Engineer indicated that the proposal is for a controlled parking zone including, permit bays, paid for parking bays and time limited bays. The options are to agree the proposals for statutory consultation advertisement, amend the proposals or cancel them.
Some members raised concerns that the proposal will displace parking to other areas when there seems to be very little issue with the current situation.
The local county councillor indicated that he understood the strength of feeling both for and against the proposals, but this did arise from a petition signed by a number of local residents. He had discussed a potential scheme with the parking team and had undertaken a site visit. He had also consulted the local Borough members. The discussion is not on whether this scheme should be implemented, but whether it should be advertised for comment to gauge the level of support in the area. If the scheme were to go ahead he would like to see a substantial majority of people in favour of the scheme and their views on whether it should be implemented Monday-Friday or Monday-Saturday. Monday-Saturday would be in line with other restrictions in nearby roads.
The local Borough member, Ashley Tilling, was invited to speak on the matter. He indicated that he could see a good reason not to implement a scheme in this area as there are a number of roads in this area, closer to the High Street, which do not have restrictions and the roads in question have adequate off street parking available to residents. He felt that no further changes should be made until the effects of the implementation of agreed schemes in other roads could be assessed.
There was no suggestion that the Committee was trying to impose something which residents don’t want. Advertising the proposals would give residents the opportunity to give a view on whether they were in favour of the proposals and if so which days they would prefer. One member was concerned at the removal of all day parking opportunities in favour of short stay for shoppers. The Parking Engineer indicated that this was the request in the original petition, there would still be some all-day parking but this would be chargeable.
It was not possible to give a firm idea of what a clear majority in favour would be as it depends on the number of responses and the associated comments, but somewhere close to 70% would probably be an indication of the support required.
Resolved that:
i.
The county council’s intention to introduce the proposal
shown in Annex 1 is formally advertised, and subject to statutory
consultation.
ii.
If objections are received the Parking Strategy and Implementation
Team Manager is authorised to try and resolve them; iii. If any objections cannot be resolved, the Parking Strategy and Implementation Team Manager, in consultation with the Chairman/Vice ... view the full minutes text for item 7/20 |
|
|
PETITIONS
To receive any petitions in accordance with Standing Order 68. Notice should be given in writing or by e-mail to the Partnership 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.
No petitions have been received. Additional documents: Minutes: There were no petitions. |
|
|
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
To approve the Minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record. Additional documents: Minutes: Confirmed as a correct record. |
|
|
DECISIONS TAKEN UNDER DELEGATED POWERS [FOR INFORMATION]
As a result of the Covid outbreak the previous meeting of the Committee on 17 March was cancelled. Where necessary, decisions were taken in accordance with the Remote Meetings Protocol which was approved by the Council on 17 March 2020 (minute 18/20a). This protocol sets out how Surrey County Council will operate executive and non-executive decision making in light of the coronavirus situation in line with agreed delegations at the 17 March 2020 Council meeting. The Protocol was agreed to react to the current reality where the Council should not hold physical meetings, whilst ensuring that the business of the Council can proceed as best as possible, including making decisions as effectively and as far as possible, openly.
A record of the decisions made is attached for information.
Additional documents: Minutes: Noted the decisions taken under delegated officer powers following the late cancellation of the previous meeting as a result of the Covid outbreak.
The Area Highways Manager updated the Committee on the active travel opportunities which are being developed in Elmbridge. Officers are considering schemes across Surrey. Funding from central Government will be allocated in two tranches, the first being up to £1.7m and the second £6.8m. Bids may submitted up to that value, following the announcement of funding there will be two weeks to start work and a further six weeks to complete the work. The first project has been implemented in Farnham and this is being evaluated. In Elmbridge four projects are being considered in Weybridge, East Molesey, Walton and Hersham. Three are to provide additional space for social distancing in shopping areas and the other is to promote active travel. Conversations are in progress with County members and this will be extended to Borough members, but it is not possible to include the public at this stage. Whether these progress is dependent on the amount of funding allocated.
Committee members were keen that the Committee’s Cycling and Walking Task Group should meet in order to take forward investment in this area of work. It was agreed that meetings would take place shortly as this work feeds into a number of key work areas. |
|
|
MEMBER QUESTION TIME
To receive any written questions from Members under Standing Order 47. Notice should be given in writing to the Partnership Committee Officer by 12.00 noon four working days before the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: There were no member questions. |
|
|
BROOKLANDS BUSINESS PARK ACCESSIBILITY PROJECT - CYCLE TRACK ORDER [FOR DECISION]
The Brooklands Business Park Accessibility Project is now in its final year of delivery (to end of March 2021) and includes establishing a formal pedestrian/cyclist route between Weybridge Railway Station (Heath South car park) and the Brooklands Community Park.
Along part of this route, there is an opportunity to make a Cycle Track Order to convert parts of public footpaths on privately owned land to cycle track, to best guarantee that both pedestrians and cyclists can use the route in the future. This will directly extend sections of cycle track previously made in 2018 (after being authorised by the Elmbridge Local Committee). Once made, cycle track status would come into effect after construction works currently in delivery have been completed, therefore ensuring a high standard facility is provided for pedestrians and cyclists first across the route.
The Cycle Track Order will convert a short section of Footpath 23 in Elmbridge, and then also a section of Footpath 12 and a permissive section of footpath underneath and either side of Seven Arches Bridge in Runnymede, up to the land boundary with Elmbridge Borough Council. This is a total distance of approximately 90 metres. Converting the permissive section is contingent on it first being dedicated to public footpath, which is currently going through the dedication process. These path sections are identified on a map in Annex A. Only part of the footpaths’ width will be converted to cycle track leaving the remainder as public footpath on the Definitive Map.
Additional documents: Decision: That the Local Committee (Elmbridge) agreed to:
Recommend that the Cabinet Member should
authorise the making of a Cycle Track Order to extend the cycle
track along part of the formal pedestrian/cyclist route being
created between Weybridge Railway Station (Heath South car park)
and the Brooklands Community Park.. Note: if there are any objections, it is recommended that these are resolved if possible by the Area Highway Manager in consultation with the Cabinet Member, and if necessary any unresolved objections are submitted by the Area Highway Manager to the Secretary of State for determining whether the Order can be confirmed or a Local Inquiry is required.
Reasons: The recommendations have been provided in order for a Cycle Track Order to be made to extend the cycle track along part of the formal pedestrian/cyclist route being created between Weybridge Railway Station (Heath South car park) and the Brooklands Community Park. This will best guarantee that both pedestrians and cyclists can use the route in the future and has been considered as a better option than providing rights to cyclists through a permissive agreement. Construction works are in delivery to provide a high quality facility in this location for pedestrians and cyclists. Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None.
Officers attending: Tim Vickers, Transport Planner
Petitions, Public Questions/Statements: None
Member discussion –key points
It was noted that part of the route being considered is within Runnymede and part within Elmbridge. As a result the Cabinet is being asked to make the decision after taking into account the comments of the relevant Local and Joint Committees.
Members were in support of the proposals and felt that the route would be well used and could contribute to a reduction in congestion in the area. It was suggested that more work needs to be done to educated cyclists on the use of routes shared with pedestrians. It was noted that as part of the project there is a way finding signage package across the whole of the route.
Resolved to:
Recommend that the Cabinet Member should
authorise the making of a Cycle Track Order to extend the cycle
track along part of the formal pedestrian/cyclist route being
created between Weybridge Railway Station (Heath South car park)
and the Brooklands Community Park.. Note: if there are any objections, it is recommended that these are resolved if possible by the Area Highway Manager in consultation with the Cabinet Member, and if necessary any unresolved objections are submitted by the Area Highway Manager to the Secretary of State for determining whether the Order can be confirmed or a Local Inquiry is required.
Reasons: The recommendations have been provided in order for a Cycle Track Order to be made to extend the cycle track along part of the formal pedestrian/cyclist route being created between Weybridge Railway Station (Heath South car park) and the Brooklands Community Park. This will best guarantee that both pedestrians and cyclists can use the route in the future and has been considered as a better option than providing rights to cyclists through a permissive agreement. Construction works are in delivery to provide a high quality facility in this location for pedestrians and cyclists. |
|
|
REPRESENTATION ON TASK GROUPS AND EXTERNAL BODIES [FOR DECISION]
This report seeks the approval of Local Committee task group members and the appointment of representatives to external bodies. Additional documents: Decision: That the Local Committee [Elmbridge] agreed that:
The committee approves the membership of the task groups and appointments to outside bodies, as set out below for the 2020/21 municipal year:
(i)
The Elmbridge Community and Safety
Partnership – Dr Peter Szanto
(ii)
Elmbridge Old Person’s Advisory
Body – Mr Ernest Mallett
(iii)
Parking Task Group – SCC members:
Dr Peter Szanto; Rachael I Lake; Elmbridge BC members: Cllr Steve
Bax, Cllr Roy Green and Cllr Peter Harman.
(iv)
Cycling and Walking Task Group –
SCC members: Mr John O’Reilly, Rachael I Lake, Ernest
Mallett; Elmbridge BC members: Cllr Mary Marshall,
Cllr Janet Turner and Cllr Ashley Tilling
(v)
Esher Transport Study Member Task Group
– SCC members: Mr Tim Oliver, Dr Peter Szanto; Elmbridge BC
members: Cllr David Archer
(vi)
Brooklands Transport Study Member
Steering Group – SCC members: Mr Tim Oliver, Mr John
O’Reilly; Elmbridge BC members: Cllr Peter Harman Reasons: The report proposes local committee task group membership for the forthcoming year to enable the provision of informed advice and recommendations to the committee. The appointment of councillors of the Local Committee to external bodies enables the committee’s representation on and input to such bodies.
Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None.
Officers attending: Nicola Morris, Partnership Committee Officer
Petitions, Public Questions/Statements: None
Member discussion –key points
There was a request for meetings of the Task Groups at iv-vi below to take place in the near future.
Resolved that:
The committee approves the membership of the task groups and appointments to outside bodies, as set out below for the 2020/21 municipal year:
(i)
The Elmbridge Community and Safety
Partnership – Dr Peter Szanto
(ii)
Elmbridge Old Person’s Advisory
Body – Mr Ernest Mallett
(iii)
Parking Task Group – SCC members:
Dr Peter Szanto; Rachael I Lake; Elmbridge BC members: Cllr Steve
Bax, Cllr Roy Green and Cllr Peter
Harman.
(iv)
Cycling and Walking Task Group –
SCC members: Mr John O’Reilly, Rachael I Lake, Ernest
Mallett; Elmbridge BC members: Cllr Mary Marshall, Cllr Janet
Turner and Cllr Ashley Tilling
(v)
Esher Transport Study Member Task Group
– SCC members: Mr Tim Oliver, Dr Peter Szanto; Elmbridge BC
members: Cllr David Archer
(vi)
Brooklands Transport Study Member
Steering Group – SCC members: Mr Tim Oliver, Mr John
O’Reilly; Elmbridge BC members: Cllr Peter Harman Reasons: The report proposes local committee task group membership for the forthcoming year to enable the provision of informed advice and recommendations to the committee. The appointment of councillors of the Local Committee to external bodies enables the committee’s representation on and input to such bodies.
|
|
|
LOCAL COMMITTEE DECISION TRACKER [FOR DECISION]
This item provides an update on previous decisions and actions agreed by the Committee. The Committee is asked to agree that the items marked as complete are removed from the tracker. Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee noted the completed actions and agreed to remove these from the tracker. |
|
|
FORWARD PLAN [FOR INFORMATION]
The Committee is asked to note the forward plan for the Committee and propose any items which they would like to see added. Additional documents: Minutes: Noted the Committee’s Forward Plan. |
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING [FOR INFORMATION]
Monday 16 November 2020 at 4.00pm Additional documents: Minutes: Monday 16 November 2020 at 4.00pm |