Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Elmbridge Local Committee - Monday, 16 November 2020 2.00 pm

Venue: Virtual meeting

Contact: Nicola Morris, Partnership Committee Officer  Community Partnerships & Safety Team, 2nd Floor, Epsom Town Hall, The Parade, Epsom KT18 5BY

Link: Please note that due to the Covid-19 situation this meeting will take place remotely. Click here to access live stream

Media

Items
No. Item

17/20

CHANGE IN BOROUGH COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE AND APPOINTMENT TO THE PARKING TASK GROUP [FOR DECISION]

    • Share this item

    The Committee is asked to note that since the June meeting when the appoinment of Borough members to the Committee was reported there has been a change in membership of the Committee.  Councillor Mrs. Caroline James has replaced Councillor Roy Green.  This appointment has been confirmed by Joanna Killian, Chief Executive.

     

    As a result of this, it has been requested that Councillor Graham Woolgar replace Councillor Roy Green on the Elmbridge Local Committee’s Parking Task Group.  The Committee is asked to agree to this change.

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    That the Local Committee [Elmbridge] agreed that:

     

    The committee approves that Councillor Graham Woolgar replace Councillor Roy Green on the Elmbridge Local Committee’s Parking Task Group for the 2020/21 municipal year.

    Minutes:

    Resolved that:

     

    Councillor Graham Woolgar replace Councillor Roy Green on the Elmbridge Local Committee’s Parking Task Group for the 2020/21 municipal year.

18/20

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.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    There were no apologies.

19/20

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 Member 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.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Cllr Mary Sheldon declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 7 petition 4 as a local resident.

    Cllr Mary Lewis declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 6 as the local councillor and resident.

20/20

CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

    • Share this item

    To receive any Chairman’s announcements.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The Chairman reminded county members that the deadline for applications for their £5,000 community allocation fund is 29 January.

     

    He reported that the first of what we hope will be a series of events for residents will take place at 7pm on Monday 30 November.  This will be an interactive Funding Workshop with presentations on various funding opportunities available to local organisations and a panel of experts to answer questions.  The event will be live streamed to Facebook.  Help in promoting this event would be appreciated and more details will be available shortly.

21/20

WRITTEN PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND STATEMENTS pdf icon PDF 242 KB

    • Share this item

    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:

    Six public questions were received.  The questions and officers responses are published in the supplementary agenda for the meeting.  The following follow up questions were asked:

     

    Question 2:  What will be the focus of any feasibility study and what are the timescales?  The Area Highways Manager replied that if Committee agrees the study will be added to the potential list of schemes for future years.  The earliest a study could start would be April 2021 and it would include an evaluation of possible options based on the issues highlighted.

     

    Question 3:  What is a point closure, is it a road closure or expanding footways, what happens to any traffic diverted to other local roads?  The Area Highways Manager responded that a point closure is a road closure although access is maintained for residents.  Traffic will inevitably move to other routes.  He offered to continue a conversation outside the meeting to see if there was any consensus which could lead to a possible scheme being added to the work programme.

     

    Question 5: If the landowner is Surrey County Council or the Borough Council who carries out enforcement?  The Countryside Access Officer responded that any issues on designated rights of way on land owned by the local authority should be reported to the rights of way team so they can look at individual cases.

22/20

ALLEGED PUBLIC FOOTPATH BETWEEN LITTLEHEATH LANE AND WATER LANE, COBHAM, ESHER [FOR DECISION - OTHER COUNTY COUNCIL FUNCTIONS] pdf icon PDF 190 KB

    • Share this item

    The County Council has a duty under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA1981) to modify the Definitive Map and Statement (DMS) if it discovers evidence which can be reasonably alleged to support a modification. An application has been received for a Map Modification Order (MMO) to add a public footpath between Littleheath Lane and Water Lane, Cobham, Esher.

     

    It is considered that the evidence is sufficient to show that the landowner had no intention to dedicate a right of way over the claimed route. The recommendation of officers is that no order to modify the DMS should be made.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: Mary Lewis declared a non-pecuniary interest as a local resident and local member.  She declared that she has also used the path and that her evidence is mentioned in the report.  As a result she would not vote on the matter but was permitted to speak.

     

    Officers attending: Catherine Valiant, Countryside Access Officer

     

    Petitions, Public Questions/Statements:

     

    Alice Pearson-Thorne spoke in support of the application and made the following points:

    ·      Alice spoke on behalf of her mother who is resident at 30 Water Lane which backs on to the footpath and is the only rear access to the property.  It has been the Pearson family home since 1962.

    ·      Her mother Marion has walked the path complete path twice a day most days until it was blocked in 2015 a total of 53 years.

    ·      The full family walked the path in the 60s, 70s and 80s for a variety of reasons and was never made aware that they could not use the path until it was blocked in 2015.

     

    Joanna Rutherford spoke in support of the application and made the following points:

    ·      She has used the path since 1994 and was not challenged until December 2014. 

    ·      The claimed path is shown on many early historic maps with a designation of path indicating use by the public.

     

    Jeremy Taylor spoke in support of the application and made the following points:

    ·      A resident of Mill House Close where he has lived for around 25 years.  He and his wife were also a resident of the area before that time and have walked the path in the 70s and 80s for recreation to visit friends and local shops as well as more recently.  He has never been challenged.

     

    Kathryn Ross spoke in objection to the application and made the following points:

    ·      Her husband and herself have lived at Hazel Glen, 24 Water Lane since 1995, points F, G and H shown on the plans are within their land.

    ·      She is confident that there is key evidence of a lack of intention to dedicate.  There is evidence that landowners have erected gates and private signs along the route

    ·      She agrees with the evidence of Mrs Turk given long after she left the area.

    ·      The user evidence of users is less consistent, ignoring a sign or climbing over a gate does not evidence permission to use the route.

    ·      She was clear that she had approached anyone she saw crossing her land from 1995 to make it clear that it was private property.

     

    The applicant Patrina Hutchings took the opportunity to respond to the objections raised. She made the following points:

    ·      She has been a resident of the area for 30 years and a user of the path.

    ·      It was unclear why the original recommendation to approve the route was changed in the subsequent reports without further evidence.

    ·      It is clear from user evidence that this path has been used regularly and that the signs were introduced after 2015 and there had been no challenge  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22/20

23/20

PETITIONS pdf icon PDF 283 KB

    • Share this item

    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.

     

    Six petitions have been received as follows:

     

    Petition 1 – Safety Walton Road/ Langton Road junction

    Lead petitioner:  V Davies                                       Signatures: 93

     

    Petition 2 – Summer Road/ Hampton Court Way junction

    Lead petitioners:  Karen Liddell & Julie Hennig   Signatures: 467

     

    Petition 3 – Pedestrian Crossing Outside St Lawrence School

    Lead petitioner:  Jim Davidson                               Signatures: 979

     

    Petition 4 – C19 Active Travel Scheme – A244 Esher Road

    Lead petitioner: Caroline Williams                         Signatures: 2624

     

    Petition 5 – Queens Road, Weybridge loading bay

    Lead petitioner:  Lisa Harris                                    Signatures: 49

     

    Petition 6 – Safety on A244 Leatherhead Road, High Street, Warren Lane, Oxshott

    Lead petitioner: Ian Dilks                                         Signatures: 973

     

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    That the Local Committee [Elmbridge] agreed to:

     

    Petition 1:

     

    (i)    Consider measures at the junction of Langton Road within the Walton Road scheme, to inform a future application for Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding

     

    (ii)   Note that the subject(s) of an application will be proposed by the Area Highways Manager, in consultation with the divisional members and the Chairman/Vice-Chairman of the Elmbridge Local Committee

     

    (iii) Note that parking measures at the junction will be considered within the next Elmbridge Parking Review, which is currently due to begin in December 2020.

     

    Reasons: To respond to the issues raised in the petition.

     

    Petition 2:

     

    (iv)  Include a scheme at the Summer Road/ Hampton Court Way junction on the prioritisation list for consideration in a future highway programme.

     

    Reasons: To respond to the issues raised in the petition.

     

    Petition 3:

     

    (v)   Undertake an officer assessment of the road safety concerns on the roads in the vicinity of the St Lawrence School with reference to the county council’s Road Safety Outside School’s policy and will report the findings (including any recommendations for highway measures) to a future meeting of the Local Committee.

     

    (vi) This process also includes an assessment of the status of the school’s travel plan. If required assistance will be provided to the school to ensure their travel plan is up to date and ideally registered on the national online school travel plan portal Modeshift STARS.

     

    Reasons: To respond to the issues raised in the petition.

     

    Petition 4:

     

    (vii)      Approve the construction of the three pedestrian crossings that were originally intended as part of the Esher Road Active Travel scheme;

     

    (xiii)Approve that following the construction of the three pedestrian crossings, and after a period of bedding in, officers should undertake public consultation with the local community, and that the results of this consultation should be reported back to Committee for a final decision on whether to make this scheme permanent;

     

    (ix)  Authorise the Area Highway Manager in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and relevant Divisional Member(s) to undertake all necessary procedures to implement the three pedestrian crossings and undertake public consultation for this scheme at the appropriate time.

     

    Reasons:

    Observations during the trial period by both local members and Surrey County Council Highways Service officers suggest that the scheme has no significant adverse impact in terms of congestion compared to the previous layout of the A244 Esher Road.  The primary objective of this scheme was to provide three new pedestrian crossing facilities.  However these have not yet been constructed.  This means that the local community has not yet been able to utilise the main intended benefit of the scheme.   There is no compelling reason to abandon the scheme at this stage.  The alternative scheme suggested in the petition is unfeasible and has significant disadvantages compared to the proposed scheme.  If the pedestrian crossings were to be implemented, as per the recommendations, the local community would be able to experience the scheme in full, and then provide feedback to enable Committee to  ...  view the full decision text for item 23/20

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: Mary Sheldon declared a non-pecuniary interest as a local resident in petition 4.

     

    Officers attending: Nick Healey, Area Highways Manager

     

    Petitions, Public Questions/Statements:

     

    Petition 1:  Mrs Emma Purdy presented the petition on behalf of the lead petitioner.  She outlined that she had lived in Langton Road for 18 years and the dangers of leaving the road at the junction with the Walton Road.  There are lots of delivery vans parking on the double yellow line around the corner obscuring sight lines.  There has been a recent accident and the car was severely damaged.  Cars travel quite fast in this vicinity and there are many other vehicle manoeuvres in this area.  Residents would like safety to be improved perhaps with the installation of an island to prevent parking near the junction.

     

    Petition 2: Peter O’Donnell presented the petition on behalf of the lead petitioners.  He made the following points: he has been a resident for 37 years; the road is narrow and serves a number of homes and other facilities such as sports grounds and small industrial units.  There are three sites in the vicinity which are due for possible redevelopment and residents would like a co-ordinated master pan approach to be employed.  Residents would not support a ban on right turns from the road and would like signage improved.  The suggestion of a roundabout has many positives for debate and residents would have liked a more positive response from officers to this suggestion.

     

    Petition 3:  Jim Davidson presented his petition requesting a new pedestrian crossing.  The four way junction outside the school is dangerous during school drop off and pick up times with high footfall with no natural location to cross, stop lines at the junction are confusing and there is a blind corner with cars driving fast.  There have been four accidents since 2017 where emergency services have been called. There have been many near misses.  Any reasonably placed crossing would attract users.  He would like to see the speed limit in the area reduced to 20mph.

     

    Petition 4:  David Moore presented the petition on behalf of the lead petitioner.  He commented that the scheme has caused significant congestion in the area and does not address the issue of providing a safe pedestrian crossing as previously requested.  Undertaking has become an issue and vehicles waiting to turn right are held further back in the queue.  There are other viable alternatives which should be investigated before the scheme is implemented in full.

     

    Petition 5:  Eleanor presented the petition on behalf of the lead petitioner and spoke on behalf of the residents and businesses on Queens Road.  The loading bay is in constant use and causes a huge disruption to businesses and blocks the view when leaving South Road.  Lorries park on the pavement and is dangerous to the public. Trolleys fall into the road and onto the pavement and have damaged shop.  Action needs to be taken to relocate it.  South Road would be a preferable location  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23/20

24/20

MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING pdf icon PDF 220 KB

    • Share this item

    To approve the Minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Confirmed as a correct record.

25/20

MEMBER QUESTION TIME

    • Share this item

    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:

    No questions were received.

26/20

BROOKLANDS BUSINESS PARK ACCESSIBILITY PROJECT: IMPROVEMENTS FOR SAFER CYCLING BETWEEN HEATH ROAD /BROOKLAND LANE JUNCTION AND WEYBRIDGE TOWN CENTRE [EXECUTIVE ITEM - FOR DECISION] pdf icon PDF 173 KB

    • Share this item

    The Brooklands Business Park Accessibility Project is a major transport project which plans to establish a formal and safer route for cycling between Brooklands and Weybridge town centre. Provision of the route between Brooklands and Brooklands Lane on Heath Road, north of Weybridge Railway Station, is now substantially completed.

     

    Further improvements are now planned to complete the safer route for cycling north of Brooklands Lane through to Weybridge town centre.

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    That the Local Committee [Elmbridge] agreed:

     

    (i)     To approve the advertisement of a notice under Section 90 of the Highways Act1980 for the construction of a road table on Heath Road around the junction with Brooklands Lane, as detailed in the drawing shown in Annex A of the report.

     

    (ii)    To agree that the County Council’s intentions to introduce double yellow line extensions on Brooklands Lane as shown in Annex A should be formally advertised and subject to statutory consultation. Also to agree that if objections are received, the Area Highways Manager and Project Sponsor are authorised to try and resolve them. If any objections cannot be resolved, the Area Highways Manager and Project Sponsor, in consultation with the Chairman/Vice Chairman of this committee and the Divisional Member, decides whether or not they should be acceded to and therefore whether the order should be made, with or without modifications.

     

    (iii)   To agree that the County Council’s intentions to introduce double yellow line extensions on Waverley Road as shown in Annex A should be formally advertised and subject to statutory consultation. Also to agree that if objections are received, the Area Highways Manager and Project Sponsor are authorised to try and resolve them. If any objections cannot be resolved, the Area Highways Manager and Project Sponsor, in consultation with the Chairman/Vice Chairman of this committee and the Divisional Member, decides whether or not they should be acceded to and therefore whether the order should be made, with or without modifications.

     

    (iv)   To authorise the making of the Cycle Track Order. Also to authorise the Project Sponsor, in consultation with the Chairman/Vice Chairman and Divisional Member to resolve any objections to the Cycle Track Order if possible.  Objections should be considered as resolved if they are contradicted by the reasoning provided in section 2 of this Report. Also, if necessary, to authorise the Project Sponsor to submit any unresolved objections to the Secretary of State for determining whether the Order can be confirmed, or whether a Local Inquiry is required.

     

    Reasons:

     

    To provide a safer route for cyclists from the completed shared cyclist/pedestrian facility along Heath Road into Weybridge town centre, to complete the route between Brooklands and Weybridge town centre. Completing this key missing link in the route would help to meet the project’s strategic aims to encourage sustainable, safe and healthy forms of travel. The proposed road table will also provide an improved environment for pedestrians. 

     

    The Cycle Track Order specifically would formalise the town paths adjacent to Chuchfields Recreation Ground as cycle route options. Count data evidences that these paths are already very well used by cyclists, particularly younger users attending Heathside School and Brooklands College. Accident data shows that the route using these paths offers a safer cycling route to Weybridge town centre. There are plans to undertake improvements to these paths.

     

    Full details of the reasoning are provided in Section 2 of the report.

     

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Tim Vickers, Transport Planner

     

    Petitions, Public Questions/Statements: See item 5

     

    Member discussion –key points

     

    The officer introduced the report.  Members were supportive of the proposals which would provide a welcome addition to the area when completed.

     

    Resolved:

     

    (i)     To approve the advertisement of a notice under Section 90 of the Highways Act1980 for the construction of a road table on Heath Road around the junction with Brooklands Lane, as detailed in the drawing shown in Annex A of the report.

     

    (ii)    To agree that the County Council’s intentions to introduce double yellow line extensions on Brooklands Lane as shown in Annex A should be formally advertised and subject to statutory consultation. Also to agree that if objections are received, the Area Highways Manager and Project Sponsor are authorised to try and resolve them. If any objections cannot be resolved, the Area Highways Manager and Project Sponsor, in consultation with the Chairman/Vice Chairman of this committee and the Divisional Member, decides whether or not they should be acceded to and therefore whether the order should be made, with or without modifications.

     

    (iii)   To agree that the County Council’s intentions to introduce double yellow line extensions on Waverley Road as shown in Annex A should be formally advertised and subject to statutory consultation. Also to agree that if objections are received, the Area Highways Manager and Project Sponsor are authorised to try and resolve them. If any objections cannot be resolved, the Area Highways Manager and Project Sponsor, in consultation with the Chairman/Vice Chairman of this committee and the Divisional Member, decides whether or not they should be acceded to and therefore whether the order should be made, with or without modifications.

     

    (iv)   To authorise the making of the Cycle Track Order. Also to authorise the Project Sponsor, in consultation with the Chairman/Vice Chairman and Divisional Member to resolve any objections to the Cycle Track Order if possible.  Objections should be considered as resolved if they are contradicted by the reasoning provided in section 2 of this Report. Also, if necessary, to authorise the Project Sponsor to submit any unresolved objections to the Secretary of State for determining whether the Order can be confirmed, or whether a Local Inquiry is required.

     

    Reasons:

     

    To provide a safer route for cyclists from the completed shared cyclist/pedestrian facility along Heath Road into Weybridge town centre, to complete the route between Brooklands and Weybridge town centre. Completing this key missing link in the route would help to meet the project’s strategic aims to encourage sustainable, safe and healthy forms of travel. The proposed road table will also provide an improved environment for pedestrians. 

     

    The Cycle Track Order specifically would formalise the town paths adjacent to Chuchfields Recreation Ground as cycle route options. Count data evidences that these paths are already very well used by cyclists, particularly younger users attending Heathside School and Brooklands College. Accident data shows that the route using these paths offers a safer cycling route to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26/20

27/20

HIGHWAYS UPDATE [EXECUTIVE ITEM - FOR DECISION] pdf icon PDF 176 KB

    • Share this item

    To ensure timely development of the Local Committee’s programmes of work for next Financial Year 2021-22, it is necessary to for Committee to decide high level allocations of its Highways budgets for 2021-22.

     

    It is anticipated that capacity will be available from April 2021 for Committee to commission new feasibility studies, which would feed into future programmes Integrated Transport Schemes (ITS).

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    The Local Committee (Elmbridge) agreed to:

     

    (i)    Approve the proposed allocation of the 2021-22 Highways budgets as set out in table 3 of the report;

     

    (ii)   Approve the commissioning of nine new feasibility studies in April 2021, as set out in table 4, to be funded from the parking surplus, subject to further discussions with divisional members to agree those of highest priority;

     

    (iii)  Authorise the Area Highway Manager in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and relevant Divisional Member(s) to undertake all necessary procedures to deliver the agreed programmes.

     

    Reasons:

     

    Each Financial Year the Local Committee is allocated budgets for Highway maintenance and improvement schemes – these budgets must be spent within their respective Financial Years.  It takes a number of months to work with Committee as a whole and individual members to prioritise individual schemes, and then to make arrangements for schemes to be delivered as part of a countywide programme of work.  Therefore it is necessary for Committee to decide high level allocations of its budgets well ahead of the start of the following Financial Year, to enable programmes of work to be developed in good time.

     

    Committee has established a funding model whereby feasibility studies for road improvement schemes are funded from the parking surplus, and then those schemes that Committee approves are submitted to Elmbridge Borough Council for CIL funding.  It is anticipated that there will be capacity to commission new feasibility studies from April 2021.  Therefore Committee is asked to approve the next round of prioritised schemes for feasibility studies.

     

    Committee is asked to provide the necessary authorisation to deliver its programmes of work in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and relevant Divisional Member without the need to revert to the Committee as a whole.  

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Nick Healey, Area Highways Manager

     

    Petitions, Public Questions/Statements: None

     

    Member discussion –key points

     

    Members commented that they would like to look further at the recommended feasibility studies before they are confirmed. The Area Highways manager commented that there had been little progress on any scheme for an alternative bridge on Blundell Lane when there is little likelihood of appropriate funding.  The number of feasibility studies which can be taken forward is limited by the capacity of the design team and not a lack of funding.

     

    Resolved to:

     

    (i)    Approve the proposed allocation of the 2021-22 Highways budgets as set out in table 3 of the report;

     

    (ii)   Approve the commissioning of nine new feasibility studies in April 2021, as set out in table 4, to be funded from the parking surplus, subject to further discussions with divisional members to agree those of highest priority;

     

    (iii)  Authorise the Area Highway Manager in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and relevant Divisional Member(s) to undertake all necessary procedures to deliver the agreed programmes.

     

    Reasons:

     

    Each Financial Year the Local Committee is allocated budgets for Highway maintenance and improvement schemes – these budgets must be spent within their respective Financial Years.  It takes a number of months to work with Committee as a whole and individual members to prioritise individual schemes, and then to make arrangements for schemes to be delivered as part of a countywide programme of work.  Therefore it is necessary for Committee to decide high level allocations of its budgets well ahead of the start of the following Financial Year, to enable programmes of work to be developed in good time.

     

    Committee has established a funding model whereby feasibility studies for road improvement schemes are funded from the parking surplus, and then those schemes that Committee approves are submitted to Elmbridge Borough Council for CIL funding.  It is anticipated that there will be capacity to commission new feasibility studies from April 2021.  Therefore Committee is asked to approve the next round of prioritised schemes for feasibility studies.

     

    Committee is asked to provide the necessary authorisation to deliver its programmes of work in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and relevant Divisional Member without the need to revert to the Committee as a whole.  

28/20

LOCAL COMMITTEE DECISION TRACKER [FOR DECISION] pdf icon PDF 384 KB

    • Share this item

    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 agreed to remove closed actions with the exception of those which are not yet complete which should be retained as a reminder.

29/20

FORWARD PLAN [FOR INFORMATION] pdf icon PDF 102 KB

    • Share this item

    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 forward plan.

30/20

DATE OF NEXT MEETING [FOR INFORMATION]

    • Share this item

    Monday 15 March 2021 at 4pm, venue tbc

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Monday 15 March 2021 at 4pm tbc.