Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 1 MBVenue: Council Chamber, Pippbrook, Reigate Road, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 1SJ
Contact: Victoria Jeffrey, Community Partnership & Committee Officer Pippbrook, Reigate Road, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 1SJ
Media
| No. | Item | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
OPEN FORUM
An open forum was held at the start of the meeting; Fortyfoot Road in Leatherhead and speed limits on the A24 and A25 were discussed. Additional documents: |
|||
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
To receive any apologies for absence and notices of substitutions from District members under Standing Order 39. Additional documents: Minutes: Apolgoies were received from Councillor Valerie Homewood. |
|||
|
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
To approve the Minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes from the previous meeting were agreed as an accurate record. |
|||
|
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.
Additional documents: Minutes: Mr Tim Hall declared an interest regarding Item 6, Award of the Local Prevention Framework, under procurement standing orders. Mr Hall is a council appointed trustee of the Leatherhead Youth Project. |
|||
|
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
To receive any questions from Surrey County Council electors within the area in accordance with Standing Order 66. Additional documents: Minutes: Mr Ward had received a written response to his question and had no supplementary.
Mrs Crozier had received a written response to her question and had no supplementary. |
|||
|
Additional documents: |
|||
|
MEMBER QUESTIONS
To receive any written questions from Members under Standing Order 47. Additional documents: Minutes: Mr Cooksey thanked officers for the written response and requested if officer could clarify the following points:
1. What is the timeline for the work on the Deepedene roundabout. 2. When will a review of the safety measures on Blackbrook road be bought back to committee 3. Would the parking problems on the High Street in Dorking be a priority for the parking task group?
The Area Highways Manager confirmed that the Deepdene roundabout should be the autumn of this year but it is dependent on the capital budget and review of Blackbrook road should come to the committee in December.
The Chairman of the Local Committee stated that the parking task group would have to have its first meeting before it could confirm it’s priorities.
|
|||
|
Additional documents: |
|||
|
PETITIONS
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.
1. Parking on The Mount, Fetcham
2. Speed limit reduction to 20mph, Pixham Lane Dorking Additional documents: Minutes: Mr Gibson received a written response from officers. He highlighted the issue of The Mount being used for commuter parking and the potential for collision with cars entering from Cobham road and the obstruction of residents’ drives. Residents feel that restrictions from 09:30-11:00 along the length of the road would address the issue.
Parking officers confirmed they had looked at proposals for this and they will be included in the parking review and go out to consultation.
Mr Hammond received a written response from officers and bought the committee’s attention to the safety risk to both pedestrians and cyclists and several near misses by Pixham Lane being used as a cut through from the A24 to the A25, avoiding the Deepdene roundabout. Residents feel a reduction in the speed limit from 30mph to 20mph would address these issues.
PC Arthur, Police Road Safety Officer confirmed that the mean speed on the road was 28mph and a reduction to 20mph could not be enforced as it would not be in line with government guidelines. Parking on the road is the main reason for the risks occurring.
The divisional member for Dorking Hills confirmed parking is an issue on Pixham Lane and felt this would be addressed by the parking review. However she felt that the 20mph speed limit should be investigated further and the possibility of advisory 20mph speed limits between Chester Close and the railway bridge.
The Area Highways Manager highlighted that mean speeds must be 23mph before a 20mph speed limit reduction could be considered. This would mean that engineering works would be required on the road to slow the traffic. Officers will look into this and advisory limits.
The divisional member for Dorking Rural highlighted that a review of the speed limit policy would shortly be going to cabinet.
The committee agreed to write to the portfolio holder to request a reduction to 20mph and a response would be bought back to a future committee.
|
|||
|
Additional documents: |
|||
|
AWARD OF THE LOCAL PREVENTION FRAMEWORK (YOUTH) [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION]
To award the Local Prevention Framework contract for Mole Valley aimed at preventing young people becoming Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET) Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Mole Valley) is AGREED to:
Approve the Youth Task Group recommendation to award a funding agreement for a twenty four month period from 01 September 2013 to the following provider:
(i) Reigate & Redhill YMCA for 61% of the contract value (£40,172pa) to prevent young people from becoming NEET in Mole Valley
(ii) Leatherhead Youth Project for 39% of the contract value (£25,828pa) to prevent young people from becoming NEET in Mole Valley
Reason for Decision
The Local Committee were happy with the recommendation provided by the Youth Task Group. The Chairman of the Youth Task Group emphasised the recommendation had been in line with the young people’s wishes and what they felt would provide the best option. Minutes: Mr Tim Hall declared a conflict for this item and left the chamber.
Officers introduced the item highlighting the new funding agreement would be for 24 months and would be designed to prevent young people becoming Not in Education, Employment or Training.
The divisional member for Bookham and Fetcham West asked for clarification on which area Leatherhead Youth Project would be covering.
Officers confirmed that Leatherhead Youth Project would receive 39% of the funding to provide services only in the Leatherhead area. Reigate and Redhill YMCA would receive 61% of the funding to cover the rest of Mole Valley including Leatherhead and they would be expected to work with Leatherhead Youth Project to provide complementary services.
The Chairman of the Youth Task Group highlighted that this was the arrangement the young people involved in the Youth Task Group wanted.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) is AGREED to:
Approve the Youth Task Group recommendation to award a funding agreement for a twenty four month period from 01 September 2013 to the following provider:
(i) Reigate & Redhill YMCA for 61% of the contract value (£40,172pa) to prevent young people from becoming NEET in Mole Valley
(ii) Leatherhead Youth Project for 39% of the contract value (£25,828pa) to prevent young people from becoming NEET in Mole Valley
Reason for Decision
The Local Committee were happy with the recommendation provided by the Youth Task Group. The Chairman of the Youth Task Group emphasised the recommendation had been in line with the young people’s wishes and what they felt would provide the best option. |
|||
|
PERFORMANCE UPDATE ON THE CURRENT LOCAL PREVENTION FRAMEWORK CONTRACT [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION]
To receive an update on the performance of the Local Prevention Framework for 2011-13 and the changes to the administration of Youth Small Grants. Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Mole Valley) is AGREED to note:
(i) The progress Services for Young People has made during 2012/13 to increase participation for young people in Mole Valley, as set out in detail in the appendices to this report
Reason for Decision
The Local Committee was happy with the progress of provision for young people in Mole Valley which had improved over the past year. They acknowledged and were happy with the changes proposed for the administration and approval of Youth Small Grants. Minutes: Officers updated against the participation of young people in Mole Valley and that those Not in Education, Employment or Training had been reduced to 67. There is also an increase in hours of youth work being provided.
The Committee Chairman noted that Mole Valley was in a far stronger position than many other areas in Surrey.
The divisional member for Dorking Hills felt it was a positive report and felt that the figures for the Malthouse showed good progress especially as it was only opened last year and as yet hasn’t been open for a full year.
Surrey Youth Focus explained the changes to the administration of Youth Small Grants, which they would now be supporting. Bids will go to the Chairman of the Local Committee, Vice-Chairman and divisional member (where appropriate) for consultation prior to being agreed. A report will be bought on an annual basis to update the committee on the successful grants.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) is AGREED to note:
(i) The progress Services for Young People has made during 2012/13 to increase participation for young people in Mole Valley, as set out in detail in the appendices to this report
Reason for Decision
The Local Committee was happy with the progress of provision for young people in Mole Valley which had improved over the past year. They acknowledged and were happy with the changes proposed for the administration and approval of Youth Small Grants. |
|||
|
MOLE VALLEY ON STREET PARKING REVIEW [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION]
For the Local Committee to review and agree the proposal for on-street parking restrictions in the 2013-14 parking review. Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Mole Valley) AGREED to AMEND the recommendation (i) to:
(i) The proposals in Annex 1 are agreed subject to the amendments proposed and further consultation being undertaken with the appropriate officers and divisional member with regards to the proposals in Leatherhead High Street.
(i) The proposals in Annex 1 are agreed.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) AGREED:
(ii) That where necessary the Parking Team Manager, in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and local Member make any necessary adjustments to the proposals and agree detail, based on informal consultation, prior to statutory consultation.
(iii) That the intention of the County Council to make an Order under the relevant parts of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to impose the waiting and on street parking restrictions in Mole Valley as shown in the Annexe (and as subsequently modified by ii) are advertised and that if no objections are maintained, the Order is made.
(iv) That if necessary the Parking Team Manager will report the objections back to the local committee for resolution.
(v) To allocate funding of £10,000 in 2013/14 to implement the parking amendments.
(vi) That the existing text based parking traffic regulation orders are converted to plan based orders.
(vii) That the Parking Team Manager, in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and local Member agree statutory consultation for any additional parking restrictions that may be required as a consequence of the district council’s planned changes to off street car parks in Gt. Bookham
Reason for Decision
The Local Committee felt that some of the proposals contained in the report needed to be amended to reflect local need. It was also felt that due to the impact upon businesses of the Leatherhead high street proposals, further consultation with the officers and the divisional member should be undertaken before going out to external consultation. Minutes: The Parking Manger introduced the report saying it had been comprised of requests from councillors and members of the public. Committee members could still suggest any new sites during the meeting.
The divisional member for Ashtead expressed concerns about the time for implementation of the review as this had been a problem previously.
Councillors also discussed the issue of the enforcement of parking once restrictions were in place, particularly out of hours enforcement. It was resolved to bring this to the attention of the district through the parking task group.
Councillors proposed the inclusion of Beresford Road, Dorking, Reigate Road, Leatherhead, the junction with Lowershott Road and Dorking Road, Bookham. Highlands road, Leatherhead, and Station Road, Dorking were withdrawn from the review.
The divisional member for Leatherhead and Fetcham East expressed concerns about the inclusion of Leatherhead High Street in the review due to the past views expressed on this by residents and businesses. It was agreed officers and councillors should discuss this in more detail outside of the committee.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) AGREED to AMEND the recommendation (i) to:
(i) The proposals in Annex 1 are agreed subject to the amendments proposed and further consultation being undertaken with the appropriate officers and divisional member with regards to the proposals in Leatherhead High Street.
(i) The proposals in Annex 1 are agreed.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) AGREED:
(ii) That where necessary the Parking Team Manager, in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and local Member make any necessary adjustments to the proposals and agree detail, based on informal consultation, prior to statutory consultation.
(iii) That the intention of the County Council to make an Order under the relevant parts of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to impose the waiting and on street parking restrictions in Mole Valley as shown in the Annexe (and as subsequently modified by ii) are advertised and that if no objections are maintained, the Order is made.
(iv) That if necessary the Parking Team Manager will report the objections back to the local committee for resolution.
(v) To allocate funding of £10,000 in 2013/14 to implement the parking amendments.
(vi) That the existing text based parking traffic regulation orders are converted to plan based orders.
(vii) That the Parking Team Manager, in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and local Member agree statutory consultation for any additional parking restrictions that may be required as a consequence of the district council’s planned changes to off street car parks in Gt. Bookham
Reason for Decision
The Local Committee felt that some of the proposals contained in the report needed to be amended to reflect local need. It was also felt that due to the impact upon businesses of the Leatherhead high street proposals, further consultation with the officers and the divisional member should be undertaken before going out to external consultation. |
|||
|
HIGHWAYS SCHEMES UPDATE [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION]
To update the committee on the progress of highways schemes for 2012/13. Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Mole Valley) is AGREED to note the contents of the report.
Reason for Decision
The Local Committee were happy with the progress of the proposed schemes. Minutes: The Area Highways Manager updated against the scheme list for Mole Valley.
Councillors sought clarification on a range of schemes including Horsham Road, Holmwood, Dene Street, Dorking and Chase Lane, Ashtead. 20mph speed limit outside schools and making school keep clear markings were also raised, the Area Highways Manager confirmed these schemes would be prioritised.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) is AGREED to note the contents of the report.
Reason for Decision
The Local Committee were happy with the progress of the proposed schemes. |
|||
|
A217 REIGATE ROAD, SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION]
To reduce the speed limit on the A217 from 50mph to 40mph. Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Mole Valley) is AGREED to:
(i) Note results of speed limit assessments undertaken.
(ii) That, based upon the evidence, the speed limits should be changed to meet the current policy at the following locations:-
a) A217 Reigate Road from Hookwood roundabout to 30mph speed limit terminals approximately 100m from A23 Longbridge Roundabout. Reduce from 60mph to 40mph.
b) C62 Reigate Road from A217 Hookwood roundabout to C64 Povey Cross Road/Charlwood Road. Reduce from 40mph to 30mph.
c) C64 Povey Cross Road from C62 Reigate Road to A23 Longbridge roundabout. Reduce from 40mph to 30mph.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) AGREED to AMEND the recommendation (iii)
(iii) AGREED to write to the portfolio holder to ask that the speed limit be decreased from 50mph to 40mph on the following roads
a) A217 Reigate Road from Reigate & Banstead borough boundary to Mill Lane.
b) A217 Reigate Road from Mill Lane to Hookwood roundabout
(iii) That, based upon the current evidence, the speed limits should not be changed at the following location:-
a) A217 Reigate Road from Reigate & Banstead borough boundary to Mill Lane.
b) A217 Reigate Road from Mill Lane to Hookwood roundabout
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) AGREED to:
(iv) Authorise the advertisement of a notice in accordance with the Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the effect of which will be to implement the proposed speed limit changes and revoke any existing traffic orders necessary to implement the changes and, subject to no objections being upheld, the Order be made;
(v) Authorise delegation of authority to the Area Team Manager in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the local Committee and the Local Divisional Member to resolve any objections received in connection with the proposals.
Reason for Decision
The Local Committee acknowledged that speeding on the A217 has presented a safety risk for the local residents, as has been highlighted through a petition to the committee in December. The Committee felt the proposals would help to improve the safety but in order for this to be achieved the speed limit on the roads highlighted in point (iii) need to also be reduced and the Chairman of the Local Committee will write to the portfolio holder to action this. Minutes: The divisional member was happy to see the report as this had been bought to the committee’s attention in December by a petition from local residents.
Councillors were happy to accept the recommendations for though felt the proposal in recommendation iii for no change was not suitable. The committee decided to write to the portfolio holder to ask for the speed limit to be decreased from 50mph to 40mph for the roads outlined in recommendation iii. The new recommendation was proposed by the divisional member for Dorking Rural and seconded by the district member for Charlwood.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) is AGREED to:
(i) Note results of speed limit assessments undertaken.
(ii) That, based upon the evidence, the speed limits should be changed to meet the current policy at the following locations:-
a) A217 Reigate Road from Hookwood roundabout to 30mph speed limit terminals approximately 100m from A23 Longbridge Roundabout. Reduce from 60mph to 40mph.
b) C62 Reigate Road from A217 Hookwood roundabout to C64 Povey Cross Road/Charlwood Road. Reduce from 40mph to 30mph.
c) C64 Povey Cross Road from C62 Reigate Road to A23 Longbridge roundabout. Reduce from 40mph to 30mph.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) AGREED to AMEND the recommendation (iii)
(iii) AGREED to write to the portfolio holder to ask that the speed limit be decreased from 50mph to 40mph on the following roads
a) A217 Reigate Road from Reigate & Banstead borough boundary to Mill Lane.
b) A217 Reigate Road from Mill Lane to Hookwood roundabout
(iii) That, based upon the current evidence, the speed limits should not be changed at the following location:-
a) A217 Reigate Road from Reigate & Banstead borough boundary to Mill Lane.
b) A217 Reigate Road from Mill Lane to Hookwood roundabout
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) AGREED to:
(iv) Authorise the advertisement of a notice in accordance with the Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the effect of which will be to implement the proposed speed limit changes and revoke any existing traffic orders necessary to implement the changes and, subject to no objections being upheld, the Order be made;
(v) Authorise delegation of authority to the Area Team Manager in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the local Committee and the Local Divisional Member to resolve any objections received in connection with the proposals.
Reason for Decision
The Local Committee acknowledged that speeding on the A217 has presented a safety risk for the local residents, as has been highlighted through a petition to the committee in December. The Committee felt the proposals would help to improve the safety but in order for this to be achieved the speed limit on the roads highlighted in point (iii) need to also be reduced and the Chairman of the Local Committee will write to the portfolio holder to action this. |
|||
|
CAPITAL ITS VIREMENT [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION]
To allow the Area Highways Manager to vire money between the different capital schemes to improve delivery. Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Mole Valley) AGREED to:
(i) Authorise that the Area Team Manager, in consultation with the Local Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman be able to vire the capital Integrated Transport Schemes budget between the headings (improvement schemes and maintenance schemes), as required.
Reason for Decision
Following the proposals in Operation Horizon and the capital maintenance schemes it was felt that the virement would allow the committee to be more reactive to the needs of the highways network in Mole Valley should changes be required later in the municipal year. Minutes: The Area Highways Manager introduced the item referring to previous virement rights which had been put in place. This virement would allow the committee to vire money between capital budgets, responding to the work of Project Horizon. Councillors were happy with the proposals.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) AGREED to:
(i) Authorise that the Area Team Manager, in consultation with the Local Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman be able to vire the capital Integrated Transport Schemes budget between the headings (improvement schemes and maintenance schemes), as required.
Reason for Decision
Following the proposals in Operation Horizon and the capital maintenance schemes it was felt that the virement would allow the committee to be more reactive to the needs of the highways network in Mole Valley should changes be required later in the municipal year. |
|||
|
PROJECT HORIZON [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION]
For the Local Committee to agree the 5 year capital maintenance programme for Mole Valley. Additional documents: Decision:
Minutes: Officers introduced the Project Horizon report which is deisgned to significantly increase the work on capital maintenance and replace 10% of the road network in Surrey over 5 years. For Mole Valley this will mean a £10m investment and 12% of the road network being replaced. Most of the work will be deilivered in the first two years with a focus on the rural and residential networks. The aim is to bring roads back to a level where they will be fit for purpose. Project Horizon will co-ordinate with the local schemes approved by the committee and a strong focus will be on quality control, with a 10 year guarantee.
Councillors raised concerns that some roads won’t last until later in the programme. Officers confirmed this was due to the complexity of the schemes but confirmed they would reassess and move the scheme forward if needed. The issue of footways was raised and officers informed the committee that they were working with contractors to develop a 5 year approach to footways, although this is a much smaller budget area. This will be bought back to the committee in December.
|
|||
|
DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT CYCLE BID [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION]
To agree the consultation process and give approval for the Traffic Regulation Orders for the cycle scheme of Leatherhead to Ashtead.
Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Mole Valley) AGREED to AMEND the recommendation (i) to:
(i) the consultation plan presented within this report is approved subject to the amendments proposed by the Local Committee. The detailed designs for the scheme will be presented to the local committee’s next meeting on 11 September 2013 prior to construction.
(i) the consultation plan presented within this report is approved. The detailed designs for the scheme will be presented to the local committee’s next meeting on 11 September 2013 prior to construction.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) AGREED to:
(ii) approve the advertisement of any statutory notices, in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and subject to no objections being upheld, the necessary Orders be made.
(iii) approve the delegation of authority to officers, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Local Committee, along with the relevant Divisional Member/s to consider, resolve and where necessary over rule any objections received in connection with the proposal.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) AGREED to ADD an additional recommendation:
(iv) To authorise officers to continue to develop the plans for the Leatherhead Town Centre cycle scheme; in order to take advantage of any future funding schemes.
Reason for Decision
The Local Committee felt this was a positive investment for cycling in Mole Valley and would improve the safety of cyclist. The Local Committee acknowledge consultation with local residents and in particular; local schools, sheltered housing schemes and businesses near the proposed route would be vital. The Committee also felt that the Leatherhead Town Centre scheme had a great deal of merit and that officers should continue to develop the plans in order to capitalise on any further funding that may become available. Minutes: Public Participation
Mr Meudell presented the committee with a map of an alternative route for the cycle path, along Linden Pitt Path. He highlighted the positives of the path not running along that A24 which was felt to not have the space for segregated or shared use. It was felt the current proposal would not appeal to adult cyclists. The proposed traffic lights at the Knoll roundabout where a particular cause for concern due to the impact upon traffic flow. Mr Meudell felt that upgrading the Linden Pitt path and bridge over the A24 to cycle use would be a more suitable option.
Mr Chrisham felt it was important for the Olympic legacy of cycling to be encouraged in the local area. He felt that the A24 route would be intimidating to many family or young cyclists. He felt it was important that further consultation be undertaken with the local community prior to implementation.
The divisional member for Ashtead raised queries as to whether the Linden Pitt Path bridge would actually meet cycle requirements? He also echoed the concerns regarding the traffic lights at the Knoll roundabout. The divisional member for Leatherhead acknowledged that both routes had potential challenges but had serious concerns about the suitability of the bridge for cycle use along with other users.
Main Discussion
Officers highlighted that the money had been awareded for the A24 route Leatherhead to Ashtead and it was not possible to change this to another scheme. When the scheme was initially submitted it was done on the basis of which best complied with Department for Transport guidelines. The key aim of the scheme was to improve cycling safety and would be suitable from 12 years and up. Officers would be looking at the detailed designs and going out to consultation with the local public. Councillors suggested a venue in Leatherhead town centre and Ashtead would provide the optimum location. Councillors also proposed a list of suitable bodies with which officers should consult and asked that officers amend the consultation plan. This recommendation was proposed by the divisional member for Bookham and Fetcham West and seconded by the divisional member for Leatherhead and Fetcham East.
Officers confirmed the Leatherhead Town Centre scheme was on the reserve list of schemes. Councillors felt it would be best to continue to work on this scheme so work could progress quickly should they be successful in receiving funding from other sources.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) AGREED to AMEND the recommendation (i) to:
(i) the consultation plan presented within this report is approved subject to the amendments proposed by the Local Committee. The detailed designs for the scheme will be presented to the local committee’s next meeting on 11 September 2013 prior to construction.
(i) the consultation plan presented within this report is approved. The detailed designs for the scheme will be presented to the local committee’s next meeting on 11 September 2013 prior to construction.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) ... view the full minutes text for item 13/13 |
|||
|
DECISION ON LOCAL COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTES [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION]
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 2013/14. Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Mole Valley) AGREED to:
Co-opt substitutes for district members for the municipal year 2013/14 in line with the County Council’s Constitution (Part 4. Standing Orders, Part 3 40(f))
Reason for Decision
The Local Committee felt that co-opting substitutes for district members would allow robust participation for all meetings. Minutes: The Local Committee (Mole Valley) AGREED to:
Co-opt substitutes for district members for the municipal year 2013/14 in line with the County Council’s Constitution (Part 4. Standing Orders, Part 3 40(f))
Reason for Decision
The Local Committee felt that co-opting substitutes for district members would allow robust participation for all meetings. |
|||
|
LOCAL COMMITTEE TASK GROUPS [NON-EXECUTIVE FUNCTION]
To form the Local Committee Task Groups and nominate members to the task groups. Additional documents: Decision:
Minutes: Councillors requested the terms of reference for the property task group be amended in their reference to the portfolio holder from the district as this person may not always be a committee member. Councillors were happy with the task groups.
|
|||
|
COMMUNITY SAFETY FUNDING [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION]
The Local Committee has been delgated £3,226 of funding for spending in line with the Mole Valley Community Safety Partnership’s identified priorities.
The Local Committee is asked to authorise the Community Partnership Manager to be responsible for the expenditure in accordance with the Local Committee’s decision.
Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Mole Valley) AGREED to:
Delegate the £3,226 of community safety funding to the Community Partnership Manager for spending in line with identified priorities of the Mole Valley Community Safety Partnership.
Reason for Decision
The Local Committee were happy for the money to be spent in line with the Community Safety Partnership’s identified priorities. Minutes: The Local Committee (Mole Valley) AGREED to:
Delegate the £3,226 of community safety funding to the Community Partnership Manager for spending in line with identified priorities of the Mole Valley Community Safety Partnership.
Reason for Decision
The Local Committee were happy for the money to be spent in line with the Community Safety Partnership’s identified priorities. |
|||
|
RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER [NON-EXECUTIVE FUNCTION]
To review the progress of previous recommendations and decisions made by the Local Committee. Additional documents: Minutes: The recommendation tracker was noted. |