Councillors and committees

Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, Pippbrook, Reigate Road, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 1SJ

Contact: Sarah J Smith, Community Partnership & Committee Officer  Pippbrook, Reigate Road, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 1SJ

Media

Items
No. Item

1/15

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

    • Share this item

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

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Apologies for absence were received from Clare Curran and Cllr Peter Stanyard. The Chairman welcomed the new co-optee members from Mole Valley District Council and acknowledged the attendance of Richard Walsh, the new SCC cabinet member for Localities and Wellbeing.

2/15

MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

3/15

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

    • Share this item

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

     

    Notes:

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    No declarations of interest were received.

4/15a

PUBLIC QUESTIONS pdf icon PDF 154 KB

    • Share this item

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

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The tabled public questions and responses are set out in the attached document.

     

    Question from Mr Richard Banks

     

    Mr Banks received a written response to his question in advance of the meeting but felt that it had been ‘unsatisfactory’. As his supplementary he wanted to know whether it would have been more appropriate for the safety audits to have been carried out by an independent party. Duncan Knox – SCC Road Safety Team Manager (DK) explained that the safety audit had been carried out by officers from another team and with the police.

     

                ......................................................................................................

     

     

    Questions from Mr Peter Seaward (on behalf of the Bookham Residents Association)

     

    Mr Seaward was satisfied with the responses received in advance of the meeting and was pleased with progress being made and that SCC had prioritised the areas of concern.

     

    He will contact Stephen Clavey and Clare Curran directly to organise a meeting with regard to parking in the High Street, Bookham.

                .......................................................................................................

     

    Question from Mr Clayton Wellman (on behalf of Chart Downs’ residents, users of the No.22 Saturday service and the local Liberal Democrat team

     

     

    Mr Wellman had submitted a written question and received a written response in advance of the meeting. He was not present but Claire Malcolmson asked a supplementary on his behalf.  She explained that the feedback they had received indicates a wider use of the service asked whether the proposal could be reconsidered.

    In response the Chairman announced that the Mole Valley Demand Responsive Service (DRT) will be extended to operate on Saturdays with effect from Saturday 5th September 2015.

     

    Residents who currently use Metrobus service 22, from areas not served by conventional bus services such as Newdigate, Leigh, Chart Downs, Sutton Abinger, Holmbury St Mary and Abinger Common,  will be able to book journeys in advance on the DRT service by phoning the call centre.  The service will be operated by East Surrey Rural Transport Partnership who operate the Monday to Friday DRT service in Mole Valley.  The service will be open to all Mole Valley residents who don't have access to other bus services and will provide an alternative for the Metrobus service 22 while also providing new transport opportunities to many Mole Valley residents.

    TH added that he thought some action should be taken to link the services 32 and 22.

     

4/15b

MEMBER QUESTIONS pdf icon PDF 90 KB

    • Share this item

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

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Questions from Mrs Helyn Clack (Dorking Rural):

     

    The tabled questions and written responses are set out in the attached document.

     

    Q1.      HC referred to the question submitted by Richard Banks and the response received (item 4a). She asked whether the new development in Horley might provide funds to finance a roundabout. John Lawlor (SCC Highways) said a bid to fund a feasibility study would have to come back to the local committee for approval.

     

    Q2.      HC wanted to know whether the 526/527 would connect early enough to make a connection to Gatwick for shift workers to get to work. The Chairman suggested arranging a meeting with the Transport Team and the Parish Council.

     

    Q3.      HC wanted reassurance that the work would be done without further delay.

    Zena Curry (SCC – Area Highways Manager) confirmed that all the permits were in place and that the work is programmed to take place during the schools’ summer break.

     

    Q4.      HC wanted to know how residents would be informed of the road closures

     ZC confirmed there would be a full engagement plan to go out to the parish councils.

     

    Q5.      No supplementary

     

    Q6.      HC wanted to check that Traffic Management was just replacing what had been there before. ZC confirmed this was the case and that the A29 would reopen on 30 June.

     

    Q7.      No supplementary

     

    Q8.      HC wanted to know whether it was possible to investigate further as there had been an increase in traffic. ZC explained noise barriers were expensive and therefore normally only installed when a new road is built but could check on the cost of a feasibility study.

     

                .........................................................................................................

     

    Questions from Mr Stephen Cooksey (Dorking South and the Holmwoods)

     

    Q1.      SC wanted to know why he had not seen any publicity for work programmed for the first week of July and wanted assurances that the necessary enforcement measures were in place.

     

    Q2.      SC wanted clearer news as to when the consultation would take place.

     

    There were no officers present from the SCC Parking team so both supplementary questions were referred to David Curl for a written response.

     

    Q3.      No supplementary

     

    Q4.      No supplementary

     

    Q5.      SC stressed the need to have these dangerous manoeuvres monitored and JL agreed to set up some dates with the police.

     

     

                           .................................................................................................

     

    Question from Mrs Hazel Watson (Dorking Hills):

    The Committee Officer agreed to contact officers for a time frame for a full response.

     

                .............................................................................................................

               

    Question from Cllr Rosemary Dickson (Leatherhead South)

    As a supplementary she asked the Highways’ officers how priority for the signage works would be decided and when residents could expect the sign to be erected. JL explained that he had asked for this to be given priority and it should be done within 1-2 months.

                    ............................................................................................................

     

    Verbal Question from Chris Townsend (Ashtead) –

     

    He raised the issue that work on the Woodfield Lane project, previously agreed at LC (11/09/13) had been stopped due to the intervention of Cllr Chris Hunt in preventing the transfer of land from MVDC. He felt  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4/15b

5/15

PETITIONS

    • Share this item

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

     

     

    No petitions have been received.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    No declarations of interest were received.

6/15

REVIEW OF COLD WEATHER PLAN AND WINTER SERVICE ARRANGEMENTS (SERVICE MONITORING AND ISSUES OF LOCAL CONCERN) pdf icon PDF 100 KB

    • Share this item

    This report seeks the views of the Local Committee regarding winter service arrangements during 2014/15 season in order to feed back into the annual review.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest:

    None

     

    Officers attending: John Lawlor - SCC Highways (JL)

     

    Petitions, Public Questions and Statements:

    None

     

    Member discussion – key points

     

    It was highlighted by Hazel Watson that the winter arrangements had not been tested due to last winter being mild.

     

    Cllr Seed raised concerns about the gritting of some of the roads around the schools in Fetcham. JL confirmed that The Street, Bell Lane and Cobham Road were definitely on the list to be treated but he would have to check about School Lane. Treatment depends on whether the road in question is on the primary or secondary network.

     

    The Local Committee agreed to:

     

                          i.        Consider the current highways cold weather provision and operations in their area and provide feedback, via their Local Committee Chairman, on any change requests.

7/15

RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER (FOR INFORMATION) pdf icon PDF 134 KB

    • Share this item

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest:

    None

     

    Officer attending:

    Sarah J Smith, Community Partnership and Committee Officer (Mole Valley)

     

    Petitions, Public Questions and Statements:

    None

     

    It was agreed that any items where actions were shown as being completed, should be removed from the tracker.

8/15

DORKING TRANSPORT PACKAGE (PHASE 1) DEEPDENE STATION IMPROVEMENTS (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION) pdf icon PDF 159 KB

    This report provides the Local Committee with an update on the progress of the Dorking Transport Package (Phase 1) and seeks approval of its proposals for a consultation on the planned improvements to Dorking Deepdene Station.

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved:

     

          i.        To note the project content

     

         ii.        To agree that the project be the subject of consultation between 19 June and 31 July 2015.

     

    And resolved to agree:

     

        iii.        That the Area Highways Manager in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman, Local Divisional Member and Project Manager (Transport Policy) view and agree the consultation material.

     

       iv.        The feedback from the consultation is reported to a later meeting of this committee.

     

     

    Reasons for decision:

     

    The Local Committee is to be kept informed of the progress of the Dorking Transport Package (Phase 1).

     

    It is a requirement of the C2C LEP to carry out a public consultation as a condition of the grant funding award however the county council also wishes to engage residents in the development of the project.

     

    The timing for June/July is to enable the local contribution being provided by First Great Western to be spent before its available ‘end’ date (30 September 2015).

     

     

     

     

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest:

    None

     

    Officer attending: Paul Fishwick, Project Manager, Transport Policy (PF)

     

    Petitions, Public Questions and Statements:

    None

     

     

    Paul Fishwick confirmed that an exhibition would take place Friday and Saturday 25 and 26 June regarding the proposal. Feedback from the whole consultation would be fed back to the LC in September.

     

    Member discussion – key points

     

    Hazel Watson queried why the consultation only covered phase 1 and questioned the reasons for removing the vegetation. She would have preferred priority to be given to measures to improve accessibility by either a lift or ramp and was disappointed these were not included in the phase 1 proposals. She also questioned whether the pavements were wide enough for shared use and suggested that priority should be given to providing ‘real time’ information at Dorking main station and would like to have seen the cycle path between Deepdene roundabout and the station moved to the west side of A24.

     

    Helyn Clack suggested that what residents needed most was more car parking as cycling was not an option for those living further out of Dorking.

     

    PF explained that the aim was to encourage residents to walk or cycle and thereby free up spaces so that motorists would not park on the street. The benefits of removing the vegetation will be assessed as part of the consultation and that the trees were on Network Rail land. Ramps and lifts would be considered as part of any phase 2 although at the moment this and phase 3 are only aspirations and there are no funds currently available.

     

    The 1m widening of Station Approach will be subject to a safety audit but there is sufficient room and the local highways team will be segregating the A24 cycle route using a small pot of money it has available. Moving it to the west side would cause difficulties for people having to cross the main road.

     

    PE supported retaining the vegetation providing there were no security concerns at the station and it was well lit. This would likely to be of benefit to future residents of Federated House, once developed.

     

    Cllr Huggins agreed with the comments on commuter parking and was disappointed that phase 1 did not include a ramp to make travelling easier for all passengers. Tim Hall conceded that commuter parking was a district wide issue that needed to be taken up with the rail companies. Stephen Cooksey agreed with these comments and asked whether there was evidence that the changes would increase cycling to the station. He did not feel that the proposals were clear and would have preferred to see a long-term plan; he was disappointed that there had been no progress towards making Deepdene DDA compliant and was concerned that funding could be wasted.

     

    PF stressed that the focus was on joining the two stations and that there was evidence to support the fact that people do convert from using the car to cycling or walking. He is waiting for a response from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8/15

9/15

WESTHUMBLE BRIDGE (NETWORK RAIL) - WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR INFORMATION) pdf icon PDF 360 KB

    • Share this item

    This report informs the Local Committee on the likely consequences of overweight vehicles using the Network Rail bridge in Westhumble and sets out measures to assess the extent of the problem and possible courses of action to address the issue.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest:

    None

     

    Officers attending:

    Maureen Robson – SCC Highways (MR)

     

    Hazel Watson expressed concern that the time frame might be too short to identify the full extent of the issue and that it was expecting much of residents to ask them to monitor vehicles. She stressed that a long term solution was required and asked if reinforcement of the structure could be prioritised.

     

    Cllr Elderton pointed out the worst possible consequences of an incident but MR explained that such considerations were outside the remit of the report and that Network Rail was only concerned here with the weight restrictions.

     

    The Local Committee agreed to note:

     

                           i.        A traffic count with both video (1 day) and automatic counting (7 days) has been commissioned to record all traffic using the bridge and determine the extent to which the weight restriction is being disregarded.

                          ii.        Structures Team will also request assistance from the local parish council/residents to safeguard the bridge by reporting any incidences of vehicles which appear to be overweight that are using the bridge.

                         iii.        The details of offending vehicles will be passed onto the police/SCC Trading Standards for enforcement action.

10/15

LIBRARY SERVICE REVIEW 2015 (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION) pdf icon PDF 113 KB

    This report looks at the recently completed Library Service Review and in particular changes to the opening hours of Bookham and Ashtead libraries.

     

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to agree:

     

          i.        to change the opening hours for Ashtead and Bookham libraries as set out in Annex 2 and paragraphs 3 and 9 of this paper subject to review with further information being provided to the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Divisional Member for Ashtead, to finalise opening hours.

     

    Reasons for decision:

     

    Members were concerned about the loss of later opening hours on Tuesday and Thursday at both libraries. Information was requested regarding the number of evening visitors to those local libraries which still offer later opening hours.

    Minutes:

    The Chairman brought forward Item 10 of the agenda to accommodate questions from members of the public.

     

     

    Declarations of Interest:

    None

     

    Officers attending: Simon Harding – SCC Library Service (SH)

     

    Petitions, Public Questions and Statements:

     

    Jean Bradley from the Ashtead Residents’ Association raised the issue of evening opening hours. If the proposals went ahead, the library would be losing both late evenings (Tuesday and Thursday) and questioned the survey of usage on which the proposals were based.

     

    Cllr Northcott, queried the fact that there had been no consultation on the changes and challenged the premise for the standardisation of opening hours.

     

    Peter Seaward (Bookham Residents’ Association) also objected to the loss of evening opening hours at the Bookham library.

     

    Members’ discussion – key points

     

    SH explained that the aim was to concentrate on the core opening hours and that both Dorking and Epsom libraries would be open during the evening.

     

    Chris Townsend doubted that residents would travel to other locations in the evening and asked the Library Service to provide the evening visitor figures for Epsom and Dorking for comparison. An amended recommendation was proposed by Chris Townsend, seconded by the Chairman and subsequently agreed by Members.

     

     

     

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to agree:

     

          i.        to change the opening hours for Ashtead and Bookham libraries as set out in Annex 2 and paragraphs 3 and 9 of this paper subject to review with further information being provided to the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Divisional Member for Ashtead, to finalise opening hours.

     

    Reasons for decision:

     

    Members were concerned about the loss of later opening hours on Tuesday and Thursday at both libraries. Information was requested regarding the number of evening visitors to those local libraries which still offer later opening hours.

11/15

DECISION ON LOCAL COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

    Under the County Council’s constitution (Part 4, Standing orders, Part 3 40 (f) no substitutes are permitted for a 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 2015/16.

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to agree:

     

          I.        Under the County Council’s constitution (Part 4, Standing Orders, Part 3 40 (f) to allow substitutes for district/borough council co-opted members for the municipal year 2015-2016.

     

    Reason for decision:

     

    Local Committee members wished to continue the practice of allowing substitutes for co-optees from the District Council.

    Minutes:

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to agree:

     

          I.        Under the County Council’s constitution (Part 4, Standing Orders, Part 3 40 (f) to allow substitutes for district/borough council co-opted members for the municipal year 2015-2016.

     

    Reason for decision:

     

    Local Committee members wished to continue the practice of allowing substitutes for co-optees from the District Council.

12/15

LOCAL COMMITTEE AND MEMBERS' ALLOCATION FUNDING - UPDATE (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR INFORMATION) pdf icon PDF 151 KB

    • Share this item

    This report provides an update on the projects that have been funded from the Members’ Allocation since April 2015 to date.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

     

     

    The Local Committee agreed to note:

     

          i.        The amounts that have been spent from the Members’ Allocation budget, as set out in Annex 1 of the report.

13/15

REPRESENTATION ON OUTSIDE BODIES AND TASK GROUPS AND COMMUNITY SAFETY BUDGET (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION) pdf icon PDF 240 KB

    • Share this item

    This report seeks to appoint Local Committee Members to outside bodies and task groups for the 2015/16 municipal year and seeks approval for the terms of reference of each of the task groups. It also requests the Local Committee to agree to the transfer of the delegated community safety budget to the East Surrey Community Safety Partnership.

     

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to agree:

     

          i.        The amended terms of reference for the Youth Task Group as set out in Annex 1

     

         ii.        The terms of reference for the Property Task Group and the Parking Task Group as set out in Annexes 2 and 3 respectively.

     

        iii.        Membership of the Youth Task Group as Chris Townsend, Helyn Clack, Cllr Mary Huggins and Cllr Sarah Seed.

     

       iv.        Membership of the Parking Task Group as Hazel Watson, Tim Hall, Cllr Raj Haque and Cllr Rosemary Dickson.

     

        v.        Membership of the Property Task Group as Tim Hall, Stephen Cooksey, Hazel Watson and Cllr Paul Elderton.

     

       vi.        Representative and deputy for the East Surrey Community and Safety Partnership as Tim Hall and Stephen Cooksey respectively.

     

      vii.        That the community safety budget of £3.337 that has been delegated to the Local Committee be transferred to the East Surrey Community Safety Partnership.

     

     

    Reasons for Decisions:

     

    The Local Committee’s three task groups make a valuable contribution to its work and should therefore continue in 2015-16.

     

    The revised Terms of Reference for the Youth Task Group will ensure a broader engagement of key stakeholders.

     

    The representative (and deputy) will ensure that the Local Committee is represented on the East Surrey Community Partnership board and that Mole Valley priorities are taken into account.

     

    Transfer of the small budget to the East Surrey Community Partnership will contribute to the funding of local projects in line with its set priorities.

    Minutes:

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to agree:

     

          i.        The amended terms of reference for the Youth Task Group as set out in Annex 1

     

         ii.        The terms of reference for the Property Task Group and the Parking Task Group as set out in Annexes 2 and 3 respectively.

     

        iii.        Membership of the Youth Task Group as Chris Townsend, Helyn Clack, Cllr Mary Huggins and Cllr Sarah Seed.

     

       iv.        Membership of the Parking Task Group as Hazel Watson, Tim Hall, Cllr Raj Haque and Cllr Rosemary Dickson.

     

        v.        Membership of the Property Task Group as Tim Hall, Stephen Cooksey, Hazel Watson and Cllr Paul Elderton.

     

       vi.        Representative and deputy for the East Surrey Community and Safety Partnership as Tim Hall and Stephen Cooksey respectively.

     

      vii.        That the community safety budget of £3.337 that has been delegated to the Local Committee be transferred to the East Surrey Community Safety Partnership.

     

     

    Reasons for Decisions:

     

    The Local Committee’s three task groups make a valuable contribution to its work and should therefore continue in 2015-16.

     

    The revised Terms of Reference for the Youth Task Group will ensure a broader engagement of key stakeholders.

     

    The representative (and deputy) will ensure that the Local Committee is represented on the East Surrey Community Partnership board and that Mole Valley priorities are taken into account.

     

    Transfer of the small budget to the East Surrey Community Partnership will contribute to the funding of local projects in line with its set priorities.