Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 507 KBVenue: 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
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
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: Apologies were received from Mrs Clare Curran. |
|
|
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
To approve the Minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes from the meeting held on 17 June 2015 were agreed as a true 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: No declarations of interest were received. |
|
To receive any questions from Surrey County Council electors within the area in accordance with Standing Order 66. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Anita Guy, Principal Engineer, South East Area Team
Petitions, Public Questions and Statements: As below
. Two members of the public put verbal questions to the Committee. ............................................................
Mike Ward raised the issue of the reduction in the 526/527 bus service. This had previously ben discussed at the local committee meeting on 17 June 2015 following a written question from Mrs H Clack, and Mr Ward had already been referred to the answer given at that time. His opinion was that this only covered the issue of workers travelling to Gatwick Airport and wanted to know what alternatives might be available for other passengers and in particular those who are less well off.
As the Chairman and Mrs Clack had a meeting arranged with the transport team for the following week, Mr Ward was asked to email his question to the committee clerk in full, so that it could be discussed at that session.
...................................................................
Roger Jones asked what the Local Committee, Mole Valley District Council and Surrey County Council were going to do regarding the decline of Dorking High Street, specifically with regard to the amount of traffic congestion and the number of empty shops.
Anita Guy (Principal Engineer) said that they were aware of the changes in traffic flows and that this could be due to works happening elsewhere and the current resurfacing might cause further changes. She referred to some of the written answers to questions from committee members to be discussed in the next item.
District Cllr Jones, in attendance as a local resident, was invited by the Chairman to comment in his capacity as Executive Member for Town Centres; his view was that the problems are caused mainly by the sequencing of the traffic lights and that there were few empty shops. The Chairman commented that there were no more traffic lights than before and that there was no clear evidence as to what the problem was.
As the committee had had no notice of the question he recommended the issue be brought back to a future meeting and he would raise the matter with the Chief Executive of the district council to seek her views.
...........................................................................
The tabled public questions and responses are set out in the attached document
..........................................................................
Gill Riggs (Holmwood Park Residents Association) had submitted a written question and received a response. She was not present at the meeting and Cllr Stephen Cooksey followed up on her behalf and asked why it had taken so long to implement the white lines. AG explained that this had previously been the responsibility of the operations team but was now part of her remit in the area team and the process should be easier going forward.
..................................................................
Mr Walter Blanchard submitted written questions and received responses in advance of the meeting. He was not present to ask a supplementary.
...............................................................
Deanne Weller had submitted a written question on behalf of SeeAbility and had received a written response. ... view the full minutes text for item 4/15a |
|
To receive any written questions from Members under Standing Order 47. Additional documents: Minutes: .Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Anita Guy (AG), Principal Engineer, South East Area Team
Written questions: As below
The tabled questions from local committee members and the responses are set out in the attached document.
..................................................................
Mr S Cooksey had submitted written questions and received responses in advance of the meeting and subsequently raised the following:
Q1. He believes it is the responsibility of the Local Committee to seriously discuss the traffic lights issue and would like a comprehensive survey to be carried out. He requested that a report come back to the December committee meeting on how this would be carried out.
Main points of discussion:
AG stressed that she would need to discuss with colleagues what type of survey would be best and ensure the right people get involved. She was concerned that this could not be done in time for the next meeting and suggested that March would be a more realistic deadline. The Chairman agreed with Mr Cooksey on the urgency of the issue and therefore bringing a report in December meeting would be ideal, but could not guarantee that it could be completed in time.
Mrs Clack said she had been contacted by some of her residents who would like to shop in Dorking but who are put off by the congestion and agreed that this must be affecting trade. She had become aware that the district council was launching an infrastructure needs assessment and suggested the two councils should come together to try and find a solution. She would be very keen to be involved in any review.
................................................................................
Q2.
Main points of discussion:
Mr Cooksey was concerned that Surrey County Council did not already hold this information and again stressed that it was up to the Local Committee to address the congestion issue in Dorking and develop a project to tackle the problem.
It was suggested that parking on yellow lines was adding to the congestion and that enforcement carried out by district officers was not being effective. Mrs Clack proposed that there should be a summit of both councils to find a solution. The Chairman said he would raise this in his meeting with the Chief Executive of Mole Valley.
.....................................................................
There were no supplementary questions from Mr Cooksey on Q3 or Q4.
.........................................................................
Mrs H Watson had submitted written questions and received responses in advance of the meeting. She subsequently raised the following:
Q2.
Mrs Watson asked if the relevant risk assessment information could be made available and AG confirmed she would contact the Safety Advisory Group to that end.
Q4
Main points of discussion
Mrs Watson expressed her concern firstly that the records of gullies in the district were not up to date in order for contractors to carry out cleaning work and secondly that councillors were being asked to advise officers if they came across any that were not mapped.
The Chairman explained that Mole Valley in general had the ‘least well mapped’ gullies. Conways was going through ... view the full minutes text for item 4/15b |
|
|
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. Additional documents: Minutes: One petition was received and considered under item 6. |
|
|
DORKING DEEPDENE STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT [EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS]
This report is to brief members on the Dorking Transport Package (Phase 1) project that was the subject of a consultation for six weeks between 19 June and 31 July 2015. Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:
i. To note the results of the high level analysis of the public engagement (Annex 1)
ii. That the outline project as set out in Annex 5 for ‘on highway’ improvements is approved and progresses to detailed design.
iii. To note that the Local Committee will be updated on a regular basis during the life of the project.
And resolved to agree:
iv. To the advertisement of a legal notice and traffic order for the introduction of a road table at the junction of Lincoln Road with Station Approach (Annex 6).
v. That if the objections are received to advertisement of the legal notices and traffic orders, the Area Team Manager is authorised to try to resolve them in consultation with the chairman, vice chairman, divisional members and project manager, and decide whether or not they should be acceded to and therefore whether the orders should be made, with or without modification.
Reasons for recommendations:
To ensure that the Local Committee is kept informed of the scheme development, the Local Committee is asked to note the results of the analysis of the public engagement event on the Dorking Sustainable Transport Package (Phase 1) proposals, included in Annex 1, together with supporting information of Annex 2 the exhibition panels and Annex 3 the questionnaire. Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officer attending: Paul Fishwick, LSTF Project Manager
Petitions, Public Questions and Statements: One petition received
A petition containing 346 signatures was submitted for consideration at the meeting. Residents had asked to stop the removal of trees and vegetation at the station as part of the Dorking Deepdene station improvement project (phase 1). A response had already been provided by officers and that wording and the petition text were presented as a tabled item (see attached).
The petitioner Mrs P King presented the background to the subject of the petition. The removal of trees and vegetation had not originally been part of the consultation and there were both privacy and environmental concerns. The petition had been successful in getting the attention of both Surrey County Council and First Great Western. She was satisfied that some concessions had been made but stressed she will continue to challenge any unnecessary tree cutting in the future.
The Chairman thanked the petitioner for her hospitality at the site meeting and added that FGW had been under no obligation to consult before carrying out the work.
Main points of discussion:
Paul Fishwick confirmed that the number of responses received was similar to that in previous consultations and that feedback had in general been positive. He advised that the plans will be put on the Surrey County Council website once they are available. Mrs Watson commented that it was a costly scheme given its limited benefit, and did not address the issue that she had previously raised of the cycle path ending at the taxi rank.
With regard to the cutting back of vegetation Cllr Elderton queried whether as owners of the properties affected, Network Rail (NR) was aware of the plans. Paul Fishwick confirmed that NR owns the rail station and embankment but FGW are responsible for the maintenance and he believed they were in communication with NR regarding the modifications to the station, but he will check this.
N.B. Annex 6 and 7 were missing from the original reports pack and were distributed at the meeting. These are attached to this item.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:
i. To note the results of the high level analysis of the public engagement (Annex 1)
ii. That the outline project as set out in Annex 5 for ‘on highway’ improvements is approved and progresses to detailed design.
iii. To note that the Local Committee will be updated on a regular basis during the life of the project.
And resolved to agree:
iv. To the advertisement of a legal notice and traffic order for the introduction of a road table at the junction of Lincoln Road with Station Approach (Annex 6).
v. That if the objections are received to advertisement of the legal notices and traffic orders, the Area Team Manager is authorised to try to resolve them in consultation with the chairman, vice chairman, divisional members and project manager, and decide whether or not they should be acceded to ... view the full minutes text for item 6/15 |
|
|
HIGHWAYS UPDATE [SERVICE MONITORING AND ISSUES OF LOCAL CONCERN]
This report sets out the recent progress made on the agreed programme of revenue and capital highway works in Mole Valley and provides an update on the number of enquiries received from customers. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Anita Guy (AG), Principal Engineer, South East Area Team
Petitions, Public Questions and Statements: None
Main points of discussion:
The committee were informed that the update on Project Horizon had been deferred until October and Cllr Haque expressed frustration that the work on Cock Lane was going to be delayed further. Mrs Clack thanked the highways team for the work carried out in her division and praised the excellent communication between those involved in Project Horizon and local residents.
Mr Chris Townsend commented that the committee had not received a recent list of schemes being funding by developers contributions and requested that one should be presented at one of the next two formal meetings. Anita Guy said she would follow this up with the relevant team.
Mr Stephen Cooksey wanted to know whether the work in Dene Street would be discussed at the December meeting and Anita Guy advised that the Traffic Regulation Order would go as normal and that he would be contacted about how the consultation would be carried out.
Cllr Stanyard queried the success of two of the drainage schemes mentioned in Annex 2 which AG will check on. Mrs Hazel Watson wanted to know when the road marking in Dorking Hills division would take place and AG will revert with a date when she has heard from the contractor.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:
i. Note the contents of the report.
Reasons for recommendation:
To update the Local Committee on the progress of the Highways work programme in Mole Valley.
|
|
|
WOODFIELD LANE PROJECT [EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS]
This report seeks approval for construction of the parking lay-by and authority to advertise and make Traffic Regulation Orders to introduce a No Right Turn restriction and waiting restrictions as part of the scheme. Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to agree:
i. To defer this item to a future meeting of the Local Committee (Mole Valley).
Reason for decision:
To allow officers to bring additional information for consideration. Minutes:
Declarations of Interest: None
Officer attending: Anita Guy (AG), Principal Engineer, South East Area Team
Petitions, Public Questions and Statements: None
Main points of discussion:
There were a number of counter arguments raised by various members of the committee.
As a resident of Ashtead District Cllr Jones spoke out against the scheme and suggested that those who currently park on the existing single yellow line were not shoppers. These were more likely to be late commuters or possibly day-trippers to London unwilling to pay the £1 car park charge at the station rather than Ashtead residents. He stressed that the main issue was the unavoidable damage to the chestnuts which were considered a feature of the village.
The Chairman invited Paul Anderson, Strategic Parks and Parking Manager for MVDC to speak on behalf of the district council. He confirmed that much work had been done with the Area Highways Team and that all their requirements with regard to the trees had been met with the provisions set out in the published report. He pointed out that some of the original trees had been unhealthy and had already gone.
Cllr Dickson said she was uneasy about the plans and recounted when this scheme had previously been proposed and abandoned; rather than risking damage to the trees she would prefer trying double yellow lines and suggested that the matter should be either be refused or deferred.
Cllr Seed questioned whether the results of the consultation were still valid and suggested double yellow lines would be cheaper. She also informed the committee that one developer in the area would seek to retract the monies meant for parking and traffic issues, if they were used for this scheme.
The Chairman advised that it was not yet confirmed which developers’ funds would be used and if it was PIC money, there would more flexibility in where it could be spent.
Cllr Haque expressed his uncertainty on the issue. He said he did not want to make a decision without looking at other cheaper options and was concerned about protecting the trees.
Mrs Clack agreed with the district councillor and that although the local committee normally supported the local divisional member on matters, on this issue she had received letters from district councillors Hunt and Jones who disagreed with the scheme and would like it looked at again. She suggested that there was a need for a ‘no return’ scheme but the enforcement required would have to be costed out. In response to a query from Cllr Elderton AG advised that they did not hold information on the current pattern of parking and Cllr Huggins concurred with the points put forward by Mrs Clack.
Cllr Stanyard recalled the original consultation in which large numbers of people had participated and as representative of a neighbouring ward, he was aware of how irate residents would be at having the scheme delayed further. He stressed that it was known at the time that the chosen option was the most ... view the full minutes text for item 8/15 |
|
|
PREPARATION OF NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLANS - PROGRESS UPDATE [FOR INFORMATION]
Neighbourhood Development Plans are being prepared by community groups in Ashtead, Bookham, Capel, Ockley and Westcott. This report explains how the preparation of the Neighbourhood Development Plans for these areas is progressing. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officer attending: Jack Straw, Planning Policy Manager District Council
Petitions, Public Questions and Statements: None
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:
i. Note the content of the report
Reason
To update the Local Committee on the progress of Neighbourhood Development Plan preparation in Mole Valley.
|
|
|
COMMUNITY YOUTH WORK CONSULTATION RESULTS [EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS]
This paper seeks the agreement of the Local Committee to approve changes to how Community Youth Work is delivered in Mole Valley. Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to agree:
i. The proposals set out in 3.1 of the report as formal guidance for the Community Youth Work Service.
Reasons for recommendations:
These changes are designed to: enable the Community Youth Work Service to better support the Council’s strategic goal of employability for young people; implement a County Council Cabinet steer to allocate more of our resources to the areas of greatest need; and respond positively to an overall funding reduction of 11% for Community Youth Work across Surrey.
Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Jeremy Crouch, Practice Lead East Steve Tait, Senior Practitioner Mole Valley
Petitions, Public Questions and Statements: None
Main points of discussion:
Officers confirmed that some proposals, mainly in Ashtead, had been adjusted in light of the results of the consultation. Mr C Townsend expressed his dissatisfaction with the Resource Allocation System (RAS) formula in general. The resulting 42% reduction in funding for community youth work services in Mole Valley meant that there would be no capacity to be able to react to changes in the level of need.
He suggested that Mole Valley may have been penalised for being too successful in tackling the problem of NEETS. He pointed out that the numbers of young people affected could change dramatically especially as schools are being expanded and asked where those who needed it would go for support. He highlighted the reduction of services in Ashtead from 5 days to just 9 hours a week but was encouraged by some new ideas being developed in the community. He acknowledged that there was now a need to move forward but would prefer to go for option 2 set out in the report.
Mrs H Watson agreed that the level of the cuts was unacceptable and had voted against them but suggested option 1 was the ‘least worst.’ There was general agreement between members that the district had been ‘too successful’ but Mrs H Clack stressed the need to make sure that resources were targeted and praised the youth task group for having worked well in scrutinising the reports; she also supported option 1 of the recommendations. There was widespread recognition of the good work being done by community youth teams in the district.
Cllr Elderton queried whether the focus on ‘employment’ risked creating silos but Jeremy Crouch stressed that while they helped young people develop the necessary skills to enter the workplace, there was still an emphasis on traditional key skills and personal development. He acknowledged that young people do not exist in isolation and that the youth service works with partners to make sure their approach is coordinated. He also explained that this was part of a wider strategy around ‘early help’ and that Surrey County Council was participating in a south east pilot scheme on this theme.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to agree:
i. The proposals set out in 3.1 of the report as formal guidance for the Community Youth Work Service.
Reasons:
These changes are designed to enable the Community Youth Work Service to better support the Council’s strategic goal of employability for young people; implement a County Council Cabinet steer to allocate more of our resources to the areas of greatest need and respond positively to an overall funding reduction of 11% for Community Youth Work across Surrey.
|
|
The purpose of this report is to update the Local Committee on how Services for Young People has supported young people to develop their employability during 2014/15, which is the overall goal of Services for Young People. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officer attending: Sarah Wright, Senior Youth Support Officer Jeremy Crouch, Practice Lead East
Petitions, Public Questions and Statements: None
Main points of discussion:
Mrs H Clack remarked that the general downward trend in the level of NEETS was to be applauded. She also wanted to know whether the district was ready to accommodate any young migrants in view of the fact that both Cobham and Clacket Lane services are often used as points of escape by arriving migrants. JC confirmed that the team had already been doing work at Clacket Lane for a while and would provide her with more information outside of the meeting.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:
i. Note how Services for Young People has supported young people to be employable 2014 – 2015 (as set out in the appendix).
Reason:
The Local Committee has an important part to play in supporting the local development of Services for Young People, ensuring that we are providing the right support to young people in local communities. In particular they have an important formal role in relation to the Local Prevention Framework and Centre Based Youth Work.
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER [FOR INFORMATION]
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officer attending: Sarah J Smith, Community Partnership and Committee Officer (Mole Valley)
Petitions, Public Questions and
Statements:
It was agreed that any items where actions were shown as being complete, should be removed from the tracker for the next meeting. |
|
|
LOCAL COMMITTEE AND MEMBERS' ALLOCATIONS [FOR INFORMATION]
Surrey County Council Councillors receive funding to spend on local projects that help to promote social, economic or environmental well-being in the neighbourhoods and communities of Surrey. This report provides an update on the projects that have been funded since April 2015 to date. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officer attending: Sandra Brown, Community Partnership Team Leader (East)
Petitions, Public Questions and
Statements:
An updated report was included in the tabled papers (attached).
The Local Committee agreed to note:
i. The Members’ Allocation applications received and amounts spent, as set out in the tabled document (attached). |