Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 565 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 Cllr Rosemary Dickson, Cllr Peter Stanyard and Mrs Helyn Clack. |
||
|
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
To approve the Minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes were agreed to be a true record of the meeting on 02 December 2015. |
||
|
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: No declarations of interest received.
Officers present:
Anita Guy (AG), Principal Engineer, South East Area Team
Peter Seaward (Bookham Residents’ Association) submitted a written question on problem parking outside the Howard of Effingham School and received a response in advance of the meeting. A meeting was due to be held with the school the next day to discuss where the lines would go and Mr Seaward asked whether it might be possible to put down some temporary cones in the meantime. AG agreed to check on this and advise.
.................................................................................
Scott Williams submitted written questions and received responses in advance of the meeting. He had no supplementary questions. With regard to Q1 & 2 Mr Cooksey expressed concern that there had been no indication that the budget for the scheme would be carried over to the following financial year. AG confirmed that any underspend would be discussed with the Chairman and Vice Chairman and Highways would be recommending that funds be allocated to the cycle path.
......................................................................................
Dino Adriano submitted written questions and received responses in advance of the meeting. With regard to Q1 he wanted it noted that there had been an error in the response from Surrey Highways which described the current location of the sign as being at the junction of Weare Street and Coles Lane; this is where he would like a sign to be installed. AG confirmed that the images they were using showed that a sign used to be there and that they would look to replace it. She will investigate and liaise with Mr Adriano.
With regard to Q2 Mr Adriano was concerned that that the ‘cyclists dismount’ signs were considered ‘useless’. AG confirmed that cyclists tended to take more notice of signs giving pedestrians priority as it was a more positive message. |
||
To receive any written questions from Members under Standing Order 47. Additional documents: Minutes: No declarations of interest received.
Officers in attendance:
Anita Guy (AG), Principal Engineer, South East Area Team
Mrs Hazel Watson (HW) submitted written questions and received responses in advance of the meeting. (See tabled papers).
Q1 – HW thanked officers for progressing this project
Q2 – HW asked that priority be given to finding the necessary funding as this was an important safety issue.
Q3 – HW asked that the edge of the carriageway lines be painted as agreed and AG confirmed that she would go out and measure to see if there was sufficient space to have both sets of lines and report back to her.
Q4 – HW asked that the ‘give way’ markings recommended in the safety audit be implemented at junction of Brook Close and Deepdene Avenue Road. AG agreed to take the request back to the lining officer who will respond directly to Mrs Watson. |
||
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: No declarations of interest received.
Officer present:
Stephen Clavey, Senior Engineer, Parking Project Team
Stephen Usher the petitioner was not in attendance to present the petition.
The Chairman and Stephen Cooksey had met with the petitioner on site and learned that Mr Usher had not been a resident of Spital Heath at the time of the consultation. Mr Cooksey also confirmed that although not all the signatories to the petition were local to Dorking or directly affected by the proposed scheme, there were indications that around 50% of current residents were now in favour of it being introduced. It was agreed that it would be included in this year’s review. |
||
|
HIGHWAY SCHEMES 2015-16 - END OF YEAR UPDATE [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION]
Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:
i. Note the contents of the report and
resolved to agree to
ii approve the transfer of the £30,000 Dorking Sustainable Transport Package funding from Bus Stop E to provision of Real Time Passenger Information at the bus stops at Dorking Main railway station.
Reasons for decision:
To (i) update the Local Committee on the progress of highway works programme and (ii) ensure available funding provides best value for money.
Minutes: No declarations of interest received.
Officer present:
Anita Guy (AG), Principal Engineer, South East Area Team
Members’ discussion:
Chris Townsend advised that in connection with the 20mph Speed Limit Outside Schools scheme, the Freemans School was in a position to provide some funding for a crossing. He expressed some reservations about this and wanted to know whether residents would be consulted on proposals. AG confirmed that she had met with representatives of the school and that the design team was looking to incorporate it into the scheme. Once funds were allocated they would go out to consultation.
Mr Townsend was also waiting for a response from Highways regarding the micro asphalt work in Taleworth Road, which should have started last Wednesday but no work had been taken place. He had queried why works had not been carried out during half term and why he had only been advised of the planned work, four days in advance of the proposed start date. The Chairman agreed that there had recently been some errors in communications with regard to works on the highway. It was explained that the micro asphalt schemes have to be done in two stages ie pre-patching first. AG apologised for the poor communication but assured Members they were working to improve this.
Cllr Seed referred to the 20mph trial outside Fetcham Village Infant School and pointed out that while the school was having building work done the entrance had temporarily been moved to a gate on the boundary of the 20mph zone. This entrance was still being used although the work had now finished and she asked whether the zone could be extended. As a governor of the school the Chairman confirmed this was a permanent change and recommended that the boundary of the 20mph should be checked. He added that the zone in Bell Lane should also be checked as Thames Water was carrying out work there.
Hazel Watson asked about progress on the design for the kerb build out in Pixham Lane with junction of the A24. AG confirmed that she had recently received drawings that she will share shortly with the Chairman, Vice-Chair and divisional member.
Stephen Cooksey agreed with the Chairman’s comments on communications from Highways. Following the resurfacing work in Dorking town centre a review had been promised on how this had been handled but he was not aware that it had taken place. Mr Cooksey pointed out that the provision of grit bins and footway works under the Localism Initiative had not been carried out and wanted to know why the funds allocated to the Beare Green – Spook Hill cycle way had not been spent. In this regard AG explained that there had been resource issues and that it had taken longer than anticipated to design the barriers, by which time it had been too late to reallocate the funding to other parts of the scheme. The ‘underspend’ will be discussed with the Chairman and Vice-Chair with a recommendation to ... view the full minutes text for item 21/16 |
||
|
UPDATE ON DORKING TOWN CENTRE [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION]
Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed that:
Following completion of all of the scheduled repairs/revisions/upgrades to the current signal configurations, a potential Expression of Interest (EoI) is to be submitted to the C2C LEP that would include Dorking Traffic Management and Congestion fixing measures.
Reasons for decision:
With current Traffic Signal configurations now repaired/reconfigured and providing optimum operation, there is still a further need to seek out funding opportunities to improve traffic flows through Dorking Town Centre, given recent new developments in the Town Centre and anticipated increased traffic volumes in future years. Minutes: No declarations of interest received.
Officers present:
Matthew Jezzard (MJ), Traffic Manager Anita Guy (AG), Principal Engineer, Area Highways Team
Members’ discussion:
MJ advised that repairs to detector loops and a review of the control methods had anecdotally improved traffic flow. Since writing the report there had been a further meeting to discuss measures but there were no obvious quick solutions although it had been agreed to carry out further modelling work and it had been recommended that any Expressions of Interest for LEP funding should concentrate on sustainable transport.
Mrs Watson agreed there was no easy solution but suggested that priority should be given to enforcement of current restrictions. She expressed her support for a bid relating to sustainable transport but underlined the importance of reliable and appropriate bus services.
Mr Cooksey expressed concern that the ‘cockerel’ side of the A25 should also be included in any measures and questioned whether ‘sustainable transport’ would provide a real solution. A bid for funding may be successful in two year’s time but asked what could be done in the meantime.
MJ encouraged Members to feed into the bid and said he would welcome any suggestions for short term solutions but emphasised that funding for schemes was the major problem.
Paul Anderson, Parking Manager MVDC was in attendance and was asked about enforcement of restrictions on the High Street in Dorking. He explained that there was always a team of two officers in the town, but would welcome information from Members on where there were specific problems where they could target enforcement.
Mr Townsend questioned whether developers’ funds could be used to address the problems in Dorking. MJ advised that funding for traffic modelling had already been agreed jointly by SCC and MVDC and that there may be potential for use of S106 monies as match funding towards future projects.
MJ warned that there was the possibility that Thames Water might have to carry out some exploratory work on the sewer in South Street. Mr Cooksey highlighted the fact that there were already several sets of planned works due to start in Dorking such as the one way trial in Dene Street and the pavements in West Street. MJ assured Mr Cooksey that officers were aware of all the forthcoming works, and were coordinating their methodology and timing accordingly
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed that:
Following completion of all of the scheduled repairs/revisions/upgrades to the current signal configurations, a potential Expression of Interest (EoI) is to be submitted to the C2C LEP that would include Dorking Traffic Management and Congestion fixing measures.
Reasons for decision:
With current Traffic Signal configurations now repaired/reconfigured and providing optimum operation, there is still a further need to seek out funding opportunities to improve traffic flows through Dorking Town Centre, given recent new developments in the Town Centre and anticipated increased traffic volumes in future years. |
||
|
MOLE VALLEY PARKING REVIEW [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION]
Additional documents: Decision:
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to agree:
(i) The recommendations detailed in Annex 1 and 2 as amended
(ii) That the County Council’s intention to make an order under the Road Traffic Regulation act 1984 be advertised and, if no objections are maintained, the order be made;
(iii) That if objections are received the Parking Strategy and Implementation Group Manager is authorised to try and resolve them, in consultation with the Chairman / Vice Chairman of this committee and the county councillor for the division, and decides whether or not they should be acceded to and therefore whether the order should be made, with or without modifications.
(iv) To allocate £10,000 towards the cost of the parking review in 2017 / 2017 financial year
Reasons for decision:
It is expected that the implementation of the proposals will both increase the safe passage of vehicles and also ease the parking situation within the mainly residential areas. Minutes: No declarations of interest received.
Officer present: Stephen Clavey (SC), Senior Engineer
Members’ discussion:
The Chairman suggested three additions to the current proposals: · Highlands Road – at the bottom end (lower numbers) amend to weekday restrictions only. · South Street, Dorking – extend the bays outside Dove’s paint shop. · St John’s Avenue – shorter regulated hours on some bays
Mrs Watson requested the following addition:
· Broomfield Park, Westcott – double yellow lines for approximately two cars’ lengths on the second bend. and also pointed out that on Drawing 29 the key obscures the Myrtle Road proposal, so this needs to be amended.
Chris Townsend queried whether the lines agreed in the last review would be going in before the end of the month. He also wanted to have a meeting to discuss the situation around Ottways Lane and Grange Road. There is an ongoing problem of cars parked on the pavements and fears that the future expansion of St Peters will exacerbate the issue. He asked SC to note that Drawing 9 should read ‘Gaywood’ and not ‘Gayfere’ Road.
The Chairman pointed out that the parking problems at the West Ashtead group of schools spill over into his division and suggested that a larger group, perhaps including Val Sexton, should get together to talk about possible solutions.
Stephen Cooksey requested the following additions:
· Holmesdale Road, North Holmwood – lines opposite named junctions · Warwick Road junction with Norfolk Road – add restrictions · Spital Heath residents’ parking scheme (item 5 refers)
Clare Curran asked when the lines would be painted in Lower Shott. She queried the proposed measures in Long Copps Close and requested that these be withdrawn as they were virtually unenforceable. With regard to Fife Way (drawing no 23) she would like proposals to be added to the north side of the road to prevent all day parking.
SC advised that MVDC was putting up the signage for the last review and that the lining work should be completed by the end of March. Enforcement should start in April, although MVDC officers will probably issue warnings before fully enforcing the new restrictions. In future the parking reviews will be map based and should take less time. This year’s parking review will be advertised at the end of June with objections being accepted up until end July/beginning of August. Implementation should take place during September/October.
.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to agree:
(i) The recommendations detailed in Annex 1 and 2 as amended
(ii) That the County Council’s intention to make an order under the Road Traffic Regulation act 1984 be advertised and, if no objections are maintained, the order be made;
(iii) That if objections are received the Parking Strategy and Implementation Group Manager is authorised to try and resolve them, in consultation with the Chairman / Vice Chairman of this committee and the county councillor for the division, and decides whether or not they should be acceded to and therefore whether the order ... view the full minutes text for item 23/16 |
||
|
TRANSFORM LEATHERHEAD [FOR INFORMATION]
This report provides a summary of the recently published Transform Leatherhead Masterplan. (Report to follow). Additional documents: Minutes: This item was deferred to a future meeting of the Local Committee. |
||
|
CHURCH STREET (LEATHERHEAD) ENHANCEMENTS [FOR INFORMATION]
This report provides an update on the progress of the scheme to enhance Church Street (Leatherhead). Additional documents: Minutes: No declarations of interest received.
Officer present:
Rod Shaw (RS), Principal Conservation Officer, Mole Valley District Council
Members’ discussion:
Since the last report presented to the committee on this scheme, there have been two major developments; the ‘Transform Leatherhead’ project and the granting of planning permission for Waitrose. RS was confident in that they would secure the necessary funding from a number of partners, Coast2Capital, Mole Valley developers’ funds (subject to agreement by the Executive), Mole Valley Local Committee, Haque Investments and the new Town Centre Revitalisation Fund (Surrey County Council). There are plans to hold a consultation with key stakeholders around mid April. The opening of the new food store had been put back to early October, which will have an impact on the timetable for the street enhancements. Further discussions would take place with the food store developer to determine the best arrangements for the start and completion of the enhancement works within the financial year 2016/17.
There was some concern expressed as to how the enhancements fitted in with ‘Transform Leatherhead’ and RS reassured members that this was a complementary scheme. It is not known what the future traffic management in the town will be, but nothing proposed in the current project would compromise later decisions made in respect of the traffic management for the town centre.
Cllr Haque wanted to know about changes to parking. RS advised that with regard to off-street parking one side of the car park had already been improved and that there were an additional 22 spaces planned. With regard to on-street parking, the disabled parking bays were to be retained in front of the store, although some reconfiguration may take place to allow for deliveries etc.
Chris Townsend commented that similar questions had been raised at the members’ reference group for Transform Leatherhead. He believed the project was going in the right direction but had the flexibility to fine tune options if required.
The Chairman enquired about the cost of the scheme compared to the work recently carried out in West Street, Dorking. RS advised that the latter had in effect been mainly resurfacing and had cost around £250,000-300,000. The Church Street enhancements would cost in the region of £800,000 as it was a much more complicated project.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to note the content of the report.
|
||
|
LEATHERHEAD SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT PACKAGE [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION]
Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:
(i) Note the project content and (ii) To approve the submission of a business case to the C2C LEP based on the project content
Reasons for decision:
To ensure that the Local Committee is kept informed on the Leatherhead Sustainable Transport Package and to seek its approval for the project, as the Local Committee will be required to make a number of approvals in the future with regard to changes on the highway. Minutes: No declarations of interest received.
Officer present:
Lesley Harding (LH), Place and Sustainability Group Manager
Members’ discussion:
There was general agreement that this project should be coordinated with ‘Transform Leatherhead’ and Chris Townsend stressed the need for the public to see that the different schemes were integrated. He queried whether another consultation would really be needed as residents in the area had already had the opportunity to feed into the Transform Leatherhead project. He also hoped that the scheme would cost less than the suggested £5million. LH confirmed that she would check that the proposals had been signed off by the Transform Leatherhead team and suggested they might be able to combine the consultations. She agreed that the scheme should cost less than the £5million quoted but at the moment they had no detailed costings.
Cllr Haque was concerned as to how the running of the buses would be affected. The Chairman advised there had been some issues with the 479 and urged members to forward any problems either to him or directly to Val Sexton at Surrey County Council. LH explained that the planned use of real time information would help alleviate congestion and improve reliability of bus services. Some of the larger companies currently use private buses to transport their staff and it was hoped these improvements would alleviate the need for this.
Clare Curran commented that the cycle route improvements may result in taking some of the school traffic off the roads in particular by encouraging pupils who travel from the Fetcham side of the town, to use their bikes. LH commented that the DfT may be providing some revenue funding to support promotional activities like this from next year, but that this particular bid was for capital funding to improve the infrastructure.
Cllr Elderton highlighted the aim of reducing road casualties and whether the improvements would help change people’s behaviour. LH commented on the problem of the increased number of cycling casualties and emphasised the need to separate cyclists from vehicular traffic, in particular at junctions.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:
(i) Note the project content and (ii) To approve the submission of a business case to the C2C LEP based on the project content
Reasons for decision:
To ensure that the Local Committee is kept informed on the Leatherhead Sustainable Transport Package and to seek its approval for the project, as the Local Committee will be required to make a number of approvals in the future with regard to changes on the highway. |
||
|
SCHOOL TRAVEL PLANS [FOR INFORMATION]
This report sets out to raise awareness of the issues local communities face travelling to and from school and the impact School Travel Plans have on reducing congestion, pollution and road traffic incidents Additional documents: Minutes: This item was deferred to a future meeting of the Local Committee. |
||
|
RECOMMENDATIONS/DECISION TRACKER [FOR INFORMATION]
Additional documents: Minutes: No declarations of interest received.
Officer present:
Sarah J Smith, Community Partnership and Committee Officer
The recommendation tracker was noted. |