Agenda, decisions and minutes

Mole Valley Local Committee
Wednesday, 15 June 2016 2.00 pm

Venue: St Paul's Church, St Paul's Road West, Dorking, RH4 2HT

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

Items
No. Item

29/16

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

30/16

MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING pdf icon PDF 217 KB

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

    Minutes:

    The minutes were agreed to be a true record of the meeting held on 02 March 2016.

     

    Referring to page 3 (Highway Schemes Update) Chris Townsend requested that officers come back to him on why the work in Taleworth Road had not been completed. With reference to page 6 (Parking Review) he requested an update on when the lines (particularly) near the Greville School would be completed.

     

    With reference to page 4 Clare Curran noted that she had asked Committee Officer Sarah Smith to contact Surrey Police with regard to establishing a speed survey in Kennel Lane, once Cock Lane had been resurfaced.

31/16

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.

     

    Minutes:

    No declarations of interest were received.

32/16a

PUBLIC QUESTIONS pdf icon PDF 146 KB

    To receive any questions from Surrey County Council electors within the area in accordance with Standing Order 69.

    Minutes:

    No declarations of interest were received.

     

    Officers present:

     

    Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager

    Anita Guy, Principal Engineer

     

     

    Scott Williams had submitted four written questions (attached) regarding cycle speed control barriers at South Holmwood subway. He had been invited to participate in a site visit on Monday 13 June with officers, members and other interested parties and AG gave the following verbal responses to his questions:

     

    1.    A review of the barriers will be carried out and possible alternatives will be brought back to the Chairman and Mole Valley Cycle Forum.

    2.    Mirrors are unfortunately not vandal proof so there is no intention to replace these.

    3.    Highways will look for signage that encourages cyclists to dismount.

    4.    AG has spoken to the maintenance engineer who will arrange for the ‘gang’ to go out and have a look.

     

     

    Ron Billard asked a supplementary on Mr Williams’ behalf. He pointed out that part of the path near Beare Green was in need of maintenance and requested the work be put on the schedule to be done.

     

    AG confirmed that it had been agreed with the Chairman and Vice-Chair that the remainder of last year’s budget for the scheme would be transferred. Mr Williams asked for clarification on how much the barriers had cost and AG agreed to find that information for him.

     

    Michael Agius had submitted questions on behalf of the Bookham Residents’ Association and had received written responses in advance of the meeting and put the following supplementaries:

     

    1.    He asked when funding might be available as they were under pressure from The Grange to have the footway extended. ZC explained that the LC only has limited capital funding and this was allocated to priority schemes last November. It can be considered again next November.

                

    2.    No question

     

    3.    He asked that details of the schemes be brought to the next flood forum meeting and ZC to contact the Resilience Team.

     

32/16b

MEMBER QUESTIONS pdf icon PDF 109 KB

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

    Minutes:

    No declarations of interest received.

     

    Officers present:

     

    Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager

    Anita Guy, Principal Engineer, Highways

    Steve Clavey, (StC) Senior Engineer, Parking

     

     

    Cllr Dickson had submitted a written question and had received a written response. She had no supplementary as the potholes had already been ‘ringed’ ahead of the work being carried out.

     

    Stephen Cooksey had received responses to five written question in advance of the meeting and asked the following supplementaries:

     

    1.    He wanted to know what was happening about the brief as already part way through June and whether it would be shared with Members for Dorking. ZC explained that they were looking for innovative ideas so were keeping the brief as open as possible, but that Members could contribute. She stressed again that it was tied in with Growth Deal 3 and could take 18months – 2years.

    2.    SC commented that any reduction in speed limit would also benefit children attending St Paul’s school.

    3.    SC stressed his disappointment at this response and that he found the situation ‘unacceptable’. ZC/AG had spoken to the Legal Team about additional signage but this was not allowed. The police had undertaken some enforcement but had no resources to continue on a regular basis. HC suggested that perhaps the police could use a mobile camera to take photos of offenders in a targeted operation. It was agreed that the Local Committee would send a strongly worded letter to the police outlining the concerns and asking for action (Committee Officer to draft).

    4.    SC stressed the importance of clear communication in the parking review process. He did not think it good enough that residents should have to respond via the internet and wanted to know if the scheme could be revisited. StC explained it was general policy to persuade residents to respond electronically and that there was help available via the Contact Centre and it was unlikely to make a difference to the result.

    5.    He asked to be kept informed the on the progress of the review.

     

    Cllr Haque had received a written response to his question but wanted to clarify that residents tend to cross the road away from the full width speed humps that are already installed. ZC explained that Highways receive far more requests for schemes than can be afforded and that there was not a history of accidents in this location.

     

    Mrs Watson had received responses to 11 questions and had the following supplementaries:

     

    Q3.      She would like to have a date for the survey. AG confirmed it was ordered and will try and get a date for hopefully before the schools break up.

     

    Q4.      She would like confirmation of the date the work would be carried out. AG to check the drawings and issue to the lining contractor. The urgency will be stressed but the work is weather dependent.

     

    Q5       The site visit was held back in Feb 2014 so wanted assurance that the assessment would be ready for November, so that it could considered  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32/16b

33/16

PETITIONS pdf icon PDF 116 KB

    To receive any petitions in accordance with Standing Order 68. Notice should be given in writing or by e-mail to the Community Partnership and Committee Officer at least 14 days before the meeting. Alternatively, the petition can be submitted on-line through Surrey County Council’s e-petitions website as long as the minimum number of signatures (30) has been reached 14 days before the meeting.

    .

    Minutes:

    Officers present:

     

    Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager

     

     

    The petition (wording and written response attached) was presented by Jayne Mansfield and Julia Steinhardt. In addition to the arguments put forward as part of the petition they raised the issue of foliage overhanging the pavement and how the measures would also benefit those using Ashtead park and village, provide safe access to bus stops and generally improve the walk to school.

     

    ZC confirmed that both the Chairman and Vice Chairman are supportive of the scheme but this year’s funding has already been allocated. It will be considered for next year when this is discussed by Members in November.

     

    Chris Townsend asked whether it might be possible to use money from the Parsons Mead estate development and ZC confirmed they would look into that as well as check on the problems of maintenance of the vegetation.

     

    Clare Curran highlighted the importance of looking after and encouraging children to walk to school, in particular as the Greville has been expanded and Chris Hunt also expressed his support for using money from Parsons Mead.

     

34/16

HIGHWAY SCHEMES UPDATE [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION] pdf icon PDF 106 KB

    This report provides the Local Committee (Mole Valley) with an update on the progress of the highway works programme in Mole Valley.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    No declarations of interest

     

    Officers present:

     

    Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager

    Anita Guy, Principle Engineer (Highways)

    Steve Clavey (StC), Senior Engineer (Parking)

     

    Members referred to the highways update in asking about the progress of specific schemes:

     

    Pebble Hill (Page 23) – Helyn Clack wanted to know why Horizon had been delayed and whether it was good value for money for the road markings to go in without it having been resurfaced. ZC confirmed the delay was partly due to work being carried out by the utility companies and that there was no need to wait as it was good value for money. The road is not on Horizon’s list for year 4 and may not be prioritised until year 7.

     

    HC also wanted to know what was happening with regard to implementation of the parking review in Beare Green. StC explained they were putting in the final notices but then had to wait 6 weeks before advertising the TROs.

     

    Page 18 – Chris Townsend asked about the time frame for installing the crossing in Park Lane. AG will send on the plan to him and will contact with City of London Freeman’s school with regard to the provision of funding.

     

    Page 22 – CT questioned why the waiting restriction signs in Woodfield Lane layby had not yet been installed. StC assured him it was in hand.

     

    Cllr Dickson asked if Dene Road/Rectory Lane could be one scheme to benefit from funding for new sign as they had been destroyed by lorries working on a development there.

     

    ZC referred Members to the Horizon update and the appended list of roads. They are asked to identify their top priorities and advise Matthew Gallop by end of the 2nd week in July.

     

    Page 18 - Cllr Haque asked if it would it be possible to extend the 20mph area in Fetcham and was advised that the Road Safety Outside Schools teams would be looking at this during the drop off and pick up times. A meeting with the design team was scheduled for the following day.

     

    Page 18 – Cllr Huggins reported that Newdigate Parish Council would like more information and had requested a meeting with the divisional member, residents and district members. HC agreed this would be welcome.

     

    Page 17 – Re. A24 safety measures Stephen Cooksey commented that small sections south of South Drive had been left out and needed to be dealt with and asked for an update on when speed reduction measures in Blackbrook Road (p.20) would be installed.

     

     

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:

     

    (i)            Note the contents of the report

     

     

     

35/16

PAVEMENT HORIZON 5 YEAR PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PROGRAMME [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION] pdf icon PDF 103 KB

    This report informs the Local Committee (Mole Valley) on Pavement Horizon and provides a list of potential schemes that have been identified for Mole Valley. Members are invited to verify that these meet local and community requirements or alternatively to propose other schemes for consideration.

    Minutes:

    No declarations of interest

     

    Officers present:

     

    Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager

    Anita Guy, Principal Engineer (Highways)

     

    ZC explained that the report being presented did not refer to the work being carried out in year one of project Pavement Horizon but years 2-6 with regard to the more expensive construction schemes and not the less costly preventative work.

     

    Members are being asked to identify footways they think should be given priority going forward which fulfil the necessary criteria ie high footfall and level of community need eg. Location near a school or hospital.

     

    SC thought there was a special agreement in place with regard to pavements in conservation areas, if for example the district council were prepared to provide additional funding. ZC was aware that some treatments were more expensive than reconstruction costs, but it would still have to be considered in the top 100 high priority across the county.

     

    ZC agreed to send out an email to members setting out the criteria for recommendations and confirming who these should be sent to. It was also agreed that the issue would be discussed again at the July informal, and she would bring a map of the district to help with this. A report will be going to Cabinet in about 2 weeks to have changes to the process approved.

     

    HC asked if there were exceptions for rural locations as these were unlikely to have the density required. ZC agreed but that the level of community need could still make them a priority.

     

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to note:

     

     

    (i) The list of potential Pavement Horizon needs based schemes, for the 5 year programme, generated from the FNS for Mole Valley. (Annex 1).

     

    (ii) The request to identify schemes that are

    1. High priority and should remain on the 5 year programme

    2. Lower priority and could be deferred to a future programme

    3. Currently not on the high priority list and should be considered for addition to the list.

     

    (iii) The process outlined in part 1 to verify that the schemes in Annex 1 meet local and community needs.

     

     

     

    Cllr Chris Hunt left the meeting.

     

     

36/16

RELOCATION OF BUS STOP, HIGH STREET, DORKING [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION] pdf icon PDF 95 KB

    This report seeks approval to relocate the bus stop adjacent to The White Horse Hotel, High Street, Dorking and to rearrange the location of existing time limited parking bays to accommodate the relocation of the bus stop.

     

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to agree:

     

    (i)            The recommendations detailed in Annex 1;

     

    (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)         This would be advertised as part of the 2016 Mole Valley parking review and therefore the costs would be included in this.

     

    Minutes:

    No declarations of interest received:

     

    Officer present: Stephen Clavey, Senior Engineer (Parking)

     

    Members generally expressed support for the proposal although Stephen Cooksey asked for assurance that no parking spaces would be lost and that notice would be taken that the location is in a conservation area.

     

    Clare Curran left the meeting once the resolution was agreed.

     

     

     

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to agree:

     

    (i)            The recommendations detailed in Annex 1;

     

    (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)         This would be advertised as part of the 2016 Mole Valley parking review and therefore the costs would be included in this.

     

37/16

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FROM SERVICES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE [SERVICE MONITORING & ISSUES OF LOCAL CONCERN] pdf icon PDF 93 KB

     

     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 2015/16, which has been the overall goal of Services for Young People since 2014

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    No declarations of interest:

     

    Officer present:

     

    Kevin Martin, Youth Support Services Team Manager

     

    KM had a video to show at a future meeting showing a group of young people who had gone on a winter residential trip, which Members had contributed to via their allocations.

     

    KM explained that their summer project aimed to coordinate the services offered by all youth providers in the district

     

    There was general agreement that the YSS do a great job especially in light of the recent severe cuts to their funding. The potential fallout from this had not been properly risk assessed.

     

    Members discussed whether the Malthouse Youth Centre was well located in the centre of Dorking. There had been instances of ASB in particular in St Martin’s car park and it was suggested that limited opening hours (2 evenings on a permanent basis and one additional one being temporarily funded), has contributed to the problem.

     

    It was highlighted that the formula on which funding is based relates only to the number of NEETS (not in education, employment or training) and does not take into account other challenges such as ASB – unfortunately Youth Justice figures were not included in the report. The question was raised as to whether the LC might be able influence the Cabinet to revisit this issue.

     

    KM explained that in the summer they will use local police ASB statistics to see if there is a causal link between this and the level of youth activities provided.

     

     

    Chris Townsend expressed his dissatisfaction with the formula and complained about the inconsistencies. One particular scheme for young girls in Ashtead had been cut and there was now a reliance on the voluntary sector to fill the gap.

     

    Stephen Cooksey remarked on police reports of increased ASB in Dorking over the last weeks. As a result the opening hours of the Malthhouse youth centre were an issue of concern particularly compared when compared to those of the youth centres in Leatherhead North and Ashtead Village.

     

     Hazel Watson expressed her view that the Malthouse was in a good location to for those pupils attending both the Ashcombe and the Priory. KM agreed but also suggested that the Goodwyns estate should also have a youth centre. It would be wrong to think that the Malthouse was empty during the day as it was used by the Youth Support Services to meet with vulnerable young people. It was also used Monday to Friday, between 9am and 3pm during term time as a referral school that supported the mainstream schools in Mole Valley.He was optimistic that links with the Dorking football club would provide future opportunities for training and apprenticeships.

     

    .

    Cllr Mary Huggins highlighted the work being done by volunteer youth workers at the centre in Beare Green, which had received an award from the High Sheriff in the form of additional funding.

     

     

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to note:

     

    (i) How Services for Young People has supported young people to be employable during 2015/16, as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37/16

38/16

ARMED FORCES COMMUNITY COVENANT [FOR INFORMATION] pdf icon PDF 112 KB

    Surrey County Council signed the Armed Forces Community Covenant with the military on 13 March 2012, with Mole Valley District Council (MVDC) signing on 6 September 2013. This report focuses on the initiatives undertaken by MVDC  that support the principles set out in the Covenant.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    No declarations of interest

     

    Officers present:

     

     

    Canon Peter Bruinvels, Civilian Military Liaison Adviser (SCC)

     

    Graeme Kane, Corporate Head of Service (MVDC)

     

     

    A presentation (attached) was given which highlighted the military covenant work in Mole Valley. PB was particularly proud of what had been achieved in the district and felt the measures being taken were genuinely helping those who needed it.

     

    Members generally recognised the importance of the work and Hazel Watson asked whether a survey of military personnel had been carried out to establish whether there were issues not being addressed. Feedback is provided by the Army Welfare Officers (at each base) and a survey that goes out to council Chief Executives, Leaders and Task Force Commanders.

     

    Chris Townsend attends the schools’ admission forum where issues for the children of service personnel had been highlighted. PB has met with education officers to discuss these problems and was working closely with the admissions team to try and improve the situation.

     

    Now that MVDC had achieved the bronze award, GK confirmed the council would now like to work towards ‘silver’. He extended an invitation to Members to attend the flag-raising ceremony at Pippbrook the following Monday at 11am.

     

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:

     

    (i)            Note the contents of the report.

     

     

     

39/16

RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION TRACKER [FOR INFORMATION] pdf icon PDF 161 KB

40/16

DECISION ON LOCAL COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTES [AGENDA ITEM ONLY]

    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 2016/17.

    Decision:

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) AGREED:

     

    Under the County Council's Constitution (Part 4.Standing Orders, Part 3 40 (f)) to allow substitutes for district/borough council co-opted members of local committees.

     

    Reason for Decision:

    The Committee wished to continue to allow district members to have substitutes as they had previously.

    Minutes:

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) AGREED:

     

    Under the County Council's Constitution (Part 4.Standing Orders, Part 3 40 (f)) to allow substitutes for district/borough council co-opted members of local committees.

     

    Reason for Decision:

    The Committee wished to continue to allow district members to have substitutes as they had previously.

41/16

REPRESENTATION ON OUTSIDE BODIES AND TASK GROUPS [EXECUTIVE ITEM] pdf icon PDF 232 KB

    This report seeks to appoint Local Committee members to external bodies and task groups for the municipal year 2016/17. It also seeks approval for the terms of reference for each of the task groups.

    Decision:

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to agree:

     

    (i)         The terms of reference for the Youth Task Group, Property Task Group and the Parking Task Group as set out in Annexes 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

    (ii)        The membership for these task groups for 2016-17 as proposed in sections 2.4, 2.6 and 2.7 (as amended).

    (iii)       A representative of the Local Committee and deputy for the East Surrey Community Safety Partnership as proposed in section 1.4.

    Reasons for recommendations:

     

    The Local Committee’s three task groups enable the Local Committee to carry out its work in an efficient and expedient manner. 

    The representative on the East Surrey Community Safety Partnership will ensure that Mole Valley Local Committee is represented on this Board and that local priorities are taken into account.

     

    Minutes:

     

    The Chairman used his discretion to agree the proposed appointment of District Councillor Chris Hunt to the Property task group.

     

     

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to agree:

     

    (i)         The terms of reference for the Youth Task Group, Property Task Group and the Parking Task Group as set out in Annexes 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

    (ii)        The membership for these task groups for 2016-17 as proposed in sections 2.4, 2.6 and 2.7 (as amended).

    (iii)       A representative of the Local Committee and deputy for the East Surrey Community Safety Partnership as proposed in section 1.4.

    Reasons for recommendations:

     

    The Local Committee’s three task groups enable the Local Committee to carry out its work in an efficient and expedient manner. 

    The representative on the East Surrey Community Safety Partnership will ensure that Mole Valley Local Committee is represented on this Board and that local priorities are taken into account.