Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 564 KBVenue: Ralli Room, Ashtead Peace Memorial Hall, Woodfield Lane, Ashtead KT21 2BE
Contact: Sarah J Smith, Community Partnership & Committee Officer Pippbrook, Reigate Road, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 1SJ
| No. | Item | |
|---|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
To receive any apologies for absence and notices of substitutions from District members under Standing Order 39.
Minutes: Apologies were received from Mr Stephen Cooksey and Councillor Paul Elderton. |
||
|
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
To approve the Minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record. Minutes: It was agreed the minutes of the meeting held on 15 June 2016 were a true and accurate record. |
||
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.
Notes: · In line with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, declarations may relate to the interest of the member, or the member’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom the member is living as husband or wife, or a person with whom the member is living as if they were civil partners and the member is aware they have the interest.
· Members need only disclose interests not currently listed on the Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests.
· Members must notify the Monitoring Officer of any interests disclosed at the meeting so they may be added to the Register.
· Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest.
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:
Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager Anita Guy, Principal Engineer Anne-Marie Hannam, Senior Engineer
Mr Roger Abbott had submitted a question and received a written response in advance of the meeting. He expressed his disappointment that there was no funding available for a controlled crossing. ZC explained that it was a combination of issues such as accident history and the type of funding required. There was no funding for a feasibility study in this financial year but the scheme could be added to the future programme if there was support from the divisional member. Mrs Helyn Clack said she could support this but explained that the funding mentioned by Mr Abbott had now been diverted to another road safety scheme in Lawrence Lane in Brockham (agenda item 9).
Mr John Moyer had submitted written questions and received responses but was not present at the meeting.
Additional questions asked by members of the public present:
1. Concerns over the accessibility and safety of the Westcott – Dorking cycle path due to overgrown nettles and weeds. AG agreed to arrange a site visit with divisional member Mrs Watson and resident to assess the problem.
2. Are the trees in Church Road, Ashtead on the list to be pollarded? ZC explained that the bird nesting season was just coming to an end and no work would have been carried out during this time. She would check and contact the resident outside of the meeting and the resident was invited to leave her contact details.
3. Concerns over the condition of the pavements in The Street and Park Lane in Ashtead were expressed. ZC explained about the Horizon- Pavements scheme and that the divisional member would need to put forward suggestions to be included on the priority list to be published in October for next year’s works.
4. Whether Marks and Spencer were still expected to open a store in Ashtead. In his capacity as Chairman of the MVDC Development Control Committee Cllr Hunt said he could confirm that permission had been given to M & S’ contractors and that the work was at the building control stage. The retailer is keen to progress but there is no start date set.
|
||
To receive any written questions from Members under Standing Order 47. Minutes: No declarations of interest received.
Officers present:
Zeny Curry, Area Highways Manager Anita Guy, Principal Engineer Anne-Marie Hannam, Senior Engineer
Cllr Rosemary Dickson had submitted written questions and received responses in advance of the meeting (attached). She was disappointed with the response to (q1) but said she was grateful that the changes made in (q2) would be monitored.
Mrs Hazel Watson had submitted a written question and received a response in advance of the meeting (attached). She had also seen that the double yellow lines in Ranmore Road had not been completed and wanted to know when the work would be done and wanted reassurance that appropriate checks would be carried out. ZC responded that the parking team would be going out to check that the work had been completed. Mr Chris Townsend commented that the lines in Park Lane, Ashtead had still not been done.
Mrs Helyn Clack raised the issue of the traffic lights on the road from Buckland into Reigate which were causing tailbacks. ZC explained that they were aware of the problem, that had been caused by some technical issues which the Lights team were looking to resolve.
Following the conclusion of this item and on the suggestion of Cllr Chris Hunt, the Chairman invited any additional questions from members of the public who were present. These are minuted under item 4a.
Chris Townsend requested that the pavement in Burnside, Ashtead be added to the Horizon list. ZC commented that if it is a small stretch it may not be suitable for this scheme but could compete with other sites to go on the plan for the ‘central programme.’
|
||
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. Minutes: No declarations of interest received.
Officers present:
Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager Anita Guy, Principal Engineer Anne-Marie Hannam, Senior Engineer
A petition signed by 39 residents asking for action to ‘ensure oversized vehicles travel via the A24 Leatherhead bypass.’
Petition wording: ‘Very large vehicles are breaking up the newly laid road and are causing a lot of flying debris, air and noise pollution. Additionally due to the small pavement and close proximity to the road, residents and listed buildings at the top of Church Street (approaching the town centre) are greatly impacted by these oversized vehicles. This area is also a designated conservation area and should be taken into consideration when allowing oversized vehicles to use these roads. A bypass exists for this very reason but vehicles are not forced to use it.’
A response to the petition was provided before the meeting (attached). Cllr Rosemary Dickson spoke in support of the petition and asked whether it would be possible to erect some new signage to indicate that the route is unsuitable for HGVs. ZC suggested instigating a traffic count in the first place to see what type of vehicles were using the road and then they would look at the different options available to them.
|
||
Additional documents: Minutes: No declarations of interest received.
Officers present:
Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager Anita Guy, Principal Engineer Anne-Marie Hannam, Senior Engineer
ZC drew Members’ attention to the new Five Year Structures and Drainage schemes at 2.2 and 2.6.
In reviewing the progress of the different schemes Members raised the following issues:
(P21) Chris Townsend commented that he did not want the delay in the Freemans School scheme to affect the one at St Giles. He also pointed out that the works in Taleworth Road (p24) had not been completed and that residents would need to be informed if the tree on the roundabout was going to be moved. ZC to check details. (p 25) Implementation of the ‘No Right Turn’ in Woodfield Lane is still outstanding and AG confirmed that they were waiting for SKANSKA. Tim Hall advised that the Fetcham Schools plans were to be presented to their road safety working group at a meeting in October. (p22) With regard to the Decluttering scheme Members queried why consultation did not include the divisional member as some measures may be controversial and it was agreed going forward they would be included in discussions. Chris Townsend queried the whereabouts of a bench that had been removed from Woodfield Lane during the layby works. AG has already enquired with the Design Team who are contacting the contractors for information.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to note the contents of the report.
|
||
|
A245 RANDALLS RD/CLEEVE RD LEATHERHEAD - PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Developer funding has been allocated to investigate improvements to the signal controlled junction at Randalls Road/Cleeve Road, Leatherhead. The existing signal control does not provide any facilities for pedestrians. A proposal has been developed to introduce pedestrian facilities on all arms of the junction, with associated minor amendments to the existing junction layout.
This report seeks approval to implement the proposed changes to the signals and associated works at the junction of Randalls Road/Cleeve Road, Leatherhead.
Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to agree that :
The proposal for the introduction of pedestrian facilities at the existing traffic signal junction of A245 Randalls Road/Cleeve Road and associated works, as shown in Annex 1 to this report, is approved for implementation.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION:
To enable the introduction of pedestrian facilities at the signalised junction of Randalls Road/Cleeve Road, Leatherhead Minutes: No declarations of interest received. Officers present: Zena Curry, Highways Manager Anita Guy, Principal Engineer Anne-Marie Hannam, Senior Engineer
Cllr Dickson confirmed all her questions on this scheme had been answered.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to agree that :
The proposal for the introduction of pedestrian facilities at the existing traffic signal junction of A245 Randalls Road/Cleeve Road and associated works, as shown in Annex 1 to this report, is approved for implementation.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION:
To enable the introduction of pedestrian facilities at the signalised junction of Randalls Road/Cleeve Road, Leatherhead |
||
|
DENE STREET, DORKING - RESULTS OF ONE-WAY WORKING TRIAL
Following concerns raised regarding the safety of pedestrians using the narrow section of Dene Street between the junctions of High Street and Heath Hill, the Mole Valley Local Committee approved a scheme for one-way working for inclusion on the Integrated Transport Scheme forward programme for 2015/16. In order to assess the impact of a permanent one-way working in Dene Street, a trial one-way working was installed on 21st April 2016 for a period of 18 months until 19th September 2017. This report presents the results of traffic surveys carried out before the trial was implemented and whilst it was in place, as well as the results of the consultation carried out with residents and businesses asking for their views on making the one-way working permanent. Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:
(i) Defer the decision on whether to make the trial one way system in Dene Street, Dorking permanent.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
A member of the public requested consideration be given to the installation of a 2-way cycle lane within the one-way system, which could also be used by mobility scooters. Members agreed to defer the decision on making the one-way system permanent until this request could be investigated. It was agreed that the temporary one-way system remain in place, and funding for this scheme for this financial year be spent on investigating the possibility of installing a 2-way cycle lane and continued monitoring of the impact of the one-way system on vehicular traffic. It was also agreed that funding will need to be found in the next financial year if, following the outcome of the investigation, Members decided to make the one-way system permanent.
Minutes: No declarations of interest received Officers present: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager Anita Guy, Principal Engineer Anne-Marie Hannam, Senior Engineer
In his absence the Chairman read out comments submitted by Stephen Cooksey in advance of the report being presented. “My understanding is that the consultation produced a very large majority of residents in favour of retaining the one way system as in the current experiment. There was some concern expressed by some businesses regarding the effect on their custom and by residents of Cotmandene regarding the increase in traffic across the Dene. However the final results of the traffic surveys had not been fully analysed when we spoke.
On the information that I have, I would support the recommendation to make the traffic order permanent and to look seriously at ways of alleviating the problems caused for Cotmandene residents. I am also aware that increased enforcement will be necessary since I understand that there have been quite frequent breaches of the order which create a very dangerous situation.”
A member of the public contested some of the information quoted in the report such as the width of the pavements (too narrow for buggies and bikes) and quality of the sightlines and proposed that if the one way system was to be permanently implemented, a 2way lane should be constructed for the use of cyclists and those on mobility scooters. A similar scheme had been introduced in Bury Fields in Guildford. (Photos attached). Members also queried why there was a need to implement the scheme on a permanent basis so early into the trial when it was scheduled to continue until October 2017. Officers explained that any changes to the infrastructure would need funding and if the trial continued, this would have to be found in the next financial year. A safety audit would also be required. Hazel Watson reminded the committee that this scheme had been talked about for decades and that since residents seemed to be in favour 2:1 and the local member supports it, it should go ahead without further delay. Clare Curran pointed out that Dorking had many one way streets and introducing an exception for cyclists could be dangerous as drivers would not be expecting to see them. Cllr Hunt suggested that deferring the decision would allow the impact of the one way system during the winter and Christmas periods to be assessed. Officers suggested that if the trial stayed in place the remaining funding from this year should be spent on further monitoring. Members voted 6 to 3 in favour of deferring the decision.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:
(i) Defer the decision on whether to make the trial one way system in Dene Street, Dorking permanent.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
A member of the public requested consideration be given to the installation of a 2-way cycle lane within the one-way system, which could also be used by mobility scooters. Members agreed to defer the decision on making the one-way system permanent ... view the full minutes text for item 49/16 |
||
|
A245 REIGATE ROAD, BUCKLAND - PROPOSED TRAFFIC ISLANDS AT LAWRENCE LANE
It is proposed to introduce traffic islands on the A25 Reigate Road at the junction with Lawrence Lane to improve road safety. This report seeks approval to construct the proposed traffic islands and dedicated right turn lane.
Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to agree that :
The proposal for the introduction of traffic islands and a dedicated right turn lane on the A25 Reigate Road at the junction with Lawrence Lane, as shown in Annex 1 to this report, is approved for construction.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION:
To improve road safety on this section of the A25 and in particular for vehicles turning from the A25 Reigate Road into Lawrence Lane. Minutes: No declarations of interest Officers present: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager Anita Guy, Principal Engineer Anne-Marie Hannam, Senior Engineer
A member of the Buckland Parish Council was in attendance to support this scheme and Helyn Clack outlined the importance of it going ahead.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to agree that :
The proposal for the introduction of traffic islands and a dedicated right turn lane on the A25 Reigate Road at the junction with Lawrence Lane, as shown in Annex 1 to this report, is approved for construction.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION:
To improve road safety on this section of the A25 and in particular for vehicles turning from the A25 Reigate Road into Lawrence Lane. |
||
|
SURREY HILLS AONB DE-CLUTTERING PROJECT
This report sets out information on the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)’s de-cluttering project. The de-cluttering project is focussed on the central area of the Surrey Hills AONB, an area bounded by the A25/A29/A281 and A248. A process has been set up which enables Parish Councils in the AONB to identify superfluous road signs and roadside clutter. The recent changes in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD, 2016) give legislative support to this area of work.
Decision: The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to agree to:
the implementation of the road sign de-cluttering proposals for the Surrey Hills AONB, as developed through a risk assessment process and trialled by parish councils, subject to appropriate sign off from Surrey Highways officers and allocation of funding.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION:
To support the wider AONB aim of conserving and enhancing the rural and historic character of country lanes and villages, and provide cost savings on the need to repair or replace signs and lines.
Minutes: No declarations of interest Officer present: Zena Curry – Area Highways Manager Members discussed how drivers can be distracted by too many signs and that a reduction in their number would save money on maintenance. Hazel Watson asked whether a budget for cleaning signs could be considered. ZC advised that in particular any safety signs that needed cleaning would be put on the programme for the maintenance gangs and reminded Members that localism funding was available to residents to cover this type of activity.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to agree to:
the implementation of the road sign de-cluttering proposals for the Surrey Hills AONB, as developed through a risk assessment process and trialled by parish councils, subject to appropriate sign off from Surrey Highways officers and allocation of funding.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION:
To support the wider AONB aim of conserving and enhancing the rural and historic character of country lanes and villages, and provide cost savings on the need to repair or replace signs and lines.
|
||
|
RESULTS OF INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Mole Valley District Council carried out an Infrastructure Needs Assessment earlier this year. This report outlines the results of the consultation and future actions. Minutes: No declarations of interest received Officer present: Guy Davies, Mole Valley District Council Guy Davies outlined the main issues raised in the report, most of which are county council functions. Going forward he would like to be able to identify where the county and the district are already working together and what is planned to improve things. Clare Curran pointed out that one important issue that had not been identified was that of the critical need for supported accommodation for young people, young carers, the disabled and elderly, and asked how the developing local plan would address this shortage. GD advised that MVDC was aware of this need; the district council had had recently completed a housing market assessment which looked at the current housing stock and had identified the aging nature of the district’s population. Helyn Clack was also surprised that housing had not featured in the responses and proposed an amendment to the recommendation in the report to urge MVDC to use the INA results to inform the new local plan. This was seconded by Clare Curran. Chris Townsend had concerns that they had received a low number of responses (3,500) but GD said that MVDC were happy with the 10% return. Hazel Watson requested that any action plan be brought back to the Local committee as soon as possible and asked whether there was a need to wait for CIL to be adopted. There is no definite date for its introduction but a report will be going to MV Cabinet on 11 October 2016. A more readable summary of the results of the INA will be published and a second paper will outline what actions will be taken.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to: (i) Note the results of the Infrastructure Needs Assessment (ii) Support MVDC on publicising the results of the Assessment and actions to be taken by infrastructure providers in addressing the issues raised and urge the district and county councils to use the results to influence the local plan and future applications.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION: To inform the Local Committee about the results of the Mole Valley Infrastructure Needs Assessment and consider appropriate responses to the issues raised.
|
||
|
LOCAL COMMITTEE FUNDING OF COMMUNITY SAFETY PROJECTS
The Local Committee has a delegated budget of £3,000 for community safety projects. This report recommends the introduction of a simple process enabling the local Community Safety Partnership and other organisations to outline their planned spend for projects that meet the criteria outlined in this report.
Decision: The Local Committee
(Mole Valley) resolved to agree that: (i) The delegated Community Safety budget of £3,000 per Local Committee for 2016/17 is to be retained by the Community Partnership Team, on behalf of the Local Committee, and that the Community Safety Partnership is invited to submit proposals that meet the criteria and principles for funding, as defined at paragraph 2.6 of this report. (ii) Authority is delegated to the Community Partnership Manager, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Local Committee, to authorise the expenditure of the Community Safety budget in accordance with the criteria and principles stated at paragraph 2.6 of this report. (iii)
The Committee receives a report detailing
the projects that were successful in being awarded the local
community safety funding and the outcomes and impact they have
achieved. REASON FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
The recommendations are intended to secure greater oversight of the committee’s expenditure and better value for money for projects that help to achieve the County’s community safety priorities. Minutes: No declarations of interest received:
Officer present:
Sarah J Smith, Community Partnership and Committee Officer
The Local Committee
(Mole Valley) resolved to agree that: (i) The delegated Community Safety budget of £3,000 per Local Committee for 2016/17 is to be retained by the Community Partnership Team, on behalf of the Local Committee, and that the Community Safety Partnership is invited to submit proposals that meet the criteria and principles for funding, as defined at paragraph 2.6 of this report. (ii) Authority is delegated to the Community Partnership Manager, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Local Committee, to authorise the expenditure of the Community Safety budget in accordance with the criteria and principles stated at paragraph 2.6 of this report. (iii)
The Committee receives a report detailing
the projects that were successful in being awarded the local
community safety funding and the outcomes and impact they have
achieved. REASON FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
The recommendations are intended to secure greater oversight of the committee’s expenditure and better value for money for projects that help to achieve the County’s community safety priorities. |
||
|
RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER
The tracker provides an update on the progress of the implementation of recommendations or decisions from previous meetings. Minutes: The Local Committee noted the updates on the recommendations tracker. |