Agenda, decisions and minutes

Mole Valley Local Committee
Thursday, 22 June 2017 2.00 pm

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

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

Items
No. Item

12/17

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS [AGENDA ITEM ONLY]

13/17

MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING [AGENDA ITEM ONLY] pdf icon PDF 177 KB

14/17

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST [AGENDA ITEM ONLY]

    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.

15/17a

PUBLIC QUESTIONS [AGENDA ITEM ONLY] pdf icon PDF 98 KB

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

    Minutes:

    Officers present:

     

    Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

    Anne-Marie Hannam, Senior Traffic Engineer

     

     

     

    1.         A question was received from District Cllr Wellman. A response was provided in advance of the meeting; he was not present to ask a supplementary.

15/17b

MEMBER QUESTIONS [AGENDA ITEM ONLY] pdf icon PDF 203 KB

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

    Minutes:

    Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

    Anne-Marie Hannam, Senior Traffic Engineer

     

     

     

    Written questions have been received from Mrs Hazel Watson. Responses have been provided in advance of the meeting (attached). She asked the following supplementaries:

     

                1.         (question 2) What operational issues had caused the delay?

                             Response: One of the main operatives had been in an accident and there was no other team available to carry out the work.

     

                2.         (question 3) Could a review of the speed limit be progressed given the number of accidents.

                            Response: Over the whole stretch speeds had complied with 40mph. It is a long stretch and therefore expensive but it is on the ITS list for possible future funding. However speed had not been indicated as a contributory factor in the specific accidents.

     

     

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

     

    Written questions have been received from Stephen Cooksey. Responses have been provided in advance. He had the following supplementaries:

     

                1.         (question 1) He asked when the work would be done?

                            Response: There is no date at the moment but Highways area are aware of the urgency.

     

                2.         (question 3) He expressed concern that Highways had not engaged with the residents’ group who had submitted the petition and asked whether the speed survey had been carried out in the wrong place.

                            Response:  Highways officer had responded to a number of enquiries from the petitioner. The location of the speed survey has to be agreed with the Police. The location suggested had been considered but was affected by other factors.

16/17

PETITIONS [AGENDA ITEM ONLY] pdf icon PDF 115 KB

    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.

     

    1. Petition received from Nichola Johnston:

     

    ‘We demand that action is taken to reduce traffic congestion in Dorking which has reached intolerable levels. Five minute journeys are taking up to an hour and a half. Tailbacks are unacceptable causing gridlock, delay and pollution. People are being put off coming to the town resulting in lost revenue for businesses. All traffic lights need reviewing and appropriate alternatives considered. Specific congestion sites that must be reviewed are the traffic lights at Pump Corner, Waitrose and the junction of Vincent Road and Westcott Road, in addition to the width of the road at the entrance to Lidl. We require a transparent survey to be conducted with publication of the results and recommended solutions. Thereafter we demand that appropriate remedial action is taken.’

     

     

    Minutes:

    Officer present:

    Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

     

     

    Petition (629 signatures) was presented by Nichola Johnston (response attached).

     

    1.         Petitioner questioned whether the timetable for commissioning the study and carrying out the surveys was realistic.

     

    2.         Petitioner expressed concern that residents had not been consulted on the brief as they know the roads best. Many had submitted comments and suggestions as part of the petition.

     

    3.         The delay in instigating the transport study was highlighted, particularly as members had been advised that the funding was available from both councils.

     

    4.         The problems are long-standing due to the nature of the town and there are no easy solutions to striking the right balance for all users.

     

    5.         Some work has already been done with regard to sustainable transport options (Dorking Sustainable Transport Package).

     

    6.         Funding had been available but as the study had not been finalised, it could not have been used last year due to budgetary pressures.

     

    7.         There may be difficulties in identifying the funding to implement future changes but there is a commitment to carrying out the study.

     

     

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:

     

    (i)         note the officer’s comment.

     

     

17/17

HIGHWAYS UPDATE [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION FOR INFORMATION] pdf icon PDF 98 KB

    At the 1 March 2017 Local Committee, Members agreed to give delegated authority to enable the forward programme to be progressed without the need to bring further reports to the Local Committee for decision. This report sets out recent progress on highway schemes following the agreed budget.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    No declarations of interest received.

     

    Officers present:

     

    Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

    Anne-Marie Hannam, Senior Traffic Engineer

     

    Discussion highlights

     

     

    1.         The impact of the extension of the Priory school on local traffic is not yet known as proposals are yet to be submitted.

     

    2.         With regard to the Dorking STP (page 25) there are a number of outstanding issues including:

    o   Acoustic boarding at Deepdene station

    o   Lincoln Road island does not give access to Lincoln Road from A24

    o   Two parking bays on station approach need to be removed to facilitate access

    3.         The Area Highways Manager confirmed a safety audit had been carried out on Lincoln island but no concerns had been raised.

     

    4.         Officers will take these issues back to the project team.

     

    5.         The design work on the 20mph scheme in Fetcham has been completed and officers are trying to identify suitable developer funding.

     

    6.         Developer funding has been identified to install safer crossing points in Eastwick Drive/Eastwick Park Avenue. (page 19)

     

    7.         Members expressed concern over the design for the junction improvement scheme in St John’s Road/Poplar Road (page 16). The Area Highways Manager agreed to discuss further outside of the meeting.

     

     

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:

     

                (i)         note the contents of this report.

18/17

HIGHWAYS FORWARD PROGRAMME [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION FOR INFORMATION] pdf icon PDF 140 KB

    In March 2017 Mole Valley Local Committee authorised delegated authority for the Area Highway Manager, in consultation with the Local Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman, to agree a revised programme of highway works should the Local Committee’s devolved budget change. 

    This report sets out the revised Mole Valley capital and revenue highway works programmes agreed under this delegated authority following Cabinet approval of the Medium Term Financial Plan on 28 March 2017.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    No declarations of interest received.

     

    Officers present:

     

    Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

    Anne-Marie Hannam, Senior Traffic Engineer

     

     

    Discussion highlights:

     

    1.         Members discussed the severe financial problems facing the county council and that the public needed to be made aware of the drastic reductions in the budget.

     

    2.         The Area Highways Manager clarified that the minor works gang would be working on a one week on/two weeks off rota.

     

    3.         The Area Highways Manager made a verbal correction to the report. Page 29 (first bullet point) should read ‘.  Community groups who have previously bid for funding under the Localism initiative will be advised’.

     

    4.         Highways’ officers will continue to meet with colleagues in Transport Development Planning to identify developer funding for schemes.

     

    5.         Outside of the local committee budgets there is still centrally funded working being carried such as Horizon.

     

    6.         The Area Highways Manager acknowledged that with no funding allocated for Local Structural Repairs, there is a gap between surface dressing and larger schemes that needs to be addressed.

     

    7.         In her capacity as a member of the cabinet the divisional member for Bookham and Fetcham West underlined again the severity of the county council’s financial situation. She urged fellow members to lobby MPs for changes to local government funding and highlighted the need to work more closely with Mole Valley District Council.

     

     

     

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:

     

    (i)         note the contents of the report.

19/17

DENE STREET, DORKING - CYCLIST CONTRAFLOW FEASIBILITY REPORT [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION] pdf icon PDF 151 KB

    This report presents the results of the feasibility study that was carried out looking at a contra-flow cycle lane and/or a widened footway being provided along the one-way section of Dene Street and seeks the Committee’s approval to implement the one-way scheme on a permanent basis.

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:

     

    (i)    Note the contents of the feasibility study in Annex 1, particularly that the study showed that the provision of a contra-flow cycle lane within Dene Street one-way would not meet the minimum width required by current guidance, and the provision of a substandard contra-flow cycle lane would lead to road safety concerns.

    (ii)   Note that there is no funding available to widen the existing footway in Dene Street.

    And resolved to:

    (iii)  Authorise the advertisement of a notice in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the effect of which will be to implement the one-way working permanently.

     

    REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:

    To inform the Local Committee of the outcome of the feasibility study into the provision of a contra-flow cycle lane within the Dene Street one-way working, and to seek authority for a way forward.

     

     

    Minutes:

    No declarations of interest received.

     

    Officers present:

     

    Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

    Anne-Marie Hannam, Senior Traffic Engineer

     

    Discussion highlights:

     

     

    1.         There is only sufficient funding ie £4,000 to make the one way scheme permanent.

     

    2.         Officers will keep a scheme to widen the footway, to assist those wheelchairs, mobility scooters and pushchairs, on the ITS list for possible funding in the future.

     

     

     

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:

     

    (i)    Note the contents of the feasibility study in Annex 1, particularly that the study showed that the provision of a contra-flow cycle lane within Dene Street one-way would not meet the minimum width required by current guidance, and the provision of a substandard contra-flow cycle lane would lead to road safety concerns.

    (ii)   Note that there is no funding available to widen the existing footway in Dene Street.

    And resolved to:

    (iii)  Authorise the advertisement of a notice in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the effect of which will be to implement the one-way working permanently.

     

    REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:

    To inform the Local Committee of the outcome of the feasibility study into the provision of a contra-flow cycle lane within the Dene Street one-way working, and to seek authority for a way forward.

     

     

20/17

INTRODUCTION OF BUS STOP CLEARWAY IN BOOKHAM [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION] pdf icon PDF 91 KB

    This report seeks the Local Committee’s approval to introduce a bus stop clearway

     on the A246 Guildford Road (service road) in Bookham.

     

    Decision:

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:

     

    (i) defer this matter to the next Local Committee meeting on 13 September 2017.

     

    REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION:

     

    To receive further information on the exact location of the bus stop in question and the problems that need to be addressed.

    Minutes:

    No declarations of interest received.

     

    Officers present:

     

    Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

    Anne-Marie Hannam, Senior Traffic Engineer

     

    Discussion highlights:

     

    1.         The exact location of the bus stop had not been provided and the divisional member had not been made aware of any issues in that area.

     

    2.         The divisional member proposed that the item be deferred as it also overlaps with  a parking issue in Woodlands Road, that will be addressed as part of the parking review under item 10.

     

    3.         Members agreed that the item should be deferred until the September meeting.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:

     

    (i) defer this matter to the next Local Committee meeting on 13 September 2017.

     

    REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION:

     

    To receive further information on the exact location of the bus stop in question and the problems that need to be addressed.

21/17

PARKING REVIEW 2017 [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION] pdf icon PDF 112 KB

    Since the introduction of Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) in May 2005, new parking / waiting restrictions in Mole Valley have been introduced in several stages, with the most recent having been implemented.

     

    This report details locations and general proposals for the parking / waiting restriction review, to be progressed in 2017 and seeks approval to carry out statutory consultation on the proposals.

     

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

     

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to agree:

     

    (i)            The recommendations detailed in Annex 1 subject to any minor amendments as set out at 3.5.

     

    (ii)           That the County Council’s intention to make an order under the Road Traffic Regulation act 1984 as per option 3.3 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 note that an allocation of £5,000 is required towards the cost of the parking review in 2018/19 financial year, to implement priority 2 proposals.

     

    (v)       To delegate review of final version of advert and list to Chairman and          

                Vice-Chairman in conjunction with the Senior Parking Engineer.

     

     

    REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:

     

    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:

     

    Steve Clavey, Senior Engineer (parking)

     

     

    Discussion highlights:

     

    (A  revised copy of the Statement of Reasons and a revised copy of drawing no. 42 was included in the tabled papers (attached). 

     

    1.         The Senior Engineer (parking) apologized on behalf of the county council to one local business owner who had contacted the council about an omission in the public notice. In error the proposal to implement one hour free parking bays outside his shop in South Street, had been omitted from the public notice.

     

    2.         The business owner had submitted an amended proposal that the new bays should only allow free parking for 20 minutes. It was agreed that this measure should be included in this year’s consultation.

     

    3.         The posts and signs have already been erected in South Street. The Senior Engineer (parking) confirmed that he would prefer to leave them there and  consider the options for either covering or removing and storing the signs.

     

    4.         The revised Statement of Reasons show the proposed schemes designated as either priority 1 or 2 to tie in with the options set out in the report.

     

    5.         The Senior Engineer (parking) explained the way that the parking team now handle petitions for residents’ parking schemes, requiring support from at least 70% of residents in order to progress. This approach reduces the amount of funding spent on advertising those schemes favoured by just a handful of the residents who would be affected by the measures.

     

    6.         Members discussed the different options and decided that the option to advertise priority 1 and 2 scheme together and spread the cost of implementation over two years would be best value for money (s 3.3)

     

    7.         Members highlighted that it would be essential to ensure that members of the public were informed that the implementation would be staggered and which roads were in each category (ie Priority 1 or 2).

     

    8.         Members wanted to make amendments to a number of schemes and agreed to work with the Senior Engineer (parking) outside of the meeting.

     

    9.         Due to the number of schemes being added or amended the Chairman proposed (seconded by Clare Curran) that he and the Vice-Chairman should review the final version of the public notice in conjunction with the Senior Engineer (parking) before it is published.

     

     

     

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to agree:

     

    (i)            The recommendations detailed in Annex 1 subject to any minor amendments as set out at 3.5.

     

    (ii)           That the County Council’s intention to make an order under the Road Traffic Regulation act 1984 as per option 3.3 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21/17

22/17

LOCAL COMMITTEE COMMUNITY SAFETY FUNDING AND REPRESENTATION ON TASK GROUPS AND EXTERNAL BODIES [DECISION ITEM] pdf icon PDF 157 KB

                                               

    The Mole Valley Local Committee has a delegated budget of £3,000 for community safety projects in 2017/18. This report sets out the process by which this funding should be allocated to the East Surrey Community Safety Partnership and/or other local community organisations that promote the safety and wellbeing of residents. The report also seeks the approval of local committee task group members and the appointment of representatives to external bodies.

     

    Decision:

     

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to:

     

    (i)                    Agree that the committee’s delegated community safety budget of £3,000 for 2017/18 be retained by the Community Partnership Team, on behalf of the Local Committee, and that the East Surrey Community Safety Partnership and/or other local organisations be invited to submit proposals for funding that meet the criteria and principles set out at paragraph 2.3 of this report.

    (ii)                   Agree that authority be 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 2.3 of this report.

    (iii)                   Approve the membership of the task groups and appointments to outside bodies, as detailed in paragraphs 2.8 and Annex 1 of this report.

     

    REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:

    The report sets out a process for allocating the committee’s delegated community safety budget of £3,000 to local organisations. It also proposes local committee task group membership for the forthcoming year to enable the provision of informed advice and recommendations to the committee. The appointment of councillors of the local committee to external bodies enables the committee’s representation on and input to such bodies. 

     

    Minutes:

    No declarations of interest received:

     

    Discussion highlights:

     

    1.         It was agreed that Cllr Paul Elderton would join the Property Task group.

     

    2.         It was noted that the new portfolio holder for Transform Leatherhead, Cllr Simon Edge would be co-opted to the Leatherhead Major Schemes task group as per the Terms of Reference.

     

     

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to:

     

    (i)                    Agree that the committee’s delegated community safety budget of £3,000 for 2017/18 be retained by the Community Partnership Team, on behalf of the Local Committee, and that the East Surrey Community Safety Partnership and/or other local organisations be invited to submit proposals for funding that meet the criteria and principles set out at paragraph 2.3 of this report.

    (ii)                   Agree that authority be 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 2.3 of this report.

    (iii)                   Approve the membership of the task groups and appointments to outside bodies, as detailed in paragraphs 2.8 and Annex 1 of this report.

     

    REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:

    The report sets out a process for allocating the committee’s delegated community safety budget of £3,000 to local organisations. It also proposes local committee task group membership for the forthcoming year to enable the provision of informed advice and recommendations to the committee. The appointment of councillors of the local committee to external bodies enables the committee’s representation on and input to such bodies. 

     

23/17

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 2017/18.

     

    Decision:

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed:

     

    (i)         To co-opt substitutes in the municipal year 2017/18.

     

    Minutes:

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed:

     

    (i)         To co-opt substitutes in the municipal year 2017/18.

     

24/17

RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER [FOR INFORMATION] pdf icon PDF 70 KB