Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 466 KBVenue: Council Chamber, Pippbrook, Reigate Road, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 1SJ
Contact: Sarah J Smith, 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 Chris Townsend. |
|
|
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
To approve the Minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 13 September 2017 were agreed to be a true record. |
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
All Members present are required to declare, at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter (i) Any disclosable pecuniary interests and / or (ii) Other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this meeting NOTES: • Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest • As well as an interest of the Member, this includes any interest, of which the Member is aware, that relates to the Member’s spouse or civil partner (or any person with whom the Member is living as a spouse or civil partner) • Members with a significant personal interest may participate in the discussion and vote on that matter unless that interest could be reasonably regarded as prejudicial 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. Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager
N.B All questions and written responses are included in the supplementary agenda.
1. District Councillor Wellman (not present) had submitted a question and received a written response in advance of the meeting.
Councillor Cooksey put a supplementary on his behalf. He asked how this request would be handled as there was no funding currently available.
Response: It would be forwarded to the Asset Management Team and be assessed for the ITS list, but would still need to be prioritised for any possible future funding against other ITS schemes in the District.
2. District Councillor Friend (not present) had submitted a question and received a written response in advance of the meeting.
Councillor Dickson put a supplementary on his behalf: ‘Could the Officers confirm the costs to deliver this item and how that relates to the economic and environmental benefits to the local area, that would be generated by reducing traffic into Dorking by making it easier for people to travel by bus.’ No appropriate officer was present so it was agreed to forward this question to the relevant team for a response outside of the meeting.
Members briefly discussed the need to ensure that services would be future proof. Many already use a phone app to check this information and it was suggested that the development of a Surrey app would be a sensible way forward. Some members expressed concerns about the accessibility of online information due to the lack of a wifi signal in areas like Westcott and that many users are elderly and may be not as familiar with obtaining information through mobile devices.
3. Michael Agius had submitted two questions on behalf of Bookham Residents’ Association and received responses in advance of the meeting.
He was not present but the divisional member for Bookham and Fetcham West responded on his behalf.
(i) When it rains the centre of the village becomes impassable and many properties are indirectly affected. She acknowledged the county council’s difficult financial situation but would like to work with officers to find an alternative source of funding that would enable them to be able to identify what type of scheme would be needed. The Chairman supported her comments and suggested that a meeting between the relevant members and officers from the Strategic Network Resilience team should be arranged and should link in with the Bookham Flood Forum. (ii) The divisional member highlighted that the work by Thames Water and Surrey County Council was still incomplete and the Chairman suggested a site visit with officers.
4. Stuart Cursley had submitted a question and received a written response in advance of the meeting.
As a supplementary he asked whether his original question and response would be shared with the district council since it currently appears to be using SCC's concerns being 'satisfied' as a reason for not taking enforcing action to ensure that the actual width complies with the approved plans and drawings.?
The Area ... view the full minutes text for item 38/17a |
|
To receive any written questions from Members under Standing Order 47. Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager
N.B All questions and written responses are included in the supplementary agenda.
1. Mrs Watson (Dorking Hills) had submitted a written question and received a response in advance of the meeting.
As a supplementary she asked why it had been so difficult to have gullies included on the Asset Register and have them regularly cleaned.
The Area Highway Manager explained that when the county council had changed contractors some of the asset information had not been properly transferred. A meeting was planned with the new contractors to ensure these issues were resolved and the interactive map updated.
With regard to the cleaning of the gullies the first step will be to clear away leaves and the layer of silt and the community gang will be working on this as soon as possible. The gully cleaning will be arranged for when the resource is next available in January.
The Chairman agreed with the divisional member on the importance of this issue and suggested a meeting with officers to work through the issues.
2. District Councillor Haque had submitted a written question and received a response in advance of the meeting.
The Area Highway Manager referred to the results of the speed survey given in the written response and reiterated that they showed general compliance with the 30mph limit.
|
|
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.
Petition 1 (221 signatures): Submitted by resident Gareth Winterflood calling for ‘the enforcement of speed restrictions on Middle Street and Brockham Lane’.
Petition 2 (689 signatures): Submitted by Hookwood resident Lisa Scott calling for ‘the provision of a safe, fit for purpose, segregated shared cycle path / footpath along the Reigate to Horley A217 as part of the current Safer Roads Improvement plan.’ Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager
N.B All petitions and officer responses are included in the supplementary agenda.
1. Petition (221 signatures) calling for the enforcement of speed restrictions on Middle Street/Brockham Lane, Brockham had been submitted by Gareth Winterflood and presented by Peter Curtis. The petitioner highlighted that residents were particularly concerned about the risks posed to children using the route to school. The roads in question have a very good surface and drivers are aware that the current speed limits are not regularly enforced by the police. Parked vehicles cause traffic to build up and drivers have to decide whether to wait or outrun the oncoming traffic. A recent targeted enforcement session resulted in 12 warnings being issued
Member discussion – key points:
The divisional member for Dorking Rural explained that the parked cars most likely belonged to residents of the cottages as they do not have their own driveways. She suggested the use of road markings to slow down the traffic and enable drivers to better judge how to get past the parked vehicles. Such a scheme might also be supported by the Brockham Parish Council who were in favour of retaining the rural nature of the area. The local committee has a small budget for local safety schemes and the Area Highway Manager agreed to investigate whether there was a cost-effective solution that could be funded. Key stakeholders including residents would be consulted on any proposals.
The local committee (Mole Valley) agreed to: (i) note the officer’s comment.
2. Petition (689 signatures) calling for ‘a safe, fit for purpose, segregated shared cycle path / footpath along the Reigate to Horley A217 as part of the current Safer Roads Improvement plan’ submitted by Lisa Scott (lead petitioner) and Sergio Conte.
The lead petitioner stressed the need to future proof the county’s roads in light of the many varied problems caused by the heavy reliance on motor vehicles. She highlighted the risks of cycling along the A217 and requested that the existing path through Mole Valley and Reigate and Banstead be properly cleared, signage installed, and be added to the grass cutting rota. The route has already been partially cleared in Mole Valley and she suggested this was a cost effective way of providing a sustainable solution to the issue raised.
Member discussion – key points
The divisional member for Dorking Hills agreed the proposal was a sensible approach to the problem. There was no provision for cycling in the Horley Masterplan and the Area Highway Manager agreed to raise the issue with the project officer. Members acknowledged the difficulties in securing funding and agreed that alternative sources should be sought (eg Ride London, Marathon Trust). The local committee (Mole Valley) agreed to: (i) note the officer’s comment
|
|
|
HIGHWAYS FORWARD PROGRAMME [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION FOR DECISION]
This report seeks approval of a programme of highway works for Mole Valley funded from the Local Committee’s delegated capital and revenue budgets.
Additional documents: Decision:
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to: General (i) Note that the Mole Valley’s Local Committee’s devolved highways budget for capital works within the Medium Term Financial Plan 2017-20 is £36,363 in 2018/19 and 2019/20 and that the revenue budget for 2018/19 is £40,910. (ii) Authorise delegation of authority to the Area Highway Manager, in consultation with the Local Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman, to agree a revised programme of highway works for 2018/19 if there is a change in the Local Committee’s devolved budget; (iii) Note that should there be any changes to the programme of highway works as set out in this report, a report will be taken to a future meeting of Mole Valley Local Committee to inform members of the changes.
And resolved to: Capital Improvement Schemes (ITS) (iv) Agree that the capital improvement schemes allocation for Mole Valley be used to progress the Integrated Transport Schemes programme set out in Annex 1; (v) Authorise that the Area Highway Manager, in consultation with the Local Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman, be able to vire money between the schemes agreed in Annex 1, if required; (vi) Agree that the Local Committee Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Area Team Manager, together with the relevant local divisional Member are able to progress any scheme from the Integrated Transport Schemes programme, including consultation and statutory advertisement that may be required under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, for completion of those schemes. Where it is agreed that a scheme will not be progressed, this will be reported back to the next formal meeting of the Local Committee for approval. And resolved to: Revenue Maintenance (vii) Authorise the Area Maintenance Engineer, in consultation with the Local Committee Chairman, Vice-Chairman and relevant local divisional Member, to use £40,910 of the revenue maintenance budget for 2018/19 as detailed in Table 2 of this report; (viii) The Area Maintenance Engineer, in consultation with the Local Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman, be able to vire the revenue maintenance budget between the identified work headings in Table 2; (ix) Agree that the revenue maintenance gang be managed by the Area Maintenance Engineer on behalf of Members.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
To agree a forward programme of highways works in Mole Valley for 2018/19 – 2019/20, funded from the Local Committee’s devolved budget Minutes:
Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None
Member Discussion – key points:
1. The divisional member for Dorking and the Holmwoods queried the comments against the Blackbrook Road scheme (page 15). The Area Highway Manager agreed to forward a complete version of the notes subsequent to the meeting.
Resolution:
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to: General (i) Note that the Mole Valley’s Local Committee’s devolved highways budget for capital works within the Medium Term Financial Plan 2017-20 is £36,363 in 2018/19 and 2019/20 and that the revenue budget for 2018/19 is £40,910. (ii) Authorise delegation of authority to the Area Highway Manager, in consultation with the Local Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman, to agree a revised programme of highway works for 2018/19 if there is a change in the Local Committee’s devolved budget; (iii) Note that should there be any changes to the programme of highway works as set out in this report, a report will be taken to a future meeting of Mole Valley Local Committee to inform members of the changes.
And resolved to: Capital Improvement Schemes (ITS) (iv) Agree that the capital improvement schemes allocation for Mole Valley be used to progress the Integrated Transport Schemes programme set out in Annex 1; (v) Authorise that the Area Highway Manager, in consultation with the Local Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman, be able to vire money between the schemes agreed in Annex 1, if required; (vi) Agree that the Local Committee Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Area Team Manager, together with the relevant local divisional Member are able to progress any scheme from the Integrated Transport Schemes programme, including consultation and statutory advertisement that may be required under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, for completion of those schemes. Where it is agreed that a scheme will not be progressed, this will be reported back to the next formal meeting of the Local Committee for approval. And resolved to: Revenue Maintenance (vii) Authorise the Area Maintenance Engineer, in consultation with the Local Committee Chairman, Vice-Chairman and relevant local divisional Member, to use £40,910 of the revenue maintenance budget for 2018/19 as detailed in Table 2 of this report; (viii) The Area Maintenance Engineer, in consultation with the Local Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman, be able to vire the revenue maintenance budget between the identified work headings in Table 2; (ix) Agree that the revenue maintenance gang be managed by the Area Maintenance Engineer on behalf of Members.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
To agree a forward programme of highways works in Mole Valley for 2018/19 – 2019/20, funded from the Local Committee’s devolved budget |
|
|
HIGHWAYS UPDATE REPORT [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION FOR INFORMATION]
This report summarises progress with the Local Committee’s programme of Highways works for the current financial year 2017/18. It also provides a summary of the progress on the Dorking Transport Study, the Dorking STP and the Wider Network Benefits Scheme.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None
Member Discussion – key points:
1. Divisional member for Dorking and the Holmwoods highlighted that the web link given in paragraph 2.5 (page 21) did not work. 2. He expressed concern that the speed survey results in Punchbowl Lane did not correspond with those obtained by the community speedwatch. 3. The divisional member would still like to investigate ways to reduce traffic speed in Horsham Road following the submission of a petition from residents in March 2017 and possibly hold a site meeting with officers to discuss. 4. He also asked about the availability of future funding to enable the A24 Deepdene Avenue (page 25) and Spook Hill schemes to be completed. 5. In response the Area Highway Manager acknowledged that the web link did not work on all devices, but the information on Horizon was accessible through the external website. 6. The speed survey results were not comparable as the data is collected in different ways. The community speed watch records those vehicles travelling at the highest speeds whereas the speed survey takes the average speed of all vehicles over a seven day period. 7. Work on the Deepdene Avenue scheme had used funding that had been carried forward but as yet there was no budget available to progress with either scheme, although the Area Highways Team will continue to look for alternative sources of funding.
Resolution:
The Local Committee(Mole Valley) agreed to:
(i) Note the contents of the report |
|
|
SPEED LIMIT ASSESSMENTS - LEITH HILL AND OCKLEY [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION FOR DECISION]
This report seeks approval for the changes to the speed limits on various roads in Leith Hill and Ockley in accordance with Surrey’s policy.
Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:
(i) Note the results of the speed limit assessment undertaken; And resolved to: (ii) Agree that, based upon the evidence, the speed limit be reduced from 60mph to 40mph on Hollow Lane, that section of Leith Hill Road between Hollow Road & Leith Hill Lane (also known as Abinger Road), Leith Hill Lane (also known as Abinger Road), Donkey Lane, Abinger Common Road, Lemons Farm Road, Sewers Farm Road, that section of B2126 Etherley Hill between a point 55m west of the western carriageway edge of Leith Hill Lane (also known as Abinger Road) and B2126 Ockley Road, B2126 Ockley Road and B2126 Forest Green Road in accordance with the current policy; (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 proposed speed limit change, revoke any existing traffic orders necessary to implement the change, and, subject to no objections being upheld, that the order be made;
(iv)Authorise delegation of authority to the Area Highway Manager in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman of the Local Committee and the local divisional member to resolve any objections received in connection with the proposal. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
To enable changes to the speed limit on Hollow Lane, part of Leith Hill Road between Hollow Road & Leith Hill Lane (otherwise known as Abinger Road), Leith Hill Lane (otherwise known as Abinger Road), Donkey Lane, Abinger Common Road, Lemons Farm Road, Sewers Farm Road, part of B2126 Etherley Hill, B2126 Ockley Road and B2126 Forest Green Road in accordance with Surrey’s speed limit policy.
Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None
Member Discussion – key points:
1. Members all agreed that this change was very welcome. The roads included in the scheme are heavily used by a mix of horses/cars/cyclists and have poor sightlines. The speed limit reduction to 40mph would make the roads specified safer to use for all. 2. Members also highlighted that these roads were country lanes with no footways or lighting and that it was important to protect their rural nature. 3. The Area Highway Manager advised that under new traffic regulations there was no need to install reminder roundels at prescribed distances. It would be sufficient to have the new speed limit reinforced at the entrance to the road with repeaters installed on existing signs.
Resolution:
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:
(i) Note the results of the speed limit assessment undertaken; And resolved to: (ii) Agree that, based upon the evidence, the speed limit be reduced from 60mph to 40mph on Hollow Lane, that section of Leith Hill Road between Hollow Road & Leith Hill Lane (also known as Abinger Road), Leith Hill Lane (also known as Abinger Road), Donkey Lane, Abinger Common Road, Lemons Farm Road, Sewers Farm Road, that section of B2126 Etherley Hill between a point 55m west of the western carriageway edge of Leith Hill Lane (also known as Abinger Road) and B2126 Ockley Road, B2126 Ockley Road and B2126 Forest Green Road in accordance with the current policy; (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 proposed speed limit change, revoke any existing traffic orders necessary to implement the change, and, subject to no objections being upheld, that the order be made;
(iv)Authorise delegation of authority to the Area Highway Manager in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman of the Local Committee and the local divisional member to resolve any objections received in connection with the proposal. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
To enable changes to the speed limit on Hollow Lane, part of Leith Hill Road between Hollow Road & Leith Hill Lane (otherwise known as Abinger Road), Leith Hill Lane (otherwise known as Abinger Road), Donkey Lane, Abinger Common Road, Lemons Farm Road, Sewers Farm Road, part of B2126 Etherley Hill, B2126 Ockley Road and B2126 Forest Green Road in accordance with Surrey’s speed limit policy.
|
|
|
SURREY HILLS HGV AND COUNTRY LANE REVIEW [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION FOR DECISION]
This report summarises the feasibility work and further consultation carried out during the review of Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) movements through the study area.
The report also outlines the proposed measures for HGV management, including safe measures to conserve and enhance country lanes within the area that have been considered during this process and puts forward a recommended strategic concept for Local Committee approval. Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:
(i) Support dialogue with relevant Guildford, Waverley and Mole Valley county, district and parish councillors to address concerns regarding HGV movements and interventions in the area. Further dialogue is required.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: To enable key stakeholders to explore wider solutions to HGV management. Minutes:
Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None
Member Discussion – key points:
1 The Chairman welcomed the Chairman of Guildford Local Committee . He had been involved in developing this scheme over the last 3-4 years and wanted to address any possible misunderstandings relating to the proposed pilot.
2. He explained that work on the scheme had started in 2014 with the agreement of key county members and that extensive consultation had been carried out. The pilot being proposed was just a small test to see whether the use of signage would be sufficient in managing HGV movements. He expressed concern that if the scheme was not now progressed an opportunity to tackle this problem would have been lost.
3. Mole Valley members expressed concern that the scheme would result in increased HGV traffic on Mole Valley roads and as an example highlighted one of the signs in the annex showing traffic from Shere being directed through Abinger Hammer.
4. The divisional member for Dorking Hills had attended some initial meetings of a working group but had not been involved in developing the plan. The remaining committee members had not been aware of the scheme before its inclusion in the agenda papers for this meeting.
5. Members were fully aware of residents' wishes to see the volume of HGV traffic reduced but queried this proposal to direct vehicles onto 'B' rather than 'A' roads, as these roads were already heavily used.
6. A representative of Abinger Hammer Parish Council present at the meeting confirmed that it had not been consulted on the plans and stressed the need to protect communities fairly. Proper consultation should be carried out with those affected and the views of parish councils should be sought.
7. The divisional member for Bookham and Fetcham West commented on a scheme to deter HGV traffic that was introduced in Bookham Village. The installation of advisory signage had not been successful in reducing the volume of HGV vehicles. She also highlighted that residents may be surprised to learn which types of vehicles would not be excluded by the 7.5 T maximum signs as shown in Annex A.
8. The Chairman had received a request from members prior to the meeting to defer this report, but he had decided not to exclude it so that members could have the opportunity to discuss the proposals.
9. Members agreed that they could not support the recommendations included in the report but agreed on a revised wording proposed by the Chairman and seconded by the divisional member for Dorking Rural, to enable further discussions to take place.
Resolution:
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:
(i) Support dialogue with relevant Guildford, Waverley and Mole Valley county, district and parish councillors to address concerns regarding HGV movements and interventions in the area. Further dialogue is required.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: To enable key stakeholders to explore wider solutions to HGV management. |
|
The Local Committee had a
delegated budget of £3,000 in 2016/17 for community safety
projects. It was agreed in September 2016 that the Committee should
receive a report detailing the projects that had received the
funding and the outcomes achieved.
Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Stella Keen (Community Safety Manager, Mole Valley District Council)
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None
Member Discussion – key points:
1. The Chairman commented on the successful outcomes of funding the CCTV camera on Kingston Road Recreation Ground.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed:
(i) To note the contents of the report |
|
|
RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER [FOR INFORMATION]
The tracker monitors the progress of the decisions and recommendations that the Local Committee (Mole Valley) has agreed.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) is asked to note the progress made. Minutes: The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to note the progress made and to remove completed items from the tracker. |