Agenda, decisions and minutes

Mole Valley Local Committee
Wednesday, 14 March 2018 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

1/18

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

2/18

MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING pdf icon PDF 251 KB

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

    Minutes:

    Correction: item 5 2. Petitions – The divisional member for Dorking Hills should read Dorking Rural.

     

    Otherwise the minutes were held to be a true record of the meeting held on 30 November 2017.

3/18

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.

4/18a

PUBLIC QUESTIONS pdf icon PDF 240 KB

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

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Declarations of interest: None

     

    Officers in attendance: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

     

    (For all written questions and responses see the supplementary agenda pack)

     

     

    1.    Mr Jon Favel had submitted a question and received an answer. He was not present to ask a supplementary.

    2.    Mr Ron Billard (representing Mole Valley Cycling Forum) had submitted a question and received an answer.

     

    MVCF had forwarded a presentation to highways to be used as a free resource. The group were keen to assist the county council on cycling issues across the district.

     

    The AHM explained that cycling issues were now addressed by a countywide team through the cycling officer.

     

    The cycling strategy team would value the forum’s input when Mole Valley’s cycling strategy would be updated in the near future.

     

    Highway officers would also be happy to meet with MVCF representatives in the future, in the event funding for a specific scheme was identified.

     

    3.    Mr Roger Troughton had submitted a question and received an answer in advance of the meeting.

     

    He asked how it had been decided to allocate the s106 contributions to provide Real Time Passenger Information at bus stops instead of measures for safe access across the A24. It was suggested that this had been considered the best value for the small amount of money that would have been available.

     

    Some members expressed concern that they still had not received up to date information on how developers’ funds had been spent and what was still available to be allocated.

     

    The AHM agreed to follow up on this issue with a view to bringing an item to the next informal local committee meeting.

     

    The ward member for Okewood and Leader of Mole Valley District Council agreed to ensure that Community Infrastructure Levy figures were made available to the Committee, but stressed that only very modes sums had been collected so far.

     

    Whether or not the local committee will have a role to play in the CIL decision-making process is still yet to be determined.

     

    4.    Claire Malcomson had submitted three questions and received responses in advance of the meeting. She was not present to ask a supplementary.

     

    The Chairman stressed that sexual health clinics across the county were fully functioning but that if members were aware of any issues, they should contact the divisional member for Dorking Rural in her capacity as Cabinet Member for Health. She would be happy to answer any questions on any public health matters but stressed the difficulties in finding the money for preventative work. She was working alongside officers in monitoring CWL.

     

     

     

    5.    Peter Seaward (Bookham Residents Association) had submitted a question and received a response in advance of the meeting.

     

    With regard to Lower Road, he stressed that the longer the situation was left unresolved, the more money would have to be spent in the long term.

     

    The AHM explained that engineers had considered a new type of gully which might be part of a longer term solution but with only limited funding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4/18a

4/18b

MEMBER QUESTIONS pdf icon PDF 185 KB

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

    Minutes:

    Declarations of interest: None

     

    Officers in attendance: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

     

    Questions and responses are included in the supplementary agenda pack.

     

     

     

    Mrs Watson (Dorking Hills) had submitted written questions in advance of the meeting and asked no supplementaries.

     

5/18

PETITIONS pdf icon PDF 107 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 has been received:

    ‘We, the undersigned, call on Surrey County Council and Mole Valley District Council to work together to resurface and to widen the existing footpaths on Meadowbank from Archway Place /Chalkpit Lane to Ashcombe Road (around the football ground and below and alongside Parkway) and for all paths on Meadowbank to be better lit in the morning and early evening in Winter to assist pedestrians using the footpaths and enhance safety’.

     

    Minutes:

    Declarations of interest: None

     

    Officers in attendance: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

     

    Petition wording and officer response are included in the supplementary agenda pack.

     

     

    1.    The petition presented by District Cllr David Draper had attracted over 200 signatures.

     

    2.    He was pleased that Mole Valley District Council had been able to take action to improve Footpaths 66 and 70 as part of the development of the Meadow bank site. 

     

    3.    Footpath 71 remained in urgent need of repair; the surface had been eroded due to flooding; there were drainage difficulties and raw sewerage had been detected. A resolution would need the cooperation of Thames Water, the Environment Agency as well as funding from the county council.

     

    4.    The AHM stressed that no further funding had been identified for additional works and that paths only needed to be maintained to the standard required for footpaths. However she had not previously been made aware of the sewerage problem and would speak outside of the meeting with a view to assisting with communication with the utility companies.

     

    5.    Members discussed the previous difficulties in engaging with Thames Water and encouraged everyone to individually report an issue. The higher the number of calls received about a problem, the greater weight would be attributed to it. As a private company Thames Water was not obliged to respond to the county council.

     

     

    The local committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:

     

    (i)            Note the officer’s comment

     

     

     

6/18

UPDATE FROM CABINET MEMBER FOR HIGHWAYS [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR INFORMATION] pdf icon PDF 472 KB

    The Cabinet Member for Highways will provide the committee with an update on highway works in the local area.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Declarations of interest: None

     

    Officers in attendance: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

     

    Public Questions, Petitions, Statements: None

     

    Member discussion – key highlights

     

    1.    The Cabinet Member for Highways would also be attending meetings with representatives from Residents Associations and Parish Councils in Mole Valley to give an update on highways matters.

    2.    The report had three annexes showing where money has and is planned to be spent locally. A revised version of Annex 1 is attached to these minutes.

    3.    Annex 3 was a new document bringing together information on possible future  schemes, so that Members would have advance notice of schemes and would be better placed to respond to queries from residents.

    4.    Members were asked to consider the schemes planned for 2018/19 and direct any queries or comments to the AHM. She in turn would compile a list of these and the relevant responses to be fed back to the whole local committee.

    5.    There was still a need to improve how the county council communicates with residents as to the work it is doing. Steps have been taken to improve this but there was still a need for further progress.

    6.    The additional revenue funding of £1.4 million would be divided evenly between the eleven districts and boroughs.

    7.    The Cabinet Member would provide members with a list of approximate costs to better enable them to make decisions on how to spend their share of the new Member Highways Fund.

    8.    The county council had invested an extra £5 million in repairing those roads worst affected by the recent spell of adverse winter weather.

    9.    This amount was unlikely to cover the final costs and the Cabinet Member had written to the Transport Secretary to ask for match funding.

    10.  Members raised concerns about drains that were not included on the asset register and therefore not being cleaned.

    11.  The Cabinet Member reassured the committee that progress had been made, but that the new asset system still needed some updating.

    12.  There were still issues with cleaning the gullies; sometimes this was down to the presence of parked cars and work was being done with the district council to try and resolve this problem.

    13.  The grass cutting contract had gone back to the county council with fewer cuts planned; Members could choose to pay for an additional cut from their allocation.

    14.  The criteria for the Member Highways Fund (£7,500 per county councillor) funding had not yet been finalised but the Cabinet Member was aiming to make it as flexible as possible.

    15.  The 2018/19 list of centrally funded schemes would be updated online every three months with details of progress and the reasons for any delay or deferment.

    16.  Members queried the expenditure on traffic signals when there was seemingly no problem with the equipment.

    17.  The Cabinet Member acknowledged that better information was needed to indicate for example whether the equipment was being serviced/replaced/repaired etc.

     

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley)

     

    (i)            Commented on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6/18

7/18

HIGHWAYS FORWARD PROGRAMME REVENUE BUDGET 2018/19 [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR DECISION] pdf icon PDF 91 KB

    This report seeks approval of a revised allocation of the revenue maintenance budget 2018/19 and of how works funded from the revenue budget, will be delivered on members’ behalf.

    Decision:

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:

     

    (i)            Approve the revised allocation of the Local Committee’s devolved revenue maintenance budget as set out in para. 2.2 of this report;

    (ii)           Note the Members Local Highways Fund as detailed in para. 2.7 and 2.8 of this report; and

    Resolved to:

    (iii)      Agree that the revenue maintenance budget and the Members Local      Highways Fund be managed by the Mole Valley Maintenance Engineer on members’ behalf.

    REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:

    To agree the allocation of the Mole Valley Local Committee’s devolved revenue maintenance budget and how works are going to be managed on members’ behalf. 

     

    Minutes:

    Declarations of interest: None

     

    Officers in attendance: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

     

    Public Questions, Petitions, Statements: None

     

     

    Member discussion – key highlights

     

    1.    The divisional member for Bookham and Fetcham West queried the proposed allocation of £100,00 to the revenue maintenance gang and suggested that the funding should be better balanced with more being given over to ‘Minor Maintenance Works’.

    2.    This would allow local members to be able to react to requests from residents for minor patching works. Many of the roads in Mole Valley (mostly C and D roads) were unlikely to be prioritised for Horizon 2.

    3.    The Chair and Vice-Chair already had delegated authority to move funds between different revenue budgets.

    4.    There were various countywide maintenance programmes so it was important to ensure that the local committee budget was not being used to maintain roads already included in one of the centrally funded programmes.

    5.    It was also important to keep sufficient funds for other works such as for trees, grass cutting etc.

    6.    Some Members expressed concern that the proposal would reduce the work of the community gang, especially in rural areas where their work was particularly valued for cutting back vegetation etc

    7.    Members agreed to move forward with the recommendation as it stood but elected to review how the budgets were being spent and the work of the revenue maintenance gang in the summer.

     

     

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:

     

    (i)            Approve the revised allocation of the Local Committee’s devolved revenue maintenance budget as set out in para. 2.2 of this report;

    (ii)           Note the Members Local Highways Fund as detailed in para. 2.7 and 2.8 of this report; and

    Resolved to:

    (iii)      Agree that the revenue maintenance budget and the Members Local      Highways Fund be managed by the Mole Valley Maintenance Engineer on members’ behalf.

    REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:

    To agree the allocation of the Mole Valley Local Committee’s devolved revenue maintenance budget and how works are going to be managed on members’ behalf. 

     

8/18

HIGHWAY SCHEMES 2017/18 - END OF YEAR UPDATE [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR INFORMATION] pdf icon PDF 182 KB

    This report summarises the outcome of the Local Committee’s programme of Highways works for the current financial year 2017/18. It also provides a summary of the work carried out on the Dorking Sustainable Transport Programme and centrally funded maintenance work during the 2017/18 financial year.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Declarations of interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

     

    Public questions, petitions, statements: None

     

     

     

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley)

     

    (i)            Noted the contents of the report

9/18

DORKING TRANSPORT STUDY RESULTS (SERVICE MONITORING AND ISSUES OF LOCAL CONCERN) pdf icon PDF 123 KB

    This item is to update members on the current status of the current Dorking Transport Study, which was commissioned to provide evidence to support a potential future funding bid for a sustainable transport package for Dorking Town Centre which could be submitted to the C2C LEP to address increasing town centre congestion problems.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Declarations of interest: None

     

    Officers in attendance: Steve Howard, Transport Strategy Project Manager

     

    Public Questions, Petitions, Statements: None

     

     

    Member discussion: key highlights

     

    1.    Officers would present the final report on the study at the local committee’s meeting in June.

    2.    Members recognised the difficulties in securing LEP funding for future works and the need for any scheme to compete with others from the catchment area.

    3.    The LEP would focus on deliverable outcomes regarding the provision of housing and education and those to reduce congestion.

    4.    Members discussed the need for new housing around existing transport links and in particular in the vicinity of Dorking main station.

    5.    The station currently had an inadequate parking capacity and the addition of a  mezzanine floor would significantly increase that provision.

    6.    Mole Valley District Council had already commissioned a draft master plan for the regeneration of East Dorking which included the Pippbrook site and the Reigate Road car park.

    7.    Members agreed that increased working from home and walking to school were options that should be promoted to reduce congestion. However there were currently obstacles that would deter people from undertaking these.

    8.    Fast and reliable broadband was needed particularly in rural areas; some schools needed additional crossings, but there was no available money to fund these.

    9.    Some members suggested that changes to the loading and unloading of vehicles on the High Street still needed to be considered as well as the level of enforcement of the existing double yellow lines.

    10.  The divisional member for Dorking South and the Holmwoods expressed his concern over the lack of recommendations to improve traffic flow around the Deepdene roundabout.

    11.  Officers explained that options such as installing traffic lights on the roundabout had been considered but discounted. Although at peak times traffic flow was at its capacity, outside of these hours it had remained largely unchanged from previous studies.

    12.  Members generally agreed that any changes needed to be more radical than  was suggested in the report, firstly to secure LEP funding and secondly to make any significant impact on congestion. They drew a comparison with Leatherhead where work to implement its own masterplan was already underway.

    13.  Members further discussed the possibility of having a further study focusing on the area around Dorking main station with a view to finding a way to attract the interest of the train operators to get involved in any development.

     

     

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:

     

    (i)    Note the current status and emerging themes of the Dorking Transport Study Stages 1 & 2 Data Collection and Issues & Opportunities made to date.

    (ii)  Note the potential options proposed as stated in Paragraph 9.1for further analysis in Stage 3 Option Testing & Developing Strategy subject to the additional suggestions made by members during the meeting.

10/18

EARLY HELP PRIORITIES FOR MOLE VALLEY [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR DECISION] pdf icon PDF 308 KB

    This report provides an update on the new Early Help model that Surrey County Council and partners have been developing for the county overall and how this progressing locally in Mole Valley.

     

    It is also seeking feedback on the latest Early Help developments in Mole Valley, and endorsement of the current Local Committee representatives to the local Early Help Advisory Board, for the remainder of 2017/18 and 2018/19.

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed to:

     

    (i)    Provide feedback on the latest early help developments in Mole Valley, including proposed early help priorities for re-commissioning and the location of Local Family Partnerships

    (ii)   Endorse the Local Committee representatives to the local Early Help Advisory Board, for the remainder of 2017/18 and 2018/19 (subject to continued membership of the Local Committee)

    REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:

     

    We want Local Members to be informed about the proposals that we have been developing in partnership for the early help system in Surrey. We believe these proposals will help us realise better outcomes for children and young people within the early help resources we have available. We also know however that early help is most effective when it is planned and delivered locally, so we are seeking the advice of the Local Committee to inform our identified local priorities.

    Minutes:

    Declarations of interest: Tim Hall: Trustee of Leatherhead Youth Project;

    Co-chair of Governing Body of Leatherhead Trinity School    and Children’s Centre

     

     

    Officers in attendance: Natalie Howe, Families Service Manager (FSM)

     

    Public Questions, Petitions, Statements: None

     

     

     

    Member discussion – key highlights

     

    1.    Members generally welcomed the new approach but expressed concern that  any aspirations would be at risk due to possible cuts to services as a result of the county council’s difficult financial position.

    2.    The FSM agreed it was a challenging situation but that it was also an opportunity to work differently with partners. The priority was to ensure that families were looked after; early intervention would reduce costs in the long run.

    3.    Members raised concerns over the consultation on potential changes to children’s centre services. In particular they considered the deadline for partner organisations to submit comments to be too tight.

    4.    The FSM explained that the reason for this was to bring forward the public consultation, so as to avoid the period over the summer holidays. These were still very early discussions but officers had wanted to engage with partners at the outset.

    5.    The divisional member for Ashtead expressed some mixed views about the work thus far of the Early Help Advisory Board (EHAB). He expressed concerns that the membership might be too large to be effective and that there was no representation by the police.

    6.    The FSM explained that in developing the EHAB and the Local Family Partnerships  (LFP) in tandem, it was possible that the balance of the membership of each was not yet quite right. The EHAB should have strategic oversight of early help delivery; the LFPs were operational and the police might be better placed sending a representative to their meetings.

    7.    In declaring his personal interests (above) the Chairman highlighted the fact the funding formula for the children’s centres had not been made available at the start of the process. However this would be an opportunity to review whether the former youth centre buildings were in the right places to deliver services in the future.

    8.    The Chairman also highlighted that accessibility to mental health services was key and that young people from Trinity School used those provided outside the district in Redhill.

    9.    Furthermore he expressed concerns that drug abuse issues in Leatherhead were not sufficiently prioritised and needed to be monitored carefully.

    10.  The FSM agreed that the figures for Mole Valley were particularly challenging. She agreed that the Children and Adolescent’s Mental Health Services (CAMHS) offer still needed to be improved but commented that the Leatherhead Youth Project (LYP) was working very well with the older age groups across the district.

    11.  Officers needed to further interrogate the drug abuse figures with the police to  see if there were pockets of issues where they could focus their work.

    12.  The divisional member for Bookham & Fetcham East (Cabinet Member for Children) stressed that the new model of delivery was needed to meet OFSTED requirements but that the investment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10/18

11/18

RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER pdf icon PDF 175 KB

    The tracker monitors the progress of the decisions and recommendations that the Local Committee (Mole Valley) has agreed.

    Minutes:

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) noted the progress of schemes indicated on the tracker and to remove any items marked as complete.