Agenda, decisions and minutes

Mole Valley Local Committee
Wednesday, 5 September 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

OPEN FORUM pdf icon PDF 42 KB

Questions and responses from the open forum session are attached as Annex A.

24/18

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

25/18

MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING pdf icon PDF 91 KB

26/18

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:

    For the purposes of item 5 (petition no. 2) and item 6 members made the following declarations of interest:

     

    1.    Cllr Kennedy - member of the Bookhams Residents’ Association,

    2.    Mrs Curran – designated SCC member of Bookhams Residents’ Association

27/18a

PUBLIC QUESTIONS pdf icon PDF 83 KB

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

    Minutes:

    Declarations of interest: None

     

    Officers present: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

     

     

    1.    Written questions had been submitted by Michelle Watson. Responses had been provided (see supplementary agenda pack). She was not present to ask a supplementary.

    2.    Rosemary Campbell had submitted a written question and had received a response (see supplementary agenda pack). In her absence the divisional member for Dorking Hills urged that the issue be prioritised for funding given the concerns of residents.

    3.    The Area Highways Manager reminded members that they always receive more requests than they have funding for and this year’s budget was already fully allocated. It was too early to know about the level of next year’s budget.

    4.    Elizabeth Daly had asked a question and received a response (see supplementary agenda pack).

    5.    In her absence the divisional member for Bookham and Fetcham West expressed her surprise that the fact that she and district councillors had been dealing with this issue for some time, had not been reflected in the response from officers.

    6.    The vehicles in question are not HGVs; they were taxed and insured, and  parked so as not to constitute an obstruction, but in an ‘ un-neighbourly’ way. Councillors had been working with the owner to try and resolve the issue.

    7.    Members agreed that this was a growing problem in other areas and that the Cabinet Lead Member for Place should be alerted to the growing issue.

    8.    Ian Anderson had submitted a question as a follow up to the one he had submitted to the local committee meeting in June 2018. He had received a response (see supplementary agenda pack).

    9.    District council members assured the committee that officers had been working hard behind the scenes for months on this issue, but that it had been difficult engaging with Network Rail.

     

     

27/18b

MEMBER QUESTIONS pdf icon PDF 88 KB

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

    Minutes:

    Declarations of interest: None

     

    Officers present: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

     

    1.    District Councillor Claire Malcomson had submitted questions and received responses (see supplementary agenda pack), but was not present.

    2.    Mr Hall had submitted two questions and received responses (see supplementary agenda pack).

    3.    He asked a supplementary to Q2: Given that only 10%  of the gullies in Mole Valley had been cleaned in five months, how likely was it that the remainder would be completed by the end of the 2018 financial year?

    4.    The AHM confirmed that this work had been passed through to the contractors. Gully cleaning was essential to keeping roads open in wet  weather and the work would be audited to ensure KPIs were met.

    5.    Cllr Kennedy had submitted two questions. He would ask a follow up question to Q2 at a future local committee meeting.

28/18

PETITIONS pdf icon PDF 79 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.

     

    Three petitions have been received:

     

    1.    Petition submitted by the Hookwood Residents’ Society calling for action in respect of parking and other traffic issues in the vicinity of Bluebird House, Povey Cross, Hookwood.

     

    2.    Online petition posted on behalf of Bookham Residents Association.

     

    Petition title: “provide immediate funding to allow completion of investigations and the implementation of a drainage scheme that resolves the persistent major flooding and subsequent hazard issues in central Bookham.”

     

     

    3.    Petition submitted on behalf of the Leatherhead Residents’ Association and  The Leatherhead & District Chamber of Commerce.

     

               Petition title: “request that Leatherhead High Street be open from 3.30pm for 

               parking and access, 4.30pm on market days, for an experimental period of six

               months, to encourage an increase in footfall.”

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Declarations of interest:

    1.    Cllr Kennedy - member of the Bookhams Residents’ Association,

    2.    Mrs Curran – designated SCC member of Bookhams Residents’ Association

     

     

    Officers present:

    Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

    Steve Clavey, Senior Engineer (parking)

     

     

    Petition (178 Signatures) presented by Ms Angela Woodhams on behalf of Hookwood Residents’ Society (see supplementary agenda for petition details and officer response).

     

    1.    Members acknowledged the complex nature of the issues. They sympathised with the petitioners; the problems had been caused in part by a change in the nature of the businesses in the area. 

    2.    Members urged Surrey Highways and MVDC Planning to work together to find a resolution for the problems caused by businesses operating in residential roads.

    3.    The new parking measures proposed in drawing number 55 (included in the parking review at item 8) did not deliver what residents had requested; the had wanted double yellow lines to be implemented, in order to deter taxis and holiday parking.

    4.    The divisional member for Dorking Rural highlighted the problems with enforcement in rural areas and suggested it might be better covered by Reigate & Banstead officers.

    5.    The location of the parking bay (drawing 55) had already been moved following requests, but the Senior Engineer (Parking) suggested meeting the petitioners on site, to look at other available options.

    6.    The local committee (Mole Valley) agreed to note the officer’s response.

     

     

    Petition (190 signatures) presented by John Howarth on behalf of Bookhams Residents’ Association (petition details; supporting letter from the Chief Executive of the Grange Centre, Bookham; officer response included in the supplementary agenda pack).

     

    1.    Members welcomed the extra funding for investigative works, although they were disappointed that officers had not been able to identify a solution.

    2.    The results of the investigations would be presented to the Local Resilience Forum (Bookham Flood Forum) and be included in a future highways update.

    3.    The local committee (Mole Valley) agreed to note the officer’s response.

     

    Petition (99 signatures) was presented by Susan Leveritt on behalf of the Leatherhead Residents’ Association and the Leatherhead and District Chamber of Commerce.

     

    1.    The petitioners expressed disappointment at the officer response and asked the committee to reject the recommendation and allow an experimental Traffic Regulation Order.

    2.    Members commended the petitioners for the high quality presentation of their petition and their committed approach.

     

    3.    Members sympathised with the town’s business owners and acknowledged that to allow parking after 4.30pm would improve access to Leatherhead’s shops and businesses.

    4.    A trial would provide essential data on footfall; in Dorking a few 30 minute parking bays had been introduced to encourage visits to local shops.

    5.    Some members highlighted the fact that improvements were already being made to the town centre and suggested it would be advisable to align any trial with the transport study, as described in the officer response.

    6.    This approach was supported by officers, who expressed concerns over a trial being carried out in isolation and the adverse impact it might have on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28/18

29/18

PUBLIC FOOTPATH 75 - LEATHERHEAD: APPLICATION TO RESTRICT PEDESTRIANS AT CERTAIN TIMES [OTHER COUNCIL FUNCTIONS] pdf icon PDF 112 KB

    The County Council has powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to close public footpaths. This report sets out details of the application to restrict pedestrian access and the reasons for the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest:

     

    1.    Cllr Kennedy - member of the Bookham Residents’ Association,

    2.    Mrs Curran – designated SCC member of Bookham Residents’ Association

     

     

    Officer Present: Debbie Prismall, Senior Countryside Access Officer

     

    Speaker in support:

     

    Julia Dickinson made the following points in support of the application.

    1.    Surrey County Council had a statutory duty with regard to ensuring the safety of the school pupils.

    2.    There was an alternative path, that the public could use.

     

    Speakers objecting to the application made the following points.

    Vivien White – on behalf of Effingham Residents Association:

    1.    Residents were very concerned as this was the only safe route for pedestrians. If it were closed, some people would  become isolated.

    2.    The planning application for the school had been delayed, and as a consequence, the period of closure would have to be extended.

     

    Cllr  Arnold Pinder - on behalf of Effingham Parish Council

    1.    The school had underestimated the number of people using the footpath.It was the only safe route for those with buggies etc.

    2.    There was no evidence of any serious incidents to justify closing the footpath. Other measures such as erecting hedge borders would be acceptable.

     

    James Nicholls – life-long resident

    1.    The proposal was unnecessary, and the police had not received reports of any serious incidents.

    2.    Other routes were more dangerous for pedestrians.

     

    Reverend Mandy McVean

    1.    Her parishioners regularly used the footpath to access the church and its closure would have an adverse impact on attendance at services and the toddler group.

    2.    The safety of pupils was equally important but there were alternative solutions available, even if they were less convenient.

     

    Caroline Irwin - resident

    1.    The applicant had previously been unsuccessful in an application to extinguish rights and would prefer a permanent closure.

    2.    She knew of no legal precedence to support closure of the path and urged members to refuse the application.

     

    Key points raised in the member discussion:

    1. Some members had attended a site visit, which had helped them understand the issues.
    2. Members had been surprised by how short the relevant section of path was and thought that is was misleading to think that its closure would cut off access to the school; other footpaths ran adjacent to the school boundaries.
    3. Members agreed that safeguarding issues were an important duty for the school, however this closure did not give the security suggested in the application.
    4. There were other access points to the school grounds and members would like to have heard from the school as to why other measures, such as additional fencing would not work.
    5. The Chairman suggested that the school should engage more with the local community, to find a solution.
    6. The officer’s recommendation was supported unanimously by members of the committee.

     

     

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed that:

     

    The request by the Howard of Effingham Partnership Trust to make a legal order to close Public Footpath 75, Leatherhead at certain times of the day is refused.

     

    REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:

     

    The County  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29/18

30/18

PRESENTATION FROM SCC LEAD CABINET MEMBER FOR PEOPLE ON WORKING TOGETHER WITH DISTRICTS AND BOROUGHS WITH THE KEY FOCUS ON HEALTH AND WELLBEING [AGENDA ITEM] pdf icon PDF 3 MB

    Minutes:

    The Cabinet Lead Member for People guided members through a presentation (attached),  focussing on the health and well-being of residents, and covered the following topics:

    1. Context- Surrey vision 2030
    2. Understanding the wider determinants of health
    3. The role of local authorities
    4. Evolving health and care systems in Surrey
    5. Surrey Heartlands- case study

     

    Member discussion highlights:

    1.    The way in which the county council provided essential services would have to change; adult social care and Special Educational Needs and Disabilty(SEND) were the two largest areas of expenditure.

    2.    Organisations needed to do more to help and support people to look after themselves with prevention and early intervention being key.

    3.    The Surrey Health and Wellbeing Board was a statutory, multi-agency body, to oversee delivery of health services across the county, but it needed to do more to raise its profile and improve engagement with partners. The Leader of Mole Valley District Council was a current member of the committee.

    4.    Surrey Heartlands (covering around 850,000 people) was considered one of the most advanced sustainability and transformation partnerships with regard to the devolution of NHS services.

    5.    The Cabinet Member suggested that local councils could contribute more to the improvement of health and wellbeing outcomes for their residents, for example through the local plan.

    6.    The new people and places agenda supported a coordinated approach by partners, which included the co-location of staff and shared use of buildings.  The county council was currently looking into how, it could make better use of the buildings it owned, for the benefit of residents.

    7.    The district council had already demonstrated its commitment to improving outcomes for its residents; it was one of the few local councils to have a portfolio holder for Health and Wellbeing. MVDC already had various initiatives in place eg. walk for health scheme, exercise on referral

    8.    Some members highlighted that a cohesive approach was all the more important given the reductions in some budgets. For example, on the one hand, encouraging people to walk more for health, on the other, pavements may be in a bad state of repair and country paths overgrown. In Elmbridge for example, Community Infrastructure Levy money had funded improvements.

    9.    Members acknowledged that with a larger proportion of residents living longer but not necessarily healthier lives, there was a need to take more individual and community responsibility. The limited budget envelope would only be able to fund those who really needed it and all stakeholders needed to take a new collaborative and creative approach.

31/18

MOLE VALLEY ON STREET PARKING REVIEW [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION] pdf icon PDF 81 KB

    This report sets out the proposals for changes to on street parking measures as a result of requests that have been received for either the introduction of new parking restrictions or changes to existing restrictions at various sites in Mole Valley.

     

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to agree:

     

    (i)            The recommendations detailed in Annex 1, without additions;

     

    (ii)           To allocate funding as described in 5.1

     

    (iii)          That the County Council’s intention to make an order under the Road Traffic Regulation act 1984 be advertised and, if no objections are maintained, the order be made;

     

    (iv)         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.

     

     

     

     

    Minutes:

    Declarations of interest: None

     

    Officers present: Steve Clavey – Senior Engineer (Parking)

     

    Public questions, statements: None

     

    Petitions: refer to item 5 – petition regarding parking issues near Povey Cross, Hookwood

     

     

     

    Members’ discussion highlights:

     

    1. District Councillor Irvine referred to the proposed measures (drawing 33) in Leslie Road, Pixham where cars parked on both sides of the road were obstructing the refuse collection vehicles.
    2. Residents had expressed huge concern about all day restrictions and needed to be consulted on the options. Members queried whether there were other possible solutions and suggested the use of a smaller vehicle.
    3. The new contractors Amey had suggested restricted timings (ie 9am-12pm on Wednesdays) as this would allow sufficient time to make their collections. A 15ft vehicle was standard, but it would not be economical to purchase a half-sized one, given the number of the properties it would serve.
    4. Members discussed the fact that this had been an ongoing issue since 2012. When the district council had been responsible for the refuse collection, vehicles had to make return visits in order to complete the round.
    5. Members agreed that the restricted parking (9am – 12pm on Wednesdays) should be advertised and the Chairman prompted local councillors to encourage residents to respond to the consultation, not just to object, but also to support the proposals.
    6. Members highlighted that drawing 30 did not show all the existing driveways along Boxhill Road.
    7. Officers agreed not to advertise the proposals for Chalkpit Lane/Curtis Road in Dorking (drawing 37) where there had already been objections from the divisional member and local residents.
    8. With reference to the earlier petition regarding parking and traffic issues in the vicinity of Povey Cross, Hookwood (Item 5) and related drawing 55, officers had reached an agreement with the petitioners on the proposed location of the loading bay, which would now go out to consultation.
    9. In response to queries for background information from members, officers explained that the costs given for the planning review were an estimate. The final figure would depend on the amount of signage needed. Under current law the consultation still had to be published in the printed press and each advertisement could cost £10,000.
    10. Members agreed to the recommendations, taking into account the small amendments made above.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) resolved to agree:

     

    (i)            The recommendations detailed in Annex 1, without additions;

     

    (ii)           To allocate funding as described in 5.1

     

    (iii)          That the County Council’s intention to make an order under the Road Traffic Regulation act 1984 be advertised and, if no objections are maintained, the order be made;

     

    (iv)         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.

     

     

     

     

32/18

HIGHWAYS UPDATE [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION] pdf icon PDF 105 KB

33/18

RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER [FOR INFORMATION] pdf icon PDF 71 KB

    The local committee (Mole Valley) is asked to review the progress made and to agree to remove any schemes that are marked ‘complete’.

     

    Minutes:

    The local committee (Mole Valley) noted the recommendations tracker and agreed to remove those items marked ‘closed.’

34/18

FORWARD PLAN [FOR INFORMATION] pdf icon PDF 51 KB