Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 416 KBVenue: Council Chamber, Pippbrook, Reigate Road, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 1SJ
Contact: Gregory Yeoman, Partnership Committee Officer Surrey County Council, Community Partnerships & Engagement Team, Woodhatch Place, 11 Cockshot Hill, Woodhatch, Reigate, RH2 8EF
Link: Click here for the webcast
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APPOINTMENT OF DISTRICT COUNCIL SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR DECISION]
Under the County Council's Constitution (Part 4. Standing Orders, Part 3 40 (f)) no substitutes are permitted for 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 2021/22. Mole Valley District Council has nominated 6 district Councillors and 7 substitutes to serve on the Local Committee for the municipal year 2021-2022. Jonanna Killian, Chief Executive, has confirmed these appointments as follows, subject to the agreement by the Committee to permit substitutes:
MOLE VALLEY DISTRICT COUNCIL APPOINTED MEMBERS [6] Cllr Lynne Brooks Cllr Raj Haque Cllr David Hawksworth Cllr Mary Huggins Cllr Paul Kennedy Cllr Caroline Salmon
Mole Valley District Council Substitutes [7] Cllr Roger Adams Cllr Tim Ashton Cllr David Harper Cllr Rosemary Hobbs Cllr Alan Reilly Cllr Nick Wright Cllr Charles Yarwood Decision: The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed:
(i) To co-opt substitutes in the municipal year 2021/22.
Reasons for recommendations:
Under the County Council's Constitution (Part 4. Standing Orders, Part 3 40 (f)) no substitutes are permitted for 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. Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Gregory Yeoman, Partnerships Committee Officer
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None.
Member Discussion – key points: The Chairman outlined the need for members to agree each year on whether to permit substitutes or not.
Resolved:
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) AGREED:
(i) To co-opt substitutes in the municipal year 2021/22.
Reasons for recommendations:
Under the County Council's Constitution (Part 4. Standing Orders, Part 3 40 (f)) no substitutes are permitted for 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. |
|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
To receive any apologies for absence and notices of substitutions from District members under Standing Order 39. Minutes: There were no apologies for absence, and no substitutions. |
|
|
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
To approve the Minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 24 February 2021 were approved as a correct 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: There were no declarations of interest. |
|
To receive any questions from Surrey County Council electors within the area in accordance with Standing Order 66. One question has been received, the question and officer response are attached. If further questions are received before the deadline they will be circulated in a supplementary agenda. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager (AHM), Steve Clavey, Parking Manager.
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: Three written public questions were received before the deadline. The full wording of the questions and officer responses were included within the agenda and supplementary agenda.
Key points from discussion: Monica Weller (Question 1) and John Moyer (Question 2) did not attend the meeting.
Andrea Bradley and Janice Brown provided some additional information in relation to Question 3 concerning the disabled parking bay at Claremont Court in Dorking. Now that the bay in question is a mandatory bay it ought to comply with national requirements for design and positioning; other nearby locations were available nearby that were on a more level gradient and with space for hatchings to be painted around the bay.
The chairman asked for a site visit to be arranged for Ms Bradley, Ms Brown, the AHM and the Parking Manager.
In response to Ms Brown’s request to receive notifications of changes to parking restrictions on behalf of Mole Valley Access Forum, the AHM assured her that this would happen. |
|
To receive any written questions from Members under Standing Order 47. Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager (AHM), SCC
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: The questions and officer responses were provided within the supplementary agenda. Four written questions were received before the deadline.
Question 1 was submitted by Mrs Hazel Watson, who in a supplementary question asked about the timetable for repairing the road sign in question and whether the necessary clips had been received. The AHM assured her that once the clips had been delivered the work on the sign would be high priority and the Principal Engineer would contact her at that point.
Cllr Daly was not present to ask a supplementary in relation to Question 2.
On Question 3, Cllr Kennedy wondered why the proposed parking restrictions on Hazel Way in Fetcham were not being taken forward. It was explained that the location of this site meant that enforcement would not be straightforward or practical, or able to be done regularly.
Cllr Kennedy also asked Question 4. He stated his disappointment with the answer received regarding the local committee’s responsibilities, remarking that its functions included for example receiving updates, taking reports, participation with partners, youth engagement. As a supplementary Cllr Kennedy asked who decides what the local committee’s responsibilities are. The chairman thanked him for raising this topic and reassured him that he would be discussing the County Council’s approach to local and joint committees with senior management in the Community Partnerships and Engagement team on the day after this meeting. |
|
|
PETITIONS
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.
No petitions have been received. Minutes: No petitions were received. |
|
Extensive repairs to the surface of Wolvens Lane were carried out in Autumn 2020. Prior to the works, the surface of the BOAT, it’s boundary banks and neighbouring land and property had suffered significant misuse from motorised vehicles, including motorbikes. In addition to some irresponsible vehicle drivers damaging the surface, some also cause a danger to other users including walkers, cyclists and horse riders by driving at speed through sections with limited visibility. Wolvens Lane has a legal width of 10 – 15 feet and several blind bends, which can make it difficult for other users to pass vehicles safely.
Officers now consider that in order to improve the safety of non-motorised users and protect the repaired surface from damage, that a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to restrict all motorised vehicles with 4 or more wheels and all horse drawn carriages exceeding a width of 1500mm (4’11’’) should be made between A and D as shown on drawing 3/1/41/H52a (annex A) in line with option 2 detailed in the report (see para. 1.4). Existing structures enforce this closure are already in place at points B and C, and appropriate signage at points A, B, C and D.
This report seeks approval to publish a Notice of Intention to make a Traffic Regulation Order for Byway Open to All Traffic (BOAT) No. 526 Capel (D287) Wolvens Lane. Additional documents: Minutes: Declaration of Interest: None
Officer attending: Daniel Williams, Countryside Access Officer; Claire Saunders, Access Team Manager; Helen Forbes, Principal Lawyer
Public Speakers: The following three residents spoke in favour of the officer recommendation, and made the following points: Kevin Chesson (South London and Surrey Trail Riders Fellowship) · Responsibly ridden motorbikes cause less damage than 4x4 vehicles or horses; · Since Wolvens Lane had reopened in February 2021, there had been no deterioration of the surface although motorbikes were allowed to travel along it, and no reports to police of incidents; · Motorbike-only restrictions on other lanes in Surrey work well; · Closure of Wolvens Lane to motorbikes would push these users onto other lanes; · Anti-social motorcyclists would access Wolvens Lane using other paths than join it at various points.
Jayne Lindsell (Mole Valley Ramblers) · The work done and money spent on repairing the surface of Wolvens Lane and restricting vehicular access would be wasted if access were to be opened up again; · It will be easier to assess the causes of any damage after partially opening up the lane; · Users can monitor the situation.
Matt Cordeux · Supports the recommendation but would like the committee to consider a complete ban on motorised vehicles; · Circumstances have changed since the lane appeared, and what is deemed appropriate use has changed; · The lane runs through an AONB, and noisy, polluting motor vehicles impose on the beauty of the landscape.
The following three residents spoke against the officer recommendation, and made the following points: Ian Russell (Surrey Countryside Access Forum) · The SCAF comment about a possible speed limit on the BOAT is misrepresented in Annex D of the officer’s report; · An existing right of way should be protected rather than removed because of an irresponsible minority; · Cyclists and motorcyclists present more danger to other users than four-wheel drive vehicles in restricted spaces; · SCAF would support a seasonal or permit-based approach · Education of all BOAT users and promotion of codes of conduct should be undertaken. · Wolvens Lane presents a rare opportunity for users of all types to access otherwise remote areas of Surrey countryside.
Stuart Boreham – Green Lane Association · The damage on Wolvens Lane is caused by minority of 4x4 users and motorcyclists, helped by little police enforcement and limited repair/maintenance; · Failure to take action early on to prevent access and repair damage means the scale and cost of the work will be much greater than it would have been; · Four-wheel drive access provides the only means for some people to explore the countryside; · Gated access and permits have been used to good effect in other counties and allow active management during bad weather.
Rob Phillips – Logmore Green Bridleway Association · Motorbikes blight the tranquillity of the area; · 4x4 drivers and motorcyclists are in the minority of users of the lane and are spoiling the experience of other users; · Option 1 – a ban on all motorised vehicles – would be a better choice.
The officer presented his report. The surface of Wolvens Lane had been damaged over ... view the full minutes text for item 16/21 |
|
Once prepared and until subsequently modified, the Definitive Map and Statement (DMS) is conclusive evidence that a right of way exists and of its particulars. Surrey County Council (SCC) as surveying authority has a duty to make an order modifying the DMS where evidence is discovered that a public right should be added, modified or deleted.
Between 2015 and 2021 representations were made to SCC from Network Rail (NR) regarding that part of public footpath 24 (Leatherhead) which crosses the railway as shown A-B on the Drg. 3/1/51/H116. These were accompanied by evidence, which NR argued showed that A-B was recorded on the DMS in error. NR were informed that it would be normal procedure for them to make an application to the Council under s.53 and Schedule 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which would require us to consider the evidence and make a decision upon it. Countryside Access took legal advice on NR’s assertion that we had a duty to consider the evidence without an application and not to defer it until all Schedule 14 work had been done. Surrey Legal confirms (s. 4.2 of the report) that this was the case and that we should look at the evidence and make a determination on it.
Evidence was sought from various parties with an interest in this matter. Substantial evidence was received for and against Network Rail’s assertion and otherwise discovered by SCC. This is described in section 2 of this report. This matter was weighed up on the basis of the legal tests laid out in Annex B and sections 1 and 9 of this report.
It is considered that evidence shows that section A-B of public footpath 24 (Leatherhead) as shown on Drg. 3/1/51/H116 should not be included on the Definitive Map and therefore should be deleted from it. A legal order to modify the DMS should be made. Additional documents: Minutes: Declaration of Interest: None
Officer attending: Daniel Williams, Countryside Access Officer; Claire Saunders, Access Team Manager; Helen Forbes, Principal Lawyer
Public Speakers: Mr Damian Hajnus representing Network Rail spoke in favour of the officer recommendation, and made the following points: · When the railway was originally planned and built land ownership was thoroughly investigated and subject to scrutiny; · The conveyance of land in 1857 provided for the construction of a private crossing; · Evidence for and definition of a pre-existing trackway is missing; · There is no evidence to substantiate claims that paths shown on old maps are public rather than private.
Two speakers spoke against the officer recommendation, and made the following points: Peter Williams. Mr Williams began by reading a statement from Mr Brian Bouchard, who had submitted a response to the consultation but was unable to attend this meeting. Mr Bouchard’s points were: · The ordnance Survey map in 1870 shows a continuous path that crosses the railway line; · There is no new evidence to support the conclusions in the officer’s report; · The railway plan of 1845 shows a footpath in the area that the railway would pass through.
Mr William’s own points were: · Railway companies do have the power to dedicate a right of way; · He and others have used the route, unimpeded by locked gates or notices saying the route is not dedicated as a footpath, for over 20 years, thereby establishing a right of way.
Glynis Peterkin (Ashtead Residents’ Association) · Proper recognition of the route between north and south Ashtead for residents was not made at the time the land was acquired for building the railway; · Historical use of the path by pedestrians is recorded in early Parish Council meeting records and more recently on Network Rail cameras; · The RA would like the Definitive Statement changed to match what is shown on the Definitive Map.
The officer presented his report. The Definitive Map (DM) shows a footpath crossing the railway line at the location in question; it first appeared on the DM in 1966, but had not been shown on the two earlier editions, which indicated a gap across the railway. The Definitive Statement has remained unchanged throughout, with no mention of the path’s crossing the railway. The 1955 Public Enquiry concluded that there never had been a right of way across the railway at this point. There is no evidence of a legal enactment to allow the path to be included on the DM in 1966 and it appears therefore that its inclusion was a cartographical error.
Public ... view the full minutes text for item 17/21 |
|
|
MOLE VALLEY PARKING REVIEW [EXECUTIVE ITEM - FOR DECISION]
To consider the outcome of a review 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. Requests were received from both local councillors and the public alike.
Since the introduction of Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) in May 2005, new parking / waiting restrictions in Mole Valley have been introduced in several stages as part of our parking review process.
This report details locations and general proposals for the latest parking / waiting restriction review, to be progressed in 2021 / 2022, and seeks approval to carry out statutory advertising of the proposals. Proposals also include a number of on-street electric vehicle charging point bays. Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed:
(i) That the county council’s intention to introduce the proposals in Annex 1 is formally advertised, and subject to statutory consultation;
(ii) That if no objections are received when the proposals are advertised, the appropriate traffic regulation orders are made;
(iii) That if objections are received which cannot be resolved, in accordance with the county council’s scheme of delegation, the Parking Strategy and Implementation Team Manager considers 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) the locations identified for conversion in to on-street electric vehicle charging points are approved. These locations are shown in Annex 2
(v) That the Parking Strategy and Implementation Team Manager is delegated authority to adjust the positions of the on-street Electric Vehicle charging bays in consultation with the Chair, Vice-Chair and Local Member prior to statutory consultation (if necessary). These locations are listed in each County Councillors division of this report, and displayed in their own set of drawings (Annex 2)
Reasons for recommendations:
It is recommended that the waiting restrictions are implemented as detailed in Annex 1. They will make a positive impact towards: · Road safety · Access for emergency vehicles · Access for refuse vehicles · Easing traffic congestion · Better regulated parking · Better enforcement
This will help us achieve our 2030 Community Vision objectives: · Residents live in clean, safe, and green communities where people and organisations embrace their environmental responsibilities. · Journeys across the county are easier, more predictable, and safer. Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Stephen Clavey, Senior Engineer (Parking), SCC
Petitions, Public Statements, Questions: None
Key points from the discussion: The Senior Engineer explained that since the report had been written, the proposed locations for electric vehicle charging points on Woodbridge Avenue (Leatherhead) and Chart Lane (Dorking) would now prove too expensive to implement and were therefore to be removed from the report and would not be advertised.
A number of members raised points concerning proposed changes to restrictions in their areas: Cllr Townsend confirmed he had discussed with the Senior Engineer his wish for the double yellow lines on Woodfield Lane that are being repainted to be extended to the garage, taking in two existing parking spaces that are left over from when there were shops at the location. His second point was in relation to parking near the Exxon centre and St Andrews and Downsend schools in Leatherhead, and concerns that any new restrictions would displace the large numbers of cars parking on the street to nearby locations. A meeting in the near future with the head teachers of the two schools, the local Member, Chairman and road safety officers would be useful.
The Vice-Chairman informed Members that residents of Sondes Farm had indicated a wish to be part of the Glebe Road residents’ parking scheme (rather than simply being allowed to by visiting parking permits) and asked for the advertisement to be adjusted accordingly.
The Street in Fetcham and Bookham was discussed, with concerns expressed over the impact of new parking restrictions on local retailers balanced by the view that it would be better to wait until the proposed development at the Tudor Motors site had taken place before introducing restrictions. It was also noted that the road is a bus route and there had been no applications from the bus operator for temporary restrictions as a result of parked cars obstructing the buses. From a practical point of view the narrow footway would make it difficult to instal the required signs, which are necessary to enable enforcement.
The Chairman requested the removal of a redundant disabled parking bay on Upper Fairfield Road, with the space being returned to regular parking.
Cllr Kennedy requested that restrictions be considered opposite the junction of Copperfields and Penrose Road.
The Senior Engineer agreed to consider these requests when advertising the proposals.
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed:
(i) That the County Council’s intention to introduce the proposals in Annex 1 is formally advertised, and subject to statutory consultation;
(ii) That if no objections are received when the proposals are advertised, the appropriate traffic regulation orders are made;
(iii) That if objections are received which cannot be resolved, in accordance with the County Council’s scheme of delegation, the Parking Strategy and Implementation Team Manager considers 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 18/21 |
|
|
RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER [FOR DECISION]
This item provides an update on previous decisions and actions agreed by the Committee. The Committee is asked to agree that the items marked as complete are removed from the tracker. Minutes: The Local Committee noted the decision tracker and agreed items marked as closed and complete could be removed. |
|
|
FORWARD PLAN [FOR INFORMATION]
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) will note the contents of the forward plan. Minutes: The Local Committee noted the forward plan of items expected to be received at future meetings.
The chairman reminded Cllr Kennedy that the workings of the Local Committee would be discussed at his meeting with SCC officers later this week. |