Agenda and minutes
PDF 412 KBVenue: Council Chamber, Pippbrook, Reigate Road, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 1SJ
Contact: Jess Edmundson, Partnership Committee Officer Pippbrook, Reigate Road, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 1SJ
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
The questions and responses from the open forum session are attached as Annex A to these minutes. |
|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
To receive any apologies for absence and notices of substitutions from District members under Standing Order 39. Minutes: Apologies for absence were recevied from Mr Chris Townsend. |
|
|
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
To approve the Minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record. Minutes: The minutes from the previous meeting held on 22 January 2020 were agreed as a true record and signed by the Chairman. |
|
|
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 none. |
|
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 Highways Manager (AHM), SCC
Petitions, Public Statements, Questions: The questions and officer responses were provided within the supplementary agenda.
Five written questions were received before the deadline.
Question 1 was from Roger Troughton. Mr Troughton was present and asked the following supplementary question:
What is the best way to report issues? Is it best to report this to MVDC or SCC?
It was noted that MVDC had previously stopped sweeping footways and the perception of residents was that many of these were dangerous. It was confirmed that MVDC were to reinstate a programme of cleaning across the district. This would also include work on roundabouts but as this would require road closures, was a little more complex. This news was welcomed by members of the committee who were assured they would receive more information on this, when available.
Question 2 was from John Moyer. Mr Moyer was not present to ask a supplementary question. It was noted however that despite works being done, the flooding situation was not getting better and if anything was getting worse. It was confirmed that this location remained a high priority for flood investigation works.
Question 3 was from Stuart McLachlan. Mr McLachlan was not present but the divisional member made the following comments:
It was noted this was a real problem in the area with scramble bikes and 4x4s using the area for recreational purposes and causing many a problem. The refuse collector, Amey, had also refused collections up the lane as they had deemed the road too dangerous. It was therefore suggested, as this was rather complex, that a site visit be arranged to include officers from the Countryside Access Team, Joint Waste Solutions, divisional Members and Parish Council reps to look at the existing problems and what could be done. Question 4 was from Cllr Paul Kennedy. Cllr Kennedy was present and asked the following supplementary question: Thank you for the response I asked this question as I had residents ask about why their requests were not included in the parking review that was presented to the Local Committee in January. Can we include an addendum to future parking review that shows why certain roads were not included in the review? It was agreed that this would be useful information but it was noted that some of the requests may not have been clear and reasoning for non-inclusion could therefore be confusing. Members noted looking at the list there were several roads that had been put forward for restrictions that were un-adopted private roads and it was therefore not possible for SCC to add any restrictions on these. Question 5 was from Danielle Armitage. Ms Armitage was not present at the meeting to ask a supplementary question.
|
|
|
MEMBER QUESTIONS
To receive any written questions from Members under Standing Order 47. Minutes: There were none |
|
|
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. Minutes: There were none |
|
|
UNIVERSAL YOUTH OFFER CONSULTATION [AGENDA ITEM ONLY]
To introduce the strategy behind the Universal Youth Offer Consultation and details about how to take part.
Please note as the consultation is currently live details cannot be given about specific centres or information collected thus far. Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Nigel Denning, Early Help Transformation Lead, SCC
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None
The slides presented for this agenda item are attached as Annex B to these minutes.
Key points from the
discussion: ·
Members welcomed the approach of involving the Voluntary Community
and Faith Sector (VCFS) but questioned who would be making the
final decision over which group would be running each centre. It
was confirmed in some cases there had been one main group come
forward to lead on the work; supported by others. In other areas
where there were several groups that had expressed interest; a
competitive commissioning process would take place. The decision
would likely be signed off by the Executive Director and Cabinet
Member. ·
It was reiterated that there was no intention to close any youth
centres but to look at alternative uses for the
buildings. · The divisional member pointed out that Bookham Youth Centre was not being included in this consultation and was being treated differently and separately. |
|
|
FUTURE MOLE VALLEY LOCAL PLAN - STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE IMPLICATIONS [FOR INFORMATION]
Mole Valley District Council is preparing a new Local Plan, titled Future Mole Valley. The draft Local Plan identifies locations for new homes and other development, together with updated policies to guide planning decisions. It is a 15-year plan, from 2018 to 2033.
Public consultation on the draft Local Plan is taking place between 3 February and 23 March 2020.
This report focusses on infrastructure implications arising from the draft Local Plan and further work which will be required as the plan progresses.
As this is during the consultation period the Local Committee are invited to make comments and provide their views on the infrastructure elements detailed in the report.
Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Jane Smith, Interim Planning Policy Manager (PPM), MVDC
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None
[Cllr Haque left the meeting briefly at 15.33; returning at 15.38]
The PPM introduced the report by saying the Mole Valley Local plan was about planning for new development and concerned all development that was needed. She added the plan included a predominate need for housing but her report to the Local Committee was to focus on infrastructure needs for the district.
She added she was aware there was much concern about how infrastructure would cope and the new infrastructure that was needed.
She wanted to ensure that the Local Committee was fully engaged in the process and that their views were given as part of the consultation.
Key points from the discussion:
·
Members raised concern about infill development. Stating residents
had lesser concerns for larger developments as they felt like the
infrastructure for these was more considered. Whereas several
infill developments of 2-3 properties in an area could have more of
a significant impact. That perhaps hadn’t been accounted for
in the local plan. It was confirmed the local plan considered
anticipation of larger developments as well as for smaller infill
developments. ·
Concerns were raised over the Strategic Highways Assessment that
was mentioned in the report. Many members felt figures were
inaccurate as they could all recall roads in their divisions that
were frequently congested yet did not appear on the list. They
queried how the analysis was done. It was confirmed the analysis
had come from a team at SCC. It was suggested the officers
responsible should be invited to attend a Local Committee informal
meeting to run a workshop for the members about traffic modelling.
The committee could then understand how the results quoted in the
report had been achieved. ·
Members commented that they felt highways elements of the local
plan were not thought about in the correct way; almost too late.
There didn’t seem to be much cohesion and joined up working
with neighbouring authorities with things that were going on
there. · Members also raised concern about healthcare provision, school places, drainage and transport.
·
The MVDC Cabinet Member for Planning attended the meeting. She
thanked the Local Committee for their comments and noted many of
their concerns had been raised previously. She acknowledged that
the biggest difficulties in relation to the Local Plan were
difficulties with infrastructure as well as the greenbelt.
· The PPM acknowledged all the concerns made and reiterated the current plan that was out for consultation was still a draft. She added that Central Government had insisted on the housing quota and it was the responsibility of MVDC to ensure this was met.
Resolution:
The Local Committee noted the contents of the report.
|
|
|
CABINET MEMBER FOR HIGHWAYS UPDATE TO COUNCIL [FOR INFORMATION]
SCC Cabinet Members provide a briefing on their portfolios to council meetings. The Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport briefings will be provided for the local and joint committees for consideration and comment. As this is the first report, the last three briefings have been attached as Annex A. Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: None
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None
It was noted this item was for information only and any questions/comments would be forwarded to the Cabinet Member for a response.
Key points from the discussion:
One concern was raised about the use of plastic mixed with asphalt on road surfaces and whether the plastic used was then making its way in to the ecosystem. The AHM confirmed she would find out from the relevant team and report back.
Resolution:
The Local Committee noted the contents of the briefing. |
|
|
HIGHWAYS SCHEMES 2019/20 – END OF YEAR UPDATE [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR INFORMATION]
To inform the Local Committee on the outcome of the 2019/20 Integrated Transport Scheme (ITS) and highway maintenance programmes in Mole Valley.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager (AHM), SCC
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None
Resolution:
The Local Committee noted the contents of the report. |
|
|
RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER [FOR INFORMATION]
The tracker monitors the progress of the decisions and recommendations that the Local Committee has agreed.
The Local Committee is asked to note the progress made and agree to remove from the tracker any items marked ‘complete’. Minutes: The Local Committee noted the contents of the decision tracker. |
|
|
FORWARD PLAN [FOR INFORMATION]
The Local Committee (Mole Valley) will note the contents of the forward plan. Minutes: The Local Committee noted the contents of the forward plan. |