Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 242 KBVenue: Tandridge District Council offices, Station Road East, Oxted, RH8 0BT
Contact: Sarah Woodworth, Partnership Committee Officer Tandridge District Council Offices, Station Road East, Oxted, Surrey, RH8 0BT
Link: View the webcast
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive any apologies. Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies received from Mr Cameron McIntosh due to other county business. |
|
|
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
To approve the Minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record. Additional documents: Minutes: Minutes from the previous meeting on the 30 November 2018 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:
Additional documents: Minutes: No declarations of interest made. |
|
|
PETITIONS
To receive any petitions in accordance with Standing Order 68. Notice should be given in writing or by email to the Community Partnership and Committee Officer at least 14 days before the meeting. Alternatively, the petition can be submitted on-line through Surrey County Council’s e-petitions website as long as the minimum number of signatures (30) has been reached 14 days before the meeting.
No petitions received. Additional documents: Minutes: None received. |
|
|
FORMAL PUBLIC QUESTIONS
To answer any questions from residents or businesses within the Tandridge District area in accordance with Standing Order 69. Notice should be given in writing or by email to the Community Partnership and Committee Officer by 12 noon four working days before the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: A formal public question was received from Cllr Alun Jones. He raised concern that his question had been answered as three individual questions and not holistically, therefore the responses provided contradicted each other.
Cllr Jones referred the response to increase the drainage capacity on Church Hill and Station Avenue which referenced the Caterham Master Plan. He raised concern that the Master Plan is dependent on one big planning application for Church Walk. The application has been submitted, but Councillors have not seen the Atkins report yet, which covers the groundwater and surface water matters. As far as he was aware, no comments have been received to the planning application from Surrey County Council in regards to flooding risks in the area. This would identify where CIL and S106 money would be required to rectify the identified drainage capacity issues. All the capital improvement works seem to hinge on one planning application and he asked if there is an alternative option should the planning application not be successful?
With regards to Church Hill and Station Avenue, there are a low number of drains which often silt up. Cleaning is only carried out once a year, which is not enough. The response directed him to the Flood Risk strategy which highlights mitigating risk and advised that cyclical and ad hoc cleaning of drains would be done to mitigate flooding risk. However he has been advised by an officer that ad hoc cleaning will not take place due to funding. As this site has the highest wetspot score in Tandridge, Cllr Jones asked at what point SCC do ad hoc drain cleaning if not for the highest scoring wet spot in Tandridge?
The Area Highways Officer was unable to respond at the meeting, a written response will be provided after the meeting.
|
|
|
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
To receive any written questions from Members under Standing Order 47. Notice should be given in writing to the Community Partnership and Committee Officer of formal questions by 12.00 noon four working days before the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: None received. |
|
|
DECISION TRACKER (FOR INFORMATION)
The tracker monitors progress against the decisions that the Local Committee has made. It is updated before each committee meeting.
(Report attached) Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman introduced the item explaining this was standing item on the agenda. Decisions made by the committee are recorded and the subsequent progress on them. Members are invited to note the progress, and agree to remove any items marked as ‘closed’.
Members Discussion – Key Points
Members raised the following concerns:
1) A Member raised frustration and disappointment that a crossing at Rook Lane, Chaldon did not appear on the tracker as he had raised previously. He asked if it would be possible to see the police speed survey that was carried out and requested that Rook Lane should be reinstated and updates on the tracker. He raised concerns that officers have stated the speeds are too high for a zebra crossing, however nothing is being done to reduce speeds or provide a crossing point for school children to cross the road. The divisional member for Caterham confirmed he would continue to pursue this issue.
The Area Highways Manager appreciated the work that the ward member had done and advised that a crossing at Rook Lane could be put on the ITS list for when funding becomes available for this scheme and will be included on the tracker.
2) Following the consultation for the removal of the speed cushions on Farleigh Road, Warlingham, it was asked when the results would be available and a decision made?
The Area Highways Manager advised that the consultation had closed and was being reviewed, the results would be available shortly.
3) Concerns regarding Lingfield Common Road asking if it could be looked at again following the fatality, as it has been extremely distressing for local residents. It was asked if it could it be changed to open rather than closed.
The Leader of the District Council highlighted that all three matters raised by members related to changes in the Government funding structure for Councils, which has reduced by 60% in the last 10 years. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) money is available to the District council and parishes through the building of new homes. 15% of the CIL money is available to Parishes rising to 25% if they have a Neighbourhood Plan and this money can be used for the Members priorities in the area, such as highway matters.
Whether the words ‘SLOW’ could be painted on Lingfield Common Road to warn drivers.
The Area Highways Manager appreciated that it is upsetting for local residents, and advised that this is currently a police matter so unable to comment in detail. A driver has been arrested in connection with the fatality and there is currently no indication that speed was a contributory factor. The item can remain on the tracker and the ITS list until funding becomes available. The Area Highways Manager acknowledged the local concern on speeds and whilst there has not been a cluster of personal injury accidents there have been a number of damage only claims.
The Area Highways Manager advised that due to the ‘Signs and Road Marking for Statutory Instruments’ ... view the full minutes text for item 7/19 |
|
|
SPEED LIMIT REVIEW A25 GODSTONE ROAD, BLETCHINGLEY (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION FOR DECISION)
This report seeks approval that the existing 30mph speed limit in a section of the A25 Godstone Road where the average mean speed do not comply with the SCC’s Cabinet approved speed limit policy, be increased to 40mph. This will create a stepped speed limit reduction from 50mph that exists on the next section of the A25.
(Report and 6 Annexes attached)
Additional documents: Decision: AGREED the whole report be rejected and the matter be reconsidered when officers are able to return with a positive new report that recommends (a) a Vehicle Activated Sign and a pedestrian refuge to support the speed limits of 30mph outside Chevington and Sunnybank Villas, (b) extending the 30mph speed limit in Godstone westwards to North Park Lane supported by the introduction of a Vehicle Activated Sign, a pedestrican refuge, better lighting, better signage and better road markings and (c) a reduction in the speed limit in the middle section to 40 supported by additional Vehicle Activated Signs.
If resources are an issue, this can be mentioned in the new report and discussions can be had then as to how to address the shortfall.
Once these additional highway measures have been introduced their effects can be analysed after a period of time. If their effect is proved not to have been enough to reduce the speed adequately on that mad mile, average speed cameras could then be looked at to support a single average speed limit of 30mph from Godstone to the western boundary of Tandridge,
Tandridge Local Committee are prepared to discuss with the Cabinet Member for Highways at a future formal committee meeting. Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officer attending: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager
Petition, Public Question, Statements: Cllr Gill Black, District Councillor for Bletchingley and Nutfield
The Chairman introduced the item and thanked officers for the new report, and acknowledged the strength of feeling on this matter.
The Chairman noted that in line with the Surrey County Council ‘Setting Local Speed limits’ policy, should the Local Committee disagree with the recommendations presented to them by the Area Highways Manager and wish to pursue an alternative option, then the issue must be submitted for decision by the Cabinet Member responsible for road safety.
The Chairman opened the item for Member discussion and also permitted a public statement during the course of the discussion. They key points from this statement are summarised below:
Cllr Black raised:
Members Discussion – Key Points
Members had a lengthy discussion on the matter and the following points were made. The meeting was formally adjourned twice during the discussion, to allow the chairman to receive officer advice.
1) Concerns raised that the two motions agreed at the September meeting, had not been met in the new report. 2) It was felt by some members that the new report offered very little new information, apart from an additional speed survey. Concerns were raised that Annex 2 shows eight different speed surveys that had been completed at different times over a number of years. This would not take into consideration problems on the M25 or utility works locally that may affect speeds. 3) It was suggested that the speed policy could be changed to reflect the concerns locally. 4) Concerns that this report threatens the credibility of the Tandridge Local Committee, as officers are not listening to residents and the Local Committee. Local Members views should not be ignored on this matter. 5) Cllr Pat Cannon proposed that the whole report be refused and put forward a new motion for Local Committee:
‘The whole report be rejected and the matter be reconsidered when officers are able to return with a positive new report that recommends (a) a ... view the full minutes text for item 8/19 |
|
To inform the Local Committee on the outcome of the 2018/19 Integrated Transport Scheme (ITS) and highway maintenance programmes in Tandridge.
(Report and 3 Annexes attached) Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None
Officer attending: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager
Petition, Public Question, Statements: None
The Area Highways Manager welcomed questions on the report.
Members Key Points:
1) The yellow lining for the parking restrictions are disappearing, due to the weather conditions when they were painted. It requested that the contractor re-attend to rectify at no additional cost to Surrey. 2) It was asked if with regards to 2.13 Caterham Bourne, will the Atkins report becoming to the Local Committee? The Area Highways Manager advised that the flooding report would fall under the Strategic Network Resilience team and they would respond direct to the member. 3) An error was highlighted in 2.15, this should be Woldingham Road not Warlingham Road. 4) Crewe’s Close in Warlingham had the previous divisional member support, for carriage widening. It was asked if Crewe’s close was included on the ITS list for works, if not could it be.
The Area Highways Manager advised the widening of carriage would be considered as minor works so would not be included on the ITS list. She would speak to the central team to find out if on the list for works. Next financial year, each divisional Members is allocated £15000 for capital works in their division which can be used for this should they wish.
5) The pavements on Station Road East, Oxted are not in a good state, it was suggested that this may have been delayed due to the urban redesign work in Oxted. It was asked if the pavements would be included on the ITS list.
The Area Highways Manager advised that Station Road East pavements are part owned by SCC and part is owned by the shops. Some funding had been previously been allocated to the public highway part of the pavement and it was hoped that work would be done collaboratively with the shop owners, however this had been put on hold subject to BID proposals work.
Station Road East is not on the Horizon programme for pavement replacement next year, however they are inspected routinely and should there be a safety defect this needs to be reported.
6) Blackberry Lane, Jacks bridge in Annex 1, the divisional Member reported that the barriers have been damaged again for a third time. She asked for clarification on the exact location of the works as where there has been a number of accidents is not on Blackberry Lane but Felbridge Road. She raised concerns regarding removing the centre line and felt that camber of the road is incorrect.
The Area Highways Manager advised that this is a road safety scheme in response to accidents at this site and not a Local Committee funded scheme. She would speak to the Road Safety team to confirm its location. When a Road Safety Scheme is installed it is monitored and a full safety audit will be carried out.
7) It was asked what the process is for getting a pavement on to the scheme for work. ... view the full minutes text for item 9/19 |
|
|
LOCAL COMMITTEE FORWARD PROGRAMME (FOR INFORMATION)
The forward plan will be used in preparation for the next committee meeting, this is a flexible forward plan and all items are subject to change. The Local Committee is asked to note and comment on the forward plan outlined in this report.
(Report attached) Additional documents: Minutes: Members of the committee are invited to suggest additional topics for consideration at future committee meetings.
This included:
1) Horizon programme – including information on the prioritisation process.
2) The Divisional Member for Caterham Hill asked if following a discussion outside the meeting with the Area Highways Manager, if a crossing at Burntwood Lane could come to a future meeting.
Resolution
The Local Committee (Tandridge)
(i) NOTED and COMMENTED on the forward plan.
|