Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 412 KBVenue: South Godstone Sports and Community Association, Lagham Road, South Godstone, RH9 8HE
Contact: Vicki Eade, Community Partnership and Committee Officer South Godstone Sports and Community Association, Lagham Road, South Godstone, RH9 8HE
| No. | Item | |
|---|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive any apologies. Minutes: Due to county business, Mr David Hodge arrived during Item 4. |
||
|
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
To approve the Minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record. Minutes: The minutes of the previous meeting on 23 March 2016 were approved as an accurate record of the meeting. |
||
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.
Notes: · In line with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, declarations may relate to the interest of the member, or the member’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom the member is living as husband or wife, or a person with whom the member is living as if they were civil partners and the member is aware they have the interest.
· Members need only disclose interests not currently listed on the Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests.
· Members must notify the Monitoring Officer of any interests disclosed at the meeting so they may be added to the Register.
· Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest.
Minutes: None received. |
||
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.
3 petitions received:
1) ‘We the undersigned petition Surrey County Council to introduce a zebra crossing, more road school signage, and a lowering of the speed limit to 20 miles per hour on Dormansland High Street’ (Mrs Sarah Jane Lloyd)
2) ‘We the undersigned petition Surrey County Council to lower the speed limit on Pendell Road, Bletchingley from the national speed limit to 40 and to install a 20 mile an hour speed limit outside The Hawthorns School’ (Mrs Diane Brown)
3) ‘We the undersigned petition Surrey County Council to Reduce Speeding on Hurst Green Road, Oxted’ (Mrs Cidalia Santos and Mr Michael Walsh)
(Responses will be provided at the meeting). Additional documents: Minutes: Three petitions were received.
The petitions and their response are attached to the minutes.
1 - Dormansland
Mrs Sarah Jane Lloyd presented a petition containing 229 online signatures and a further 124 signatures on paper, asking for a zebra crossing, more road school signage and a lower speed limit in Dormansland High Street.
Mrs Lloyd highlighted the dangers when crossing the road, particularly with young children, given the speed of traffic and the number of parked cars affecting visibility. There is no safe place to cross. She requested a Traffic Engineer attends the site to look at the potential improvements that could be made. Mrs Lloyd said that the petition has local support, including school, preschool, and Parish Council.
Mrs Lloyd read a statement of support from the Headteacher of Dormansland Primary School, Mrs Stokes, who stated that the school site is difficult to access and there is no school crossing patrol. The school has successfully worked with the county council to start a ‘stop and drop’ scheme, but this does not help the families who would like to walk to school.
Anne-Marie Hannam, Senior Traffic Engineer, advised that a scheme to put in a crossing had been looked at in both 2002 and 2008/09, but had not progressed due to objections received from the Parish Council and residents. The Local Delivery Manager confirmed there had been a number of issues, including finding a safe location for the crossing. He advised that Highways were looking to adapt some funding with the Parish Council to put towards a crossing.
Mr Michael Sydney said that the objections received in the past were because the scheme proposed was not felt to be the right scheme, and therefore it was crucial to have the support of the shop, Parish Council, school and residents before proceeding.
Mr Nick Skellett confirmed the committee supports this petition, but needs to ensure the scheme is the right one, and to look at funding and timescales.
Highways agreed to report back to the next committee meeting on 23 September about funding and timescales.
2 – Pendell Road, Bletchingley
Mr Adrian Floyd, Headmaster at the Hawthorns School, accompanied by pupils Connor Rook, Sabina Simpson and Chris Vassou, presented a petition containing 447 online signatures, and 2 offline signatures, submitted by Mrs Diane Brown. The petition called for the speed limit on Pendell Road to be reduced to 40mph with a 20mph limit outside the Hawthorns School.
The pupils said that the road is dangerous because visibility is poor and it is difficult to see oncoming cars because the road is uphill and narrow. They stated that the footpath is narrow. They quoted statistics that 348 children were killed or seriously injured on Surrey roads during 2014. The children also stated they would like to feel able to walk to school, and that the risk of flooding on this road also meant it was important to slow the cars down.
Mr Floyd stated that there should be a 40mph ... view the full minutes text for item 60/16 |
||
|
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.
(Responses will be provided at the meeting) Additional documents: Minutes: 6 public questions had been received.
1) Mr Lemanski – funding for roads maintenance
The Chairman referred members to the response provided in the supplementary papers and confirmed the response had been sent to Mr Lemanski, who was unable to attend.
2) Mr Moulsley – parking restrictions on Whyteleafe Road
The Chairman referred Mr Moulsley to the response provided. Mr Moulsley asked a supplementary question concerning the specific detail of the restriction requested on Whyteleafe Road. The Chairman confirmed that the specific details of the scheme will be worked through by David Curl, Parking Implementation and Strategy Manager in consultation with the divisional member Mr John Orrick and Mr Moulsley. The Chairman confirmed the final locations will be approved by the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Divisional Member.
3) District Councillor for Lingfield and Crowhurst Liz Lockwood – road safety in Lingfield
The Chairman referred Mrs Lockwood to the response provided in the supplementary papers.
Mrs Lockwood spoke from a script and provided a copy of this, along with photos of the problems and proposals to the clerk. Mrs Lockwood stated that a key objective for the Parish Council and the Neighbourhood Plan was to encourage the village’s prosperity and promote safer pedestrian access to the local shops. Mrs Lockwood feels that reducing the speed limit through a major portion of the village will improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians.
Mrs Lockwood asked whether the committee would consider the request for a pedestrian refuge where the Godstone Road meets the roundabout, rather than immediately opposite the Post Office itself. Mrs Lockwood provided a photograph showing the desired location.
Mrs Lockwood also asked Highways to consider the position of the give-way markings for the traffic approaching the first pinch point when leaving the village and stated that the current positioning causes serious difficulties for cars exiting the driveway of the Thatched Cottage.
The Local Delivery Manager agreed to consider the options detailed by Mrs Lockwood and to come back to the committee with a response.
4 ) Mrs Dianne Vassalo – speed limit on Rockshaw Road
Mrs Vassalo did not attend the meeting. The Chairman confirmed that Mrs Vassalo had received the response to this question. Mrs Windsor asked a supplementary question on Mrs Vassalo’s behalf. She stated that while the Tandridge end of the road is considered rural, there are a number of private dwellings, and as such the only part which is rural is the bridge over the motorway. The response suggests a speed limit reduction could be considered if speed survey results are in line with the speed limit policy, however given that the issue residents face is cars being driven well in excess of the 50mph limit, how could this be achieved within the policy.
Mrs Windsor stated she was concerned that going over the motorway bridge it would be unlikely that cars would stick to the speed limit; she asked what else can be done to protect residents in this area.
The Senior Traffic Engineer agreed to arrange ... view the full minutes text for item 61/16 |
||
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.
(Responses will be provided at the meeting) Additional documents: Minutes: 1) Titsey Road - Councillor Nick Skellett
The Chairman noted the response. Mr David Hodge thanked the Chairman for his work pursuing improvements to this road, as it partly falls into his division. Mr Hodge asked to be kept informed of progress.
2) A25 Westerham Road – Councillor Nick Skellett
The Chairman noted the response.
3) M25 Junction 6 traffic lights – Councillor Nick Skellett
The Chairman noted the response but said there still seems to be an issue with the sequencing.
4) Traffic lights on Woodhurst Lane by Morrisons – Councillor Nick Skellett
The Chairman noted the response.
5) Recent flooding in Caterham, Whyteleafe and Chaldon – Councillor John Orrick
Mr Orrick thanked officers for the response to the question. He stated that the impact of the flash flooding in his division has mainly fallen on residential properties– with over 50 properties suffering, largely from foul water inundations. Mr Orrick spoke about the distress this has caused for residents, including residents of a Sheltered Accommodation unit where the whole downstairs had been flooded. He said that residents are feeling angry and abandoned.
Mr Orrick thanked the County Council, District Council, Police and Fire and Rescue services for their immediate actions. He expressed his gratitude towards Ian Good, Head of Emergency Management, for arranging the recent surgeries with the National Flood Forum, and to the Leader of Surrey County Council, Councillor David Hodge, for confirming there will be a review of this incident.
Mr Orrick asked how the impact of flooding can be lessened, or prevented, in future.
Mrs Marks confirmed that there are still residents in her division living in hotel accommodation, who are unlikely to be able to return to their homes for some time. She expressed her concern that flooding had not been prevented in the ‘hotspots’ already known to the county council. Businesses around Caterham roundabout and Church Walk have been badly affected. Both Mrs Marks and Mrs Windsor expressed their thanks to Steve Cunnah, Highway Maintenance Engineer, for his work.
Mrs Windsor and Mrs Marks said gully clearance had been inadequate. Mrs Marks asked why gullies on the A22 at Whyteleafe had not been emptied for 18 months, despite being raised on a number of occasions, and felt that contractors had not done their jobs properly.
Mrs Windsor was concerned that new housing developments had been put in without adequate drainage, and that this was exacerbating the problems.
Doug Hill, Strategic Network Resilience Manager, stated that a significant amount of rain had fallen in a short time. This event was therefore very different to the flooding of winter 2013. He said there are over 1000 known wetspots across the county, and these have to be prioritised in terms of risk to safety. A ‘Section 19’ investigation will be undertaken. This will identify which authorities had a function, and whether or not they carried out this function. He confirmed that the investigation will also look more widely at the issues. The Officer agreed to ... view the full minutes text for item 62/16 |
||
|
LOCAL COMMITTEE DECISION TRACKER (FOR INFORMATION)
This document provides an update on the decisions made at previous meetings of the Tandridge Local Committee starting from June 2015.
(Report attached) Minutes: The Chairman noted the report. |
||
|
MEMBERS ALLOCATIONS SUMMARY (FOR INFORMATION)
Surrey County Council Councillors receive funding to spend on local projects that help to promote social, economic or environmental well-being in the neighbourhoods and communities of Surrey. This funding is known as Members’ Allocation.
For the financial year 2016/17
the County Council has allocated £10,296 revenue funding to
each County Councillor. This report provides an update on the
projects that have been received since April 2016 to
date. (Report and Annexes 1 and 2 attached) Additional documents: Minutes: Members discussion – Key points:
The Chairman confirmed they were looking at a September start date for the Singing for the Brain sessions.
The Chairman asked the Clerk to let the committee know the dates and venues once confirmed.
It was noted that the case study within the report should read ‘Chaldon Parish Council’, not ‘Crowhurst Parish Council’.
Resolution:
The Local Committee (Tandridge) agreed to note:
(i) The Members’ Allocation applications received and amounts spent, where indicated, as set out in Annex 1 of this report. |
||
The Local Committee is asked to review and agree the terms of reference and membership of the Youth Task Group for 2016-17 and appoint representation to the East Surrey Community Safety Partnership.
(Report and annex attached)
Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Tandridge) resolved to agree:
i. The terms of reference of the Youth Task Group, as set out in Annex 1. ii. The appointment of membership of the Youth task group and a representative on the East Surrey Community Safety Partnership for 2016/17 as below: Youth Task Group: Mr Nick Skellett, Mrs Sally Marks, Mr John Orrick East Surrey Community Safety Partnership: Mr Michael Sydney
Reasons for decisions:
The Local Committee’s task groups enable the Local Committee to carry out its work in an efficient and expedient manner. Surrey County Council is a Responsible Authority on Community Safety Partnership and has a responsibility to be represented at their meetings. Minutes: Members’ discussion – key points:
Members agreed to continue with the same representatives. This was proposed by the Chairman and seconded by Mr Hodge.
Resolution:
The Local Committee (Tandridge) agreed:
i. The terms of reference of the Youth Task Group, as set out in Annex 1. ii. The appointment of membership of the Youth task group and a representative on the East Surrey Community Safety Partnership for 2016/17 as below: Youth Task Group: Mr Nick Skellett, Mrs Sally Marks, Mr John Orrick East Surrey Community Safety Partnership: Mr Michael Sydney
|
||
|
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FROM SERVICES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE (FOR INFORMATION)
To update the Local Committee on how Services for Young People has supported young people to develop their employability during 2015/16.
(Report and Annex attached) Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman welcomed Paula Desai, Team Manager for Services for Young People, to the meeting. He stated that the work by the team is very good, and being undertaken on a reduced budget.
The Officer introduced the report and explained how the new staffing structure was arranged. The team is working hard to divert young people from entering the criminal justice system.
Members Discussion – key points:
Mrs Marks asked how homelessness was measured. The Officer explained that while there are no young people in the district identified as homeless, they were aware of young people ‘sofa surfing’, and 4/5 young people living in hostels. The team uses the family mediation service to try and keep young people at home where possible. Most young people do not want to be in hostel accommodation – there are none in Tandridge and therefore it means moving away from their friends, to Epsom or Ash Vale.
Councillor John Orrick left the meeting at this point.
Resolution:
The Local Committee (Tandridge) agreed:
|
||
|
PRESENTATION FROM GOVIA THAMESLINK RAILWAY (FOR INFORMATION)
Presentation from a Govia Thameslink Railway representative to inform and update the Committee on matters relating to the railway network in the Tandridge area.
(No report) Minutes: The Chairman stated this item had been deferred until September as nobody from GoVia Thameslink had been able to attend. |
||
|
PARKING REVIEW (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION FOR DECISION)
Each year Surrey Highways receives requests to change existing or introduce new parking restrictions in Tandridge. For greater efficiency, these requests are compiled and reviewed in a district wide process.
To progress the 2016/17 review the committee is asked to approve statutory consultation for changes to on-street parking restrictions at the locations listed in the report annexes.
(Report and Annexes 1 and 2 attached) Additional documents: Decision:
The Local Committee (Tandridge) resolved to agree:
i). The proposed changes to parking and waiting restrictions as shown in Annexes 1 and 2, as amended in Annex 3 and to further include the additions of Whyteleafe Road, Detillens Lane and Brassey Road. ii). If necessary, adjustments can be made to the proposals agreed at the meeting by the Parking Team Manager in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and local Member prior to statutory consultation. iii). The intention of the County Council to make Traffic Regulation Orders under the relevant parts of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to impose the waiting and on street parking restrictions in Tandridge as shown in the Annexes (and as subsequently modified by ii) is advertised and that if no objections are maintained, the Order is made. iv). If there are unresolved objections, they will be dealt with in accordance with the county council’s scheme of delegation by the parking strategy and implementation team manager, in consultation with the chairman/vice chairman of this committee and the appropriate county councillor. v). If necessary the Parking Team Manager will report the objections back to the local committee for resolution. vi). Note the allocation £10,000 in the Revenue Maintenance Allocation 2016/17 as agreed at the 23 March 2016 Tandridge Local Committee meeting to implement the parking amendments. vii). Approve the new process for implementation of new school keep clear markings (SKCs), and to agree to revoke the traffic regulation orders for existing SKCs across Tandridge, in light of changes in government legislation.
Reasons for Recommendations: The Local Committee agreed the Revenue Maintenance Allocation 2016/17 at the 23 March 2016 Tandridge Local Committee meeting. This included a provision of £10,000 for parking amendments for the 2016/17 Parking review. The Committee is asked to note this recommendation.
School Keep Clear Markings: Following government changes to the regulations, it is no longer necessary for us to make a traffic regulation order (TRO) when we want to introduce a school keep clear (SKC) marking. It is also no longer necessary for us to have a TRO for existing SKC markings. As is already the case with bus stop clearways, all we need to do is put in place the appropriate road marking and signs, and the restriction will be enforceable. As it is possible for people to receive a penalty charge notice (PCN) if they park on an SKC marking, we think it is important that the decision to install them still has member input. However, in order to simplify and speed up the process to introduce new markings, we would like to propose that this can be done by the parking team with the agreement of the chairman/vice chairman of the local committee and the relevant county councillor, rather than the whole committee, so we do not have to wait until the next committee meeting for a decision. We would also carry out a consultation exercise with residents and businesses in the local area, in order to ensure that ... view the full decision text for item 68/16 Minutes: David Curl, Parking Strategy and Implementation Manager introduced the report. He explained that the county council receives hundreds of requests for parking restrictions, and therefore for efficiency they are grouped together and looked at as part of the scheduled parking review. All proposals in the report have been discussed and agreed with the divisional member. The next stage is to start statutory consultation. The report allows for adjustments to be made to the proposals after the meeting.
The Officer explained that the changes to the regulations concerning School Keep Clear markings means that any proposals can be agreed with the divisional member straightaway, rather than waiting for the next parking review.
The Officer confirmed that implementation from last year’s parking review was due to be completed within the next couple of weeks.
The Officer confirmed that recommendation vi had been amended to reflect that the monies had already been allocated.
Members’ discussion- key points:
Councillor John Orrick confirmed his support for the restrictions on both sides of Whyteleafe Road and that this should be added to the proposals.
The Chairman requested that Brassey Road and Detillens Lane are included in the review.
The amends to the recommendations were proposed by the Chairman and seconded by Mr Sydney.
Resolution:
The Local Committee (Tandridge) agreed:
i. The proposed changes to parking and waiting restrictions as shown in Annexes 1 and 2, as amended in Annex 3 and to further include the additions of Whyteleafe Road, Detillens Lane and Brassey Road.
ii. If necessary, adjustments can be made to the proposals agreed at the meeting by the Parking Team Manager in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and local Member prior to statutory consultation.
iii. The intention of the County Council to make Traffic Regulation Orders under the relevant parts of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to impose the waiting and on street parking restrictions in Tandridge as shown in the Annexes (and as subsequently modified by ii) is advertised and that if no objections are maintained, the Order is made.
iv. If there are unresolved objections, they will be dealt with in accordance with the county council’s scheme of delegation by the parking strategy and implementation team manager, in consultation with the chairman/vice chairman of this committee and the appropriate county councillor.
v. If necessary the Parking Team Manager will report the objections back to the local committee for resolution.
vi. Note the allocation £10,000 in the Revenue Maintenance Allocation 2016/17 as agreed at the 23 March 2016 Tandridge Local Committee meeting to implement the parking amendments.
vii. Approve the new process for implementation of new school keep clear markings (SKCs), and to agree to revoke the traffic regulation orders for existing SKCs across Tandridge, in light of changes in government legislation. |
||
|
PAVEMENT HORIZON 5 YEAR PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PROGRAMME (FOR INFORMATION)
This report describes the potential Pavement Horizon 5 year programme, generated from the Footway Network Survey (FNS), for Tandridge. These schemes include lower cost preventative treatment, in an asset management approach, to extend the life of the pavement. This programme also includes need based schemes that are higher cost reconstruction of the pavement, and the potential list of these is included in Annex 1.
This report is the start of the consultation process to engage and to better inform the prioritised list of the needs based schemes.
The Local Committee are invited to identify schemes that are high priority (should be part of the 5 year programme), on the list which are low priority (work not required in the 5 year programme), or not on the list which are high priority and should be considered for the 5 year programme.
(Report and Annex attached)
Additional documents: Minutes: Matthew Gallop, Asset Programme Manager introduced the report, which provides details of the needs-based schemes identified for years 2-5 of the Pavement Horizon programme. There are other preventative schemes not included within this report.
Members Discussion – key points:
Members were unhappy with the report and how this funding had been handled and requested a further meeting with a full list of schemes for members to be able to comment.
Resolution:
The committee acknowledged that they had received the report but declined to note the recommendations.
|
||
|
HIGHWAYS UPDATE 2016-17 (FOR INFORMATION)
At the 11th December 2015 Local Committee, Members agreed a programme of revenue and capital highway works in Tandridge. An amended programme of works was agreed on 23rd March 2016 to take account of the reduced revenue budget. Delegated authority was given to enable the forward programme to be progressed without the need to bring further reports to the Local Committee for decision. This report sets out recent progress. The report also updates Members on the number of enquiries received from customers and Project Horizon (carriageways).
(Report and Annexes 1 and 2 attached). Additional documents: Minutes: Members Discussion – key points:
Mr Hodge asked when the Limpsfield Road to Warlingham Green scheme would be done. John Lawlor, Local Delivery Manager, agreed to find out and respond to Mr Hodge.
The Chairman asked for clarification about whether the Comforts Farm Road scheme was still going ahead. The Local Delivery Manager agreed to find out and respond to the Chairman.
The Chairman said Brassey Road still has a sign up saying it is going to be repaired even though it is no longer on the list of planned schemes. The Local Delivery Manager agreed to investigate and respond to the Chairman.
Mr Sydney asked when Officers had met with Burstow Parish Council regarding Redehall Road. The Local Delivery Manager responded this was at the end of the financial year.
Mr Hodge was disappointed the report did not contain an update on Project Horizon. The Local Delivery Manager agreed that this was a surprise and he would feed back to the committee about this.
Resolution:
The Local Committtee (Tandridge) agreed to note the contents of the report.
|