Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 509 KBVenue: Alfold Village Hall, Dunsfold Road, Alfold GU6 8JB
Contact: David North, Community Partnership & Committee Officer Godalming Social Services Centre, Bridge Street, Godalming, GU7 1LA
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies were received from Mr S Cosser, Mr B Ellis, Mr S Mulliner and Mr W Ramsdale. Mr P Martin and Ms D Le Gal had given notice of their late arrival. |
|
|
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
To approve the minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record.
The Committee is also asked to note the actions contained in the Decision Tracker. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes were agreed as a correct record and the decision tracker noted. |
|
|
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: Mr P Martin had declared a pecuniary interest in relation to Item 8 on the grounds that he is Chairman of Governors of St Catherine’s School, Bramley (recommendation (ii)).
The Community Partnership and Committee Officer reminded the committee of the guidance on members’ interests and conduct in relation to Rights of Way decisions contained in the relevant County Council Code of Best Practice.
Declarations were subsequently made as follows:
Item 7: Mrs Barton made a statement to the effect that, in her actions as local county councillor with respect to this item, she did not believe that she had prejudiced her position in considering the report; however, she would withdraw from the meeting for this item.
Item 9: Mr A and Mrs V Young declared a pecuniary interest on the grounds of their ownership of a property which is accessed via one of the roads under discussion.
|
|
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.
Details of petitions to be presented are attached. Additional documents: Minutes: Petitions were presented as follows, responses being tabled as Annex 1.
1. A petition presented by Ms J Rawlings requesting the bus stop in Ewhurst to be reinstated outside the school or the terminus of the 53 service from Guildford and Cranleigh to be at The Glebe and not at the Bull’s Head green.
Ms Rawlings explained that the bus service is a lifeline for older residents of The Glebe and Downhurst Road as a means of accessing shops and services. While recognising that the removal and relocation of the previous bus stop at the school had been well intentioned, the petitioners felt that the safety and welfare of older residents had not been recognised and there had been no consultation with them. The new arrangements had resulted in an extended walk for older people which would cause increased difficulties in poor weather. Ms Rawlings understood that the council did not wish to reinstate the bus stop at its former location, but proposed that a solution could be found in establishing The Glebe as the terminus, after turning the bus at the Bull’s Head green. It was suggested that the underlying problem in Ewhurst is inappropriate vehicle speed and this needs to be addressed.
The Area Highways Manager confirmed that the former bus-stop and lay-by had presented dangers to pedestrians and their removal had been well received by many users. However, the council will continue to work with Arriva to seek a solution to the problem of reversing buses at the Bull’s Head green and to identify an appropriate terminus. Mr A Young, as the local county councillor, reinforced the importance of responding to the needs of older residents and to continue to pursue a solution; he will also give attention to concerns about vehicle speeds in Ewhurst. The chairman confirmed that the committee will receive a full report on the matter at its December 2015 meeting.
2. An online petition submitted by Mrs N Foskett requesting that the county council urgently review and improve road safety for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians on Chapel Road and The Avenue in Rowledge.
Mrs Foskett drew the committee’s attention to the risks faced by pedestrians and cyclists on the local network of narrow and busy roads; residents using the network in this way to access the school, shops, hall and surgery are vulnerable to fast-moving vehicles. The 2011 Village Plan identified road safety as its top priority. Motorists are unaware of the significance of the buff-coloured walking route. Clarity was requested on the County Council’s ownership and enforcement arrangements for hedges and verges as these could offer a safe walking space for vulnerable users. Adjustments to signage and lining could assist motorists in understanding the shared nature of the road and assist in the reduction of speeds. It was hoped that the planned maintenance would be a full resurfacing, rather than surface-dressing.
The Area Highways Manager clarified the position relating to boundaries and verges: while all boundary hedges, fences and ... view the full minutes text for item 31/15 |
|
|
FORMAL PUBLIC QUESTIONS
To answer any questions from residents or businesses within the Waverley Borough 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.
Minutes: The text of one formal question received and of the response provided is attached at Annex 2.
In his follow-up statement, Mr Beaman hoped that Waverley Borough Council would be one of the “willing partners” referred to in the response. |
|
|
MEMBER QUESTIONS
To receive any written questions from Members under Standing Order 47. Minutes: No member questions had been received. |
|
To decide whether public footpath rights are recognised over the route shown on DrawingNo. 3/1/20/H48 and whether a Map Modification Order under sections 53 and 57 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 should be made to modify the Definitive Map and Statement.
Details of the arrangements for public speaking on this item are appended. Additional documents: Decision: Resolved that:
(i) Public Footpath rights are recognised over the route shown between points A – B – C – D - E on Drg. No. 3/1/20/H48 and that a MMO under sections 53 and 57 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 be made to modify the Definitive Map and Statement. The route will be known as Public Footpath No. 604, Haslemere.
(ii) If objections are maintained to such an order, it will be submitted to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for determination.
Reason
The evidence submitted in support of the application is considered sufficient to establish that public footpath rights are reasonably alleged to subsist, having been acquired under both statutory presumed dedication (under s.31(6) of the Highways Act 1980) and common law. It is considered that landowners have not taken sufficient actions to demonstrate their lack of intention to dedicate public footpath rights during the relevant period. A MMO to modify the DMS by the addition of a public footpath as described above should be made under s. 53 of the WCA 1981. Minutes: The Chairman explained that members of the committee had been given the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the location at a site visit. Members were reminded that their decision should be based on the published report and not on representations made separately to them.
Mrs N Barton made a statement to the effect that, in her actions as local county councillor with respect to this item, she did not believe that she had prejudiced her position in considering the report; however, she would withdraw from the meeting for this item.
Registered speakers were invited to address the committee for three minutes each, as follows:
Supporters
· Mr M Weston stated that, in terms of the criteria that use must have been without force, secrecy or permission, he had used the path for 30 years, often in the past with his children. He understood that Lloyds Bank welcomed and supported use of the path, to the extent that it had installed a lamp to enable 24-hour use. He added that the path offered a useful route for pedestrians. · Mr R Manville stated that, on his appointment as manager of Lloyds Bank in 1969, the path was in regular use and it was irrefutable that it had been in use for at least 45 years; on his retirement in 1984 bollards had only been provided to prevent the path being obstructed. Mr Manville had never been asked, during his employment as manager, to close a gate on one day each year, as there was no gate to lock. Access through the car park was open at all times. · Mr C Scholfield stated that he had used the path almost daily for over 25 years. He noted that the alternative route via College Hill brought parents and children into close proximity with vehicles. · Mrs S Farley had owned a nursery school in College Hill between 1970 and 1994 and the path had been used regularly with the children, e.g. when accessing a coach parked adjacent to the Town Hall for outings. She had not encountered any restriction to use of the path either during this period or during her subsequent continued residence in College Hill until 2006. · Mr P Bagshaw stated that he had lived in Hill Road for 30 years and found the path a better walking route to the High Street than the alternative roads. During this period he had walked along the path almost every day and had never encountered any sign or impediment to his passage.
Objector
· Mr H Robbie stated that he is a Chartered Surveyor and, with Mr P Warner, owns the land on which they erected the fence. He said that the committee’s role is not to consider the availability of the Lloyds Bank car park, the relative merits of the path as opposed to College Hill or to query motivations, but to consider whether anyone seeing the signs erected could understand the land to be private. He has submitted statutory declarations to the effect that the ... view the full minutes text for item 34/15 |
|
|
HIGHWAYS UPDATE (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION)
To receive an update on the 2015/16 programme of highway improvement and maintenance works funded by this committee. Additional documents: Decision: Resolved to:
(i) Note progress of the 2015/16 programme of highway works funded by this committee and external sources described at Annex 1 of the report. (ii) Note that a zebra crossing in Station Road, Bramley has now been included in the 2015/16 programme of improvements as an entirely externally funded scheme; see Annex 1 of the report. (iii)Note that, following Cabinet Member review, the introduction of a 30mph speed limit on the A283 Petworth Road south of Cherry Tree Roundabout, Milford has been included in the 2015/16 programme. Reason
The committee receives regular reports on the progress of its programme and associated budgets.
Minutes: The Area Highways Manager confirmed his intention to provide task groups with information on the amount of money available from the Planning Infrastructure Contribution (PIC) scheme, broken down by electoral division. The committee discussed delays in design and costing within the highways service and the consequent impact on delivery, recognising that this was not a criticism of the area team. It was envisaged that, following a review, the highways service would be strengthened to reduce the problems experienced. It was confirmed that the cabinet had been aware of the problem, which had been experienced across Surrey; the location of Surrey and the buoyancy of its economy presented some recruitment difficulties. There is no opportunity to bypass the established arrangements for commissioning design work. The chairman recommended that, in developing priorities for 2016/17, task groups should consider increased investment in resurfacing.
The committee was informed that a report on the final two years of the Horizon programme would be presented at the December 2015 or March 2016 meeting.
Members expressed satisfaction at the progress of schemes, including the feasibility studies in Farnham, Wey Meadow, the Bookhurst Road cycle path and the Shere Road HGV restriction. It was hoped that the pedestrian phase at the Farnborough Road/Upper Hale Road crossing would be installed in 2015.
Mr P Martin had declared a pecuniary interest as Chairman of Governors of St Catherine's School, Bramley and left the meeting for the decision on recommendation (ii).
Resolved to:
(i) Note progress of the 2015/16 programme of highway works funded by this committee and external sources described at Annex 1 of the report. (ii) Note that a zebra crossing in Station Road, Bramley has now been included in the 2015/16 programme of improvements as an entirely externally funded scheme; see Annex 1 of the report. (iii)Note that, following Cabinet Member review, the introduction of a 30mph speed limit on the A283 Petworth Road south of Cherry Tree Roundabout, Milford has been included in the 2015/16 programme. Reason
The committee receives regular reports on the progress of its programme and associated budgets.
|
|
|
VARIOUS ROADS IN WAVERLEY: SPEED LIMIT ASSESSMENT (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION)
To consider and respond to the speed limit assessments contained in the report. Decision: Resolved:
(i) That, based upon the evidence, the speed limits set out in paragraph 2.5 of the report should be changed to adhere to the current policy; that authority be given to advertise a notice in accordance with the Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (the effects of which will be to implement the proposed speed limit changes and revoke any existing traffic orders necessary to implement these changes); and that, subject to no objections being maintained, the Order is made.
(ii) To authorise the Area Team Manager, in consultation with the Chairman of the Local Committee and local member, to resolve any objections received in connection with the proposals.
Reason
Recommendations have been made based upon existing policy, in consultation with Surrey Police Road Safety and Traffic Management Team.
Minutes: Mr A and Mrs V Young declared a pecuniary interest on the grounds of their ownership of a property which is accessed via one of the roads under discussion and withdrew from the meeting for this item.
The report was welcomed. It was felt that perception of speed may have caused concern on those roads in Godalming where changed limits were not considered necessary and that better enforcement might be appropriate.
Resolved:
(i) That, based upon the evidence, the speed limits set out in paragraph 2.5 of the report should be changed to adhere to the current policy; that authority be given to advertise a notice in accordance with the Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (the effects of which will be to implement the proposed speed limit changes and revoke any existing traffic orders necessary to implement these changes); and that, subject to no objections being maintained, the Order is made.
(ii) To authorise the Area Team Manager, in consultation with the Chairman of the Local Committee and local member, to resolve any objections received in connection with the proposals.
Reason
Recommendations have been made based upon existing policy, in consultation with Surrey Police Road Safety and Traffic Management Team.
|
|
|
LOCAL COMMITTEE FORWARD PROGRAMME (SERVICE MONITORING AND ISSUES OF LOCAL CONCERN)
To review the forward programme for 2015-16 and agree arrangements for 2016-17. Additional documents: Decision: Resolved to:
(i) Note the Forward Programme for 2015/16, as outlined in Annex 1 of the report, and add Project Horizon to the list of requested reports. (ii) Hold meetings at 10.00am on Friday on a trial basis in the municipal year 2016/17, reviewing arrangements after six months. Reason
Members were asked to consider arrangements for the committee’s future activities so that officers can publicise the meetings and prepare the necessary reports. It was felt that the proposed adjustments to the timing of the meetings would help to widen the accessibility of the meeting and the diversity of attendance.
Minutes: The addition to the forward programme of an update on Project Horizon was noted.
The committee discussed the suggestion that meetings be held in the morning. Some members felt that this would be more convenient for those which childcare responsibilities and encourage a wider diversity of attendance. Those who opposed the proposal felt that changing the established time would have an impact on other commitments of certain members. It was noted that the agenda of morning meetings would need careful management to ensure completion by 1.00pm.
The chairman put the proposal contained in resolution (ii) to the vote and it was agreed by nine votes to two.
Resolved to:
(i) Note the Forward Programme for 2015/16, as outlined in Annex 1 of the report, and add Project Horizon to the list of requested reports. (ii) Hold meetings at 10.00am on Friday on a trial basis in the municipal year 2016/17, reviewing arrangements after six months. Reason
Members were asked to consider arrangements for the committee’s future activities so that officers can publicise the meetings and prepare the necessary reports. It was felt that the proposed adjustments to the timing of the meetings would help to widen the accessibility of the meeting and the diversity of attendance.
|
|
|
CHANGES TO THE COMMUNITY YOUTH WORK SERVICE IN WAVERLEY (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION)
To approve proposals for the delivery of youth work in Waverley as formal guidance for the Community Youth Work Service.
Additional documents: Decision: Resolved that:
(i) The proposals set out in 3.1 of the report be adopted as formal guidance for the Community Youth Work Service. (ii) The Senior Practitioner in consultation with the Practice Lead (West) and chairman of the Youth Task Group may adjust the services offer to meet the needs of young people as they change. Reason
The changes are designed to: enable the Community Youth Work Service (CYWS) to better support the county council’s strategic goal of employability for young people; implement a cabinet steer to allocate more of our resources to the areas of greatest need; and respond positively to an overall funding reduction of 11% for Community Youth Work across Surrey. The proposals presented in the report were developed in discussion with the local Youth Task Group and informed by a public consultation. Minutes: Many members welcomed the report and the principle that resources and skilled workers should be allocated to areas of greatest need, with the flexibility to adjust provision to meet changing priorities. Greater clarity was sought on the extent to which the current level of service would be changed in particular communities and the role of voluntary sector provision in the future (see information tabled at Annex 3). The envisaged improvement in the service offered in Cranleigh through collaboration with the parish council was welcomed. Haslemere members were concerned at the significant reduction in service proposed, but noted that the borough-wide resource could be used flexibly to meet any emerging need in the area. Reassurance was provided to the effect that the county council has no plans to close any youth centres: maintenance of the buildings will continue and income generated where possible.
The decision was made, as required by statute, by county councillors only.
Resolved that:
(i) The proposals set out in 3.1 of the report be adopted as formal guidance for the Community Youth Work Service. (ii) The Senior Practitioner in consultation with the Practice Lead (West) and chairman of the Youth Task Group may adjust the services offer to meet the needs of young people as they change. Reason
The changes are designed to: enable the Community Youth Work Service (CYWS) to better support the county council’s strategic goal of employability for young people; implement a cabinet steer to allocate more of our resources to the areas of greatest need; and respond positively to an overall funding reduction of 11% for Community Youth Work across Surrey. The proposals presented in the report were developed in discussion with the local Youth Task Group and informed by a public consultation. |
|
To receive an update on the support given by Services for Young People to develop the employability of young people in Waverley during 2014/15. Additional documents: Decision: Resolved to note how Services for Young People have supported young people to be employable during 2014/15, as set out in the appendix to the report.
Reason
The Local Committee has an important part to play in supporting the local development of Services for Young People, ensuring that we are providing the right support to young people in local communities. In particular it has an important formal role in relation to the Local Prevention Framework and Centre Based Youth Work.
Minutes: Members were reassured that a variety of approaches are employed to ensure that hard-to-reach or disaffected young people, especially in rural areas, are engaged. Officers explained that the number of young people not in employment, education or training may fluctuate throughout the year and the serviced continues to identify young people not previously known. It was agreed that additional data on Cranleigh would be supplied. It was clarified that the Youth Support Service will continue to work with relevant young people regardless of the changes in the Community Youth Work Service’s provision, e.g. in Haslemere.
Resolved to note how Services for Young People have supported young people to be employable during 2014/15, as set out in the appendix to the report.
Reason
The Local Committee has an important part to play in supporting the local development of Services for Young People, ensuring that we are providing the right support to young people in local communities. In particular it has an important formal role in relation to the Local Prevention Framework and Centre Based Youth Work.
|
|
To comment on the partnership’s activities and plans. Additional documents: Decision: Resolved to:
(i) Note the contents of the annual report of the Safer Waverley Partnership in the year 2014-15 and the updated Partnership Plan 2015-18.
(ii) Request that the committee’s comments on the work of the partnership and its priorities be noted.
(iii) Bear the priorities of the partnership in mind when making decisions on funding.
Reason
The committee wishes to receive periodic reports on the work of the Safer Waverley Partnership, its achievements and priorities and to consider its contribution to these.
Minutes: The committee was reminded of the history and changing context of the Safer Waverley Partnership and its activities. Insp. Mark Bridge provided an overview of policing priorities in Waverley and the work of his neighbourhood team. There is a need to work smarter and adapt to diminishing resources and police attendance at community meetings and events must be more targeted. The interest in resuming the Junior Citizen programme was noted, but it was pointed out that the difficulty experienced in Waverley was related to consistency of staffing rather than funding. Some members were interested in the multi-agency Joint Enforcement Team concept which was being trialled in some other Surrey districts: Ms J Potts undertook to investigate the matter within Waverley Borough Council. Insp. Bridge will respond to a request to strengthen the relationship between elected members and local policing teams and was invited by the chairman to attend further local committee meetings.
The partnership’s focus on Child Sexual Exploitation was welcomed.
Resolved to:
(i) Note the contents of the annual report of the Safer Waverley Partnership in the year 2014-15 and the updated Partnership Plan 2015-18.
(ii) Request that the committee’s comments on the work of the partnership and its priorities be noted.
(iii) Bear the priorities of the partnership in mind when making decisions on funding.
Reason
The committee wishes to receive periodic reports on the work of the Safer Waverley Partnership, its achievements and priorities and to consider its contribution to these.
|
|
To receive an update on arrangements put in place since the winter of 2013/14 (REPORT TO FOLLOW). Decision: Resolved to note the work achieved to date by Surrey County Council, Waverley Borough Council and the Environment Agency in promoting flood resilience in the borough and request that the committee’s comments be noted.
Reason
To keep the committee informed of work on flood resilience in the borough.
Minutes: The Community Resilience Officer (Liz Fowler) explained her role in helping communities to develop resilience to extreme weather events and encouraged councillors to support residents in responding to local risks in this way.
The Strategic Network Resilience Manager will act as a contact for members who wish to raise concerns about locations subject to regular flooding, e.g. related to drainage or run-off. Collaborative working between the county and borough/district councils and Thames Water continues to improve. There is an increasing recognition of the impact on urban areas of land management practices in the countryside. Members hoped that the requirement for developers to mitigate flood risk could be strengthened. It was pointed out that the county council, in its capacity as statutory consultee, recommends that clarity on drainage matters is required from developers before approval, but the determination of applications remains the responsibility of the Local Planning Authority.
Resolved to note the work achieved to date by Surrey County Council, Waverley Borough Council and the Environment Agency in promoting flood resilience in the borough and request that the committee’s comments be noted.
Reason
To keep the committee informed of work on flood resilience in the borough.
|