Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 1 MBVenue: Guildford Borough Council
Contact: Carolyn Anderson Surrey County Council, Old Millmead House, Millmead, Guildford, GU2 4BB
Media
| No. | Item | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
To receive any Chairman’s announcements. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting. It was noted that the Local Transport Review would be open for public feedback until mid-January. |
|||||
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
To receive any apologies for absence and notices of substitutions from Borough members under Standing Order 39. Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from County Councillors Mr Graham Ellwood, Mr George Johnson, Mrs Marsha Moseley and from Borough Councillors Zoe Franklin, Monika Juneja, Nigel Manning and Stephen Mansbridge. |
|||||
|
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
To approve the Minutes of the previous meeting held on 24 September 2014 as a correct record. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 24 September 2014 were confirmed as a true record. |
|||||
|
Annex 1 Written Formal Questions 26 November 2014 Additional documents: |
|||||
|
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.
Additional documents: Minutes: No declarations of interest were received. |
|||||
|
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
To receive any questions from Surrey County Council electors within the area in accordance with Standing Order 66. Additional documents: Minutes: The formal written questions paper was tabled at the meeting and can be found attached to these minutes at Annex 1.
Two written public questions were received by the committee.
Question One. Mr Allen was not in attendance. Question Two. Mr Jarvis was in attendance. The meeting heard that there would be coordination between the two councils and the Highways Agency when approaching the existing and future transportation issues arising in the borough. |
|||||
|
MEMBER QUESTION TIME
To receive any written questions from Members under Standing Order 47. Additional documents: Minutes: No member written questions were received. |
|||||
|
PETITION RESPONSE - DARYNGTON DRIVE (FOR INFORMATION)
At the meeting on 24 September 2014 a petition requesting the proper maintenance of the highway and verge in Daryngton Drive was submitted to the committee. The officer response is at Annex 1 of the committee report.
Additional documents: Minutes: The report was presented by the Area Highways Manager (SW).
The petition submitted at the last formal meeting in September received a formal committee response. The meeting heard that the proposed tree planting would take place this winter 2014/15.
The Local Committee (Guildford) noted the report.
|
|||||
Landowners and developers currently provide infrastructure directly or make financial contributions towards provision of infrastructure to support development in the area. These are currently secured using planning obligations under S106 of the Planning Act (as amended). The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is the government’s preferred mechanism for securing pooled contributions from developers to fund infrastructure to support development in the area.
We will be asking the Executive of 6 January 2015 to agree the consultation material for Guildford’s first stage in preparing its CIL. This includes our initially proposed CIL rates as set out in the PDCS.
This report to the Guildford Local Committee is for noting.
Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Guildford) noted the report.
Minutes: The report was presented by the Principal Planning Officer for Guildford Borough Council.
During 2014 the two councils agreed to work more closely on matters of common concern and joint service delivery via the Guildford Local Committee. This report was the first such Guildford Borough Council officer report to be presented to a Local Committee meeting.
The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was a charge on new development that raised funds towards infrastructure that would be needed to support new development.The CIL was an executive function of the borough council. The purpose of the report was to enable councillors from both authorities to jointly note and consider the forthcoming initial draft preliminary draft charging schedule (PDCS) which would be publicly consulted upon in due course.
The meeting heard that a CIL Board would be created with appropriate representation from officers and members to determine where and how future funding would be distributed. This Board could be similar to the Elmbridge CIL Board model where the decision making process was made available for public information and scrutiny. Under the new process the county council would submit bids to the CIL Board for infrastructure funding relating to planned growth.
The ‘123 list’ did not commit to specific future spending, but identified potential sites and areas where it was envisaged additional future infrastructure spending could be required. Any sites included on the list would not attract additional s106 spending.
Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) had been prioritised both within the draft CIL proposals and in the draft Local Plan. This was because central government guidance and European legislation required that the planning authority must deliver back or mitigate any damage to European protected habitats arising through development. It was anticipated that this provision could amount to a considerable portion of the ultimate CIL charge.
It was noted that there was no requirement for the CIL to be spent in the direct area of the development but could be spent anywhere in the borough or even outside of the borough possibly to support environmental mitigation and transport links.
The draft PDCS would be bought before the borough council Executive on 6 January 2015 for agreement to consult.
The Local Committee (Guildford) noted the report. |
|||||
|
PARKING BUSINESS PLAN 2015-16 (FOR DECISION)
The annexe to this report presents the Parking Business Plan for 2015-16. It covers off-street car parking, on-street parking and park and ride. It makes recommendations in respect of service improvements, efficiencies, and the funding of park and ride. Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Guildford)agreed:
(i) In principle, that we look at the use of virtual permit technology to provide an improved service for residents whilst reducing costs.
(ii) That all interested parties discuss changes to road direction signage particularly where this will improve motorists’ ability to park in the first convenient car park.
(iii) That the provision of guarding services at Artington and Merrow park and ride sites be combined into a single mobile guard between the two sites.
(iv) That Surrey County Council undertake a consultation on the proposal to remove the ENCTS from the Park & Ride network, for people qualifying based on age, and on the introduction of a nominal charge of £1 per return journey for these concessionary pass holders.
(v) To use the uncommitted surplus from on-street parking management in Guildford in 2013-14, of £68,000 on funding the cost of Onslow Park and Ride in 2015-16.
(vi) that a Task Group is established to develop a Parking Strategy which sets a framework for parking operations to support key strategic plans like the Local Plan, Town Centre Master Plan and Local Transport Plan.
Minutes: The report was presented by the Parking Service Manager for Guildford Borough Council.
During 2014 the two councils agreed to work more closely on matters of common concern and potentially joint service delivery via the Guildford Local Committee. This was the first occasion the Guildford Borough Council Parking Business Plan had been reported to a Local Committee meeting. For the first time the report considered off-street, on-street and Park and Ride services together in combination.
The meeting heard that it was proposed in future to utilise car parking facilities and charging to encourage modal shift and to tackle town centre congestion.
The committee agreed this was a good example of joint working.
The Local Committee (Guildford)agreed:
(i) In principle, that we look at the use of virtual permit technology to provide an improved service for residents whilst reducing costs.
(ii) That all interested parties discuss changes to road direction signage particularly where this will improve motorists’ ability to park in the first convenient car park.
(iii) That the provision of guarding services at Artington and Merrow park and ride sites be combined into a single mobile guard between the two sites.
(iv) That Surrey County Council undertake a consultation on the proposal to remove the ENCTS from the Park & Ride network, for people qualifying based on age, and on the introduction of a nominal charge of £1 per return journey for these concessionary pass holders.
(v) To use the uncommitted surplus from on-street parking management in Guildford in 2013-14, of £68,000 on funding the cost of Onslow Park and Ride in 2015-16.
(vi) that a Task Group is established to develop a Parking Strategy which sets a framework for parking operations to support key strategic plans like the Local Plan, Town Centre Master Plan and Local Transport Plan.
|
|||||
Local Transport Strategies and Forward Programmes will be produced for all districts and boroughs within Surrey and will be ‘live’ documents, updated every 2-3 years whilst the Forward Programme will be updated yearly. The purpose of Part A of the strategy is to focus on the current issues and problems on the transport network in Guildford.
Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Guildford) noted the report. Minutes: The Transport Policy Team Manger presented the report.
Apologies were made for the late delivery of the report and a note was circulated to members which provided a summarised overview.
A Local Transport Strategy (LTS) reflecting local transportation infrastructure issues was to be written for each of the eleven districts and boroughs in the county. The LTS document was used by the county council as Highways Authority to apply for major bid funding to the Local Transport Body (Local Enterprise Partnership) and other potential funding sources. In five boroughs the LTS document had been completed. However, these were the boroughs where a Local Plan had been adopted. For Guildford, as the draft Local Plan process was ongoing, a pragmatic approach had been taken and the LTS split into two parts. Part A as presented reflected the existing and known transportation issues, whereas a Part B would be produced and merged with the overall document once the Guildford Local Plan had been accepted by central government.
Both councils would work closely together on infrastructure needs as the emerging Local Plan was developed. It was noted that feedback from residents from the early Local Plan consultation process would provide important information to both councils future planning. There had been concerns raised about congestion, road safety and public transport both in terms of current issues and in relation to any future growth.
The outcomes from school expansion planning and the current Local Transport Review consultation which considered passenger and community transport would also feed into the LTS in due course.
Members raised the sustainability of rural routes which were not usually the subject of major funding bids. In addition rural communities had a high reliance on private cars. Congestion ‘hotspots’ would always be reviewed and where possible there could be opportunities for the Local Committee to provide funding for interventions which might be supplemented by a major funds bid. The members of the Local Committee were asked to continue to keep officers informed of emerging local transportation issues.
Members again raised the matter of signage for the Park & Ride services from the A3 and it was understood that discussions with the Highways Agency are in hand. In addition, there was a request for the Highways Agency to consider a separate exit to the Onslow Park & Ride. Overall members were generally concerned about safety and the frequency of road traffic collisions on the A3.
It was noted that the meetings of the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Enterprise M3 were open to the public and further information can be found on its website.
The Local Committee (Guildford) noted the report. |
|||||
|
GUILDFORD LOCAL COMMITTEE PRIORITISATION FRAMEWORK (FOR INFORMATION)
Work is currently underway to develop a prioritisation framework for local road safety improvements in Guildford Borough. The framework aims to ensure that limited committee funds are spent in the most effective way. This paper provides an update on progress and next steps.
Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Guildford) noted the report.
Minutes: The report was presented by the Area Highways Manager and Project Officer.
The Transportation Task Group had recommended that the Local Committee adopt a framework or matrix by which to assist with the assessment of applications for future transportation schemes. The draft framework included criteria around sustainability, safety and value for money.
A presentation was given providing an update on progress. It was anticipated that the final framework would be ready for the June 2015 committee meeting.
The Local Committee (Guildford) noted the report.
|
|||||
|
ROAD SAFETY OUTSIDE SCHOOLS - BOXGROVE AREA INTERIM UPDATE (FOR INFORMATION)
Concern has been expressed over the safety of children arriving and leaving Boxgrove Primary School, St Peters Catholic Secondary School and St Thomas of Canterbury Catholic Primary School and the associated congestion caused by school journey traffic. This report provides an update on work conducted so far. Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Guildford) noted the report.
Minutes: The Area Highways Manager presented the report.
The Local Committee had agreed at its previous meeting to support the review of road safety outside of three schools in the Boxgrove area. The review had been ongoing and members received an update report.
It was anticipated that the final recommendations would be received in March 2015. A provisional allocation in the forthcoming budget had been set aside for any possible interventions that might be advised for consideration.
The Local Committee (Guildford) noted the report.
|
|||||
|
HIGHWAYS BUDGET 2015/16 (FOR DECISION)
To allocate the anticipated budget available to this committee for 2015/16.
Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee agreed to:
(i) the following budget allocations for 2015/16 as detailed in the committee report:-
Proposed maintenance works and operations £421,000 Proposed improvement (ITS) schemes £369,500
(ii) delegate authority to the Area Manager in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman and locally affected Members to amend budgets throughout the year if required to ensure the budget is allocated in a timely manner.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The committee is asked to agree 2015/16 allocations at this stage so that the design of schemes can start at the earliest opportunity, increasing confidence in delivery. Minutes: The report was presented by the Area Highways Manager.
There was a consideration of the general allocations of budget for the forthcoming year. Final allocations would be known when the county council published its agreed budget in February 2015. The Transportation Task Group provided recommendations on priority schemes.
The Local Committee agreed to:
(i) the following budget allocations for 2015/16 as detailed in the committee report:-
Proposed maintenance works and operations £421,000 Proposed improvement (ITS) schemes £369,500
(ii) delegate authority to the Area Manager in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman and locally affected Members to amend budgets throughout the year if required to ensure the budget is allocated in a timely manner.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The committee is asked to agree 2015/16 allocations at this stage so that the design of schemes can start at the earliest opportunity, increasing confidence in delivery. |
|||||
|
HIGHWAYS UPDATE (FOR DECISION)
This report provides an update on the 2014/15 programme of minor highway works funded by this committee as well as Section 106 (developer funded) schemes.
Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Guildford) agreed to:
(i) Authorise the prohibition of the right turn from Jacobs Well Road into the A320 Woking Road. (ii) Note that ten additional resurfacing schemes will be centrally funded. (iii) Note the Highways Update report
REASONS FOR DECISIONS
The committee is asked to formally agree the recommendations above in order to progress the programme of work for 2014/15.
Minutes: The report was presented by the Area Highways Manager.
The 2014/15 budget had been spent and there were no funds remaining. It was possible that some schemes could be deferred to the following year and that there would be meetings with local members as appropriate to discuss.
Whilst he overspend on the village scheme at Shere would be reported back to members, it was noted that occasionally it was only possible to report general scheme costs to committee at the early stages. Increases or decreases would be reported back to members if the budget would be significantly affected and schemes were always reviewed for priority.
Members asked if there a model to overview a possible impact between the removal of the right hand turn at Jabobs Well and the new proposed Clay Lank Link Road.
It was noted that Stoughton Road resurfacing had been deferred until March 2015 and Cabell Road resurfacing was not yet completed. The Area Highways Manager agreed to respnd to various other member requests on an individual basis.
The Local Committee (Guildford) agreed to:
(i) Authorise the prohibition of the right turn from Jacobs Well Road into the A320 Woking Road. (ii) Note that ten additional resurfacing schemes will be centrally funded. (iii) Note the Highways Update report
REASONS FOR DECISIONS
The committee is asked to formally agree the recommendations above in order to progress the programme of work for 2014/15.
|
|||||
|
REPORT OF THE TRANSPORTATION TASK GROUP (FOR INFORMATION)
The Local Committee for Guildford considers a broad range of highways and transportation matters. In order to progress the committee’s transportation work programme a task group has been created. The purpose of the task group is to consider local transportation business on a more frequent and flexible basis than the schedule of the formal full committee may allow and thereafter to act in an informed and advisory capacity to the full committee. The Transportation Task Group (TTG) membership is made up of nominated members from the full committee. All formal decisions are undertaken by the full committee. This report is for the information of the full committee. The intention is to provide an update of the TTG work programme and a schedule.
Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Guildford) noted the report.
Minutes: The Area Highways Manager presented the report.
The Transportation Task Group (TTG) comprised of six members of the Local Committee which convened to look at local transportation issues in greater detail than it permitted by the agenda of the committee as a whole. Members to the TTG are nominated on an annual basis.
A work programme for the TTG was submitted for the committee to note.
The Local Committee (Guildford) noted the report.
|
|||||
To receive the forward programme for the committee. Additional documents: Decision: The Local Committee (Guildford) noted the report.
Minutes: Members noted that there would be a future item reviewing the impact of HGV’s on rural roads in the borough and requested that they be consulted.
The Local Committee (Guildford) noted the report.
|