Agenda, decisions and minutes

Epsom and Ewell Local Committee
Monday, 6 March 2017 7.00 pm

Venue: Bourne Hall, Spring Street, Ewell KT17 1UF

Contact: Nicola Morris, Community Partnership & Committee Officer  Surrey County Council, Community Partnership Team, Epsom Town Hall (2nd floor), Epsom, KT18 5BY

Items
No. Item

1/17

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

2/17

CHAIRMAN'S BUSINESS

    The Chairman will update the Committee on any current issues.

    Minutes:

    The Chairman reminded co-opted Committee members that it is now a requirements of the County Council that significant personal and prejudicial interests should be registered in addition to pecuniary interests.  He would be asking the Borough Council to ensure that in future all declarations are completed when nominations to the Local Committee are submitted.

     

    The Chairman and Vice-Chairman had recently attended one of their regular meetings with the Area Education officer.  They discussed a range of issues and noted that SCC had been holing engagement sessions with schools to discuss the future role and place of SCC in supporting schools in the changing educational environment.

     

    The Chairman reported that the County Council has a need to make substantial savings in 2017/18.  There is a requirement for £30m on going savings and, in addition, £22m one-off savings in order to meet the requirements for a balanced budget.  Longer term a further £93m of additional savings will be required.  Inevitably this may impact on budgets for, and the capacity of officers to support the Local Committee.

3/17

WRITTEN PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND STATEMENTS

    To answer any questions or receive a statement from any member of the public who lives, works or studies in the Surrey County Council area in accordance with Standing Order 69.  Notice should be given in writing or by e-mail to the Community Partnership & Committee Officer at least by noon four working days before the meeting.

    Minutes:

    14 questions were received. The questions and answers are set out in Annex A.  Questions 2 was deferred for consideration with item 9 on the agenda.  The following additional points were made:

     

    Question 1 – Mr Hawkes felt that the fact that 25 penalty charge notices had been issued in the last two months indicated that there is a need for further yellow lines in the area.  It was reported that the Borough Council, who carry out on street parking enforcement on behalf of the County Council, issue on average 1,000 penalty charge notices a month and so 25 in two months is not an unusually high number.

     

    Question 6 – Cllr Olney asked whether a Residents Parking Zone (RPZ) could be made available for 3 or 4 vehicles if residents were prepared to pay for permits.  The Parking Engineer indicated that a RPZ need to be implemented for a large part of the road or not at all as introducing a few bays of residents parking affects the ability of other residents of the road to be able to park.

     

    Question 7 – Cllr Olney asked whether the crossing by the station was really needed.  The Area Highways Manager replied that the Local Committee had previously carried out a public consultation when road space outside the new station development was being allocated and most people felt that the crossing should be retained. 

     

    Question 8 – Cllr Olney felt that the condition of the yellow lines is causing enforcement issues.  He was advised to raise this with the borough Council parking team.

     

    Question 11 – Thanks from the resident concerned were expressed.

     

    Question 12 – Colin Taylor was not aware of any significant patching being carried out in Lower Hill Road.  The Area Highways Manager agreed to check the condition of the carriageway.

     

    Question 14 – James Cookson asked for clarification of the process for implementation.  The Parking Engineer reported that subject to the Committee agreeing the  proposed parking schemes for advertisement at this meeting the schemes will proceed to be advertised for 28 days.  Feedback will then be considered and if generally supportive the scheme will be implemented.

Annex A - Public Questions pdf icon PDF 315 KB

4/17

ADJOURNMENT

    For the Committee to consider adjourning for up to half an hour to receive questions from members of the public.

    Minutes:

    51 members of the public were present. Six informal questions were asked, three were deferred to item 9, and answers were provided at the meeting.

5/17

PETITIONS

6/17

MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING pdf icon PDF 149 KB

7/17

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 no declarations of interest.

8/17

EPSOM AND EWELL PARKING REVIEW (PHASE 10) [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR DECISION] pdf icon PDF 179 KB

    To consider requests that have been received for either the introduction of new parking restrictions or changes to existing restrictions at various sites in Epsom and Ewell.

     

    Since the introduction of Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) in May 2005, new parking / waiting restrictions in Epsom and Ewell have been introduced in nine phases, with the most recent being implemented through 2017.

     

    This report details locations and general proposals for the Phase 10 parking / waiting restriction review, to be progressed in 2017 and seeks approval to carry out statutory consultation on the proposals.

     

    The report also looks to assess whether or not it is possible to relocate parking bays and create additional chicanes along Temple Road.

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    That the Local Committee [Epsom & Ewell] agreed to

     

    (i)      Advertise all of the proposals set out in Annex 1 of the report, subject to the following additions and amendments:

    (a)   The parking bays on the High Street, Ewell Village to be amended to remove Saturday from the current restrictions.  Monday- Friday to remain unchanged;

    (b)   An extension of the double yellow lines in Windmill Avenue, 11m in a south easterly direction against the flank boundary of “Briar Hedge”;

    (c)   Double yellow lines to be placed on the bends in Larkspur Way to improve forward visibility;

    (d)   Junction protection markings to be added at the junction with Amis Avenue and Derek Avenue to improve safety;

    (e)   Map 8 – extension of double yellow lines in Mavis Avenue towards Walsingham Gardens to match those which extend towards the A240 Kingston Road.

    (ii)      That the County Council’s intention to make an order under the Road Traffic Regulation act 1984 be advertised and, if no objections are maintained, the order be made, subject to funding being identified to implement the proposals;

    (iii)     That if objections are received the Parking Strategy and Implementation Group Manager is authorised to try and resolve them, in consultation with the Chairman / Vice Chairman of this committee and the county councillor for the division, and decides whether or not they should be acceded to and therefore whether the order should be made, with or without modifications, subject to funding being identified to implement the proposals.

     

    Reasons: Changes to the highway network, the built environment and society mean that parking behaviour changes and consequently it is necessary for a Highway Authority to carry out regular reviews of waiting and parking restrictions on the highway network.

     

    The waiting restrictions in this report will help to:

     

    ·       Improve road safety

    ·       Increase access for emergency vehicles

    ·       improve access to shops, facilities and businesses

    ·       Increase access for refuse vehicles, buses and service vehicles

    ·       Reduce traffic congestion

    ·       Better regulate parking

     

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Stephen Clavey, Senior Parking Engineer

     

    Petitions, Public Questions/Statements: 

     

    Graeme Cole (question 2 item 3) indicated that he had collected a petition of 41 signatures from residents of Woodcote Side who are opposed to a Residents Parking Zone in the road, some of whom may have signed the previous petition in favour.  He felt that the issue had affected the community spirit in the road.  He acknowledged that there are some parking issues but he felt that this was as a result of residents having more than one vehicle.  Not all residents had been consulted when the petition asking for a RPZ had been submitted and he felt that it had been limited to those with parking issues.  Mr Cole was advised to submit his petition as part of the response to the consultation should the Committee agree to advertise the proposals.

     

    Jane Livingston asked whether the Council would be interested in the results of randomly timed surveys showing the number of vacant parking bays.  The officer responded that this information could be submitted as part of the consultation response.

     

    Andrew Macdonald asked about the implications for displacement of vehicles to other nearby roads if a RPZ is implemented in Woodcote Side and whether Epsom Hospital could be asked to provide additional staff parking.  The officer responded that the potential for displacement is considered in bringing forward proposals, but the county council is not able to request other organisations to provide additional parking.  It was noted that the days and times of the restrictions can be made less onerous if the results of the consultation indicate that this would be preferred by residents.

     

    Residents will be letter dropped when the scheme is advertised and these letters will provide details of the proposed times and the cost of the permits to allow residents to respond to the consultation.

     

    Vanessa Rapier asked whether residents in neighbouring roads would be consulted.  The parking officer responded that anyone potentially affected can respond to the consultation.  However only those directly affected will be letter dropped.  Notices will be displayed on lamp columns in the area and will be published in the local newspaper. 

     

    There was no indication of any further public questions or statements so the Committee moved to debate the options outlines in the officer report.

     

    The Chairman indicated that the majority of the proposals to be considered by the Committee have arisen as a result of requests from residents, the County Council does not actively seek to impose restrictions unless requested to do so.  He reminded residents that it is very important to submit views, both in favour or in opposition to any proposal, during the 28 day consultation period to enable a decision to be made on which proposals should be implemented.

     

    Member Discussion – key points

     

    A member queried whether if the proposed timings of a restriction proved not to be suitable after implementation could they be revised.  The parking officer responded that once the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8/17

9/17

HIGHWAYS UPDATE [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR DECISION] pdf icon PDF 232 KB

    This report summarises progress with the Local Committee’s programme of Highways works for the current Financial Year 2016-17.

     

    Subject to confirmation of the 2017-18 Highways budgets, preparations will be made to deliver the Local Committee’s programme of Highways works for the Financial Year 2017-18.

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    That the Local Committee [Epsom & Ewell] agreed to

     

    (i)      Approve formally the prioritisation of Ruxley Lane, Ardrossan Gardens, Amis Avenue, The Rise, and Rosebank, for inclusion in the Horizon Roads Major Maintenance (HRMM) programme;

    (ii)     Approve formally a programme of nine ITS schemes for the 2017-18 Pooled Capital allocation as set out in paragraphs 2.21 to 2.22;

    (iii)    Authorise the Area Highway Manager to make appropriate changes to budget allocations and programmes of work for next Financial Year 2017-18 when Committee’s Highways budgets for next Financial Year have been confirmed, in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and affected Members of the Local Committee;

    (iv)   Authorise the Area Highway Manager in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and relevant Divisional Member(s) to undertake all necessary procedures to deliver the agreed programmes.

     

    Reasons:  Programmes of work for next Financial Year 2017-18 have been agreed with Committee and individual Divisional Members.  However it may be necessary to review the Local Committee’s Highways budget allocations and programmes of works when Committee’s Highways budgets for 2017-18 are confirmed.  The Highways budgets are expected to be confirmed after the Council’s overall financial situation has been clarified.

     

    Committee is asked to provide the necessary authorisation to deliver those programmes of work in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and relevant Divisional Member without the need to revert to the Committee as a whole.

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Nick Healey, Area Highways Team Manager; Steve Howard, Transport Policy Project Manager

     

    Petitions, Public Questions/Statements: None

     

    Member Discussion – key points

     

    The local County Councillor thanked the Committee for agreeing to include Rosebank to the list of locally prioritised roads for inclusion in the Horizon Roads Major Maintenance programme.

     

    Noted in Annex A, that alternative funding streams had been agreed pending the decision on the A24 Resilience Bid which has been deferred until June/July by the Local Enterprise Partnership.

     

    The traffic regulation orders for the Plan E work will be published in the week after the meeting.

     

    Members queried whether the changes in programming the work would impact on the Derby Festival in June.  The officer responded that all works impacting on the highway will be suspended during the Derby Festival.  The programme for work on the market place is currently being finalised, but is likely to take place in January 2018.  The website will shortly be updated with the latest programme dates and information.  He apologised that it had not been possible to make more information publicly available previously, but as things were sometimes changing on a daily basis it was felt to be better to wait until the programme was confirmed to avoid confusion.

     

    It was confirmed that there is sufficient funding available to complete the work required.

     

    In relation to Table 5, page 101, the local County member requested that she be involved in discussions on localised verge hardening to ensure this is placed in the correct area.  She asked that if there was any funding remaining that this could be used to improve the pavement from the shops to Riverholme Drive.

     

    Resolved: to

     

    (i)     Approve formally the prioritisation of Ruxley Lane, Ardrossan Gardens, Amis Avenue, The Rise, and Rosebank, for inclusion in the Horizon Roads Major Maintenance (HRMM) programme;

    (ii)    Approve formally a programme of nine ITS schemes for the 2017-18 Pooled Capital allocation as set out in paragraphs 2.21 to 2.22;

    (iii)   Authorise the Area Highway Manager to make appropriate changes to budget allocations and programmes of work for next Financial Year 2017-18 when Committee’s Highways budgets for next Financial Year have been confirmed, in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and affected Members of the Local Committee;

    (iv)   Authorise the Area Highway Manager in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and relevant Divisional Member(s) to undertake all necessary procedures to deliver the agreed programmes.

     

    Reasons:  Programmes of work for next Financial Year 2017-18 have been agreed with Committee and individual Divisional Members.  However it may be necessary to review the Local Committee’s Highways budget allocations and programmes of works when Committee’s Highways budgets for 2017-18 are confirmed.  The Highways budgets are expected to be confirmed after the Council’s overall financial situation has been clarified.

     

    Committee is asked to provide the necessary authorisation to deliver those programmes of work in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and relevant Divisional Member without the need to revert to the Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9/17

10/17

LOCAL COMMITTEE DECISION/ACTION TRACKER [FOR INFORMATION] pdf icon PDF 121 KB

    This item provides an update on previous decisions and actions agreed by the Committee beginning in June 2015.

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Nicola Morris, Community Partnership & Committee Officer

     

    Petitions, Public Questions/Statements: None

     

    Member Discussion – key points

     

    In relation to the completion of the Phase 9 parking review officers and members were thanked for their efforts to ensure that the remaining yellow lines were completed.

     

    Noted the progress with the recorded decisions/actions

11/17

DATE OF NEXT MEETING

12/17

MEMBER QUESTION TIME

    To receive any written questions from Members under Standing Order 47.   Notice should be given in writing to the Community Partnership & Committee officer by 12.00 noon four working days before the meeting.

    Minutes:

    Two questions were received.  The questions and answers are set out in Annex B.  The following additional points were made:

     

    Question 1 – Cllr Mason felt that even if this pavement had been previously identified as being in poor condition the £77,000 cost of the work could have been spent more effectively on other pavements in the Borough which are better used and in equally poor condition.

     

     

Annex B - Members Questions pdf icon PDF 70 KB