Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Guildford Joint Committee - Wednesday, 1 July 2020 2.00 pm

Venue: Remote

Contact: Gregory Yeoman  Partnership Committee Officer

Note: Please note that due to the Covid-19 situation this meeting will take place remotely. 

Media

Items
No. Item

1/20

APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE FOR 2020/21 [FOR INFORMATION]

    • Share this item

    To note the appointment by Guildford Borough Council of Borough Councillor John Rigg as Chairman and by Surrey County Council of County Councillor Keith Taylor as Vice-Chairman of the Joint Committee for the current municipal year.

    To welcome new committee members.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The Committee Partnership Officer advised that Guildford Borough Council was providing the chairman for the Joint Committee for 2020/21 and 2021/22. Cllr John Rigg had been appointed for this role by the Borough Council for 2020/21, at the end of which period his tenure would be reviewed. The vice-chairman for 20/21 is Cllr Keith Taylor.

     

    The officer also welcomed Cllr Joss Bigmore as a new member of the committee.

2/20

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

    • Share this item

    To receive any apologies for absence from members under Standing Order 39.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Apologies for absence were received from councillors Keith Witham.

3/20

MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING pdf icon PDF 183 KB

    • Share this item

    To approve the Minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The minutes of the meeting held on 11th December 2019 were approved as a correct record.

4/20

DECISIONS TAKEN UNDER DELEGATED POWERS (FOR INFORMATION) pdf icon PDF 116 KB

    • Share this item

    As a result of the Covid outbreak the previous meeting of the Committee on 18 March was cancelled. Where necessary, decisions were taken in accordance with the Remote Meetings Protocol which was approved by the Council on 17 March 2020 (minute 18/20a). This protocol sets out how Surrey County Council will operate executive and non-executive decision making in light of the coronavirus situation in line with agreed delegations at the 17 March 2020 Council meeting. The Protocol was agreed to react to the current reality where the Council should not hold physical meetings, whilst ensuring that the business of the Council can proceed as best as possible, including making decisions as effectively and as far as possible, openly.

     

    A record of the decisions made is attached for information.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The Chairman informed the Committee that as the planned Joint Committee meeting on 18th March 2020 was cancelled due to the COVID 19 outbreak, a number of recommendations from the reports that had been prepared for the meeting were passed under the remote meetings protocol agreed by the County Council. These decisions were included on today’s agenda and were noted by the committee members.

     

     

5/20

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

    • Share this item

    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

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    There were no pecuniary interests.

    Four members declared non-pecuniary interests in relation to Item 10, and one in relation to Item 12 – these are shown under the Items below.

6/20

CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS

    • Share this item

    To receive any Chairman’s announcements.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The Chairman highlighted joint obligations across the County and Borough Councils, particularly recognising the impact of Covid19 and the pressures on resources as a result of growth and development outlined in the Local Plan. Each authority has its particular areas of responsibilities but a collaborative approach is the best way to tackle the work over the coming period and provide long-term solutions.

7/20

PETITIONS AND PETITION RESPONSES

    • Share this item

    To receive any petitions in accordance with Standing Order 65.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    No petitions were received.

8/20

MEMBER WRITTEN QUESTIONS

    • Share this item

    To receive any written questions from Members under Standing Order 47.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    No questions were received.

9/20

PUBLIC WRITTEN QUESTIONS

    • Share this item

    To receive any questions from Surrey County Council electors within the area in accordance with Standing Order 66.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    One question was received from Mr. Peter Watts, concerning cycling and pedestrian priorities along Alresford Road and Ridgemount in Guildford.

     

    The full question and the response from the Area Highway Manager are included in the minutes as Annexe 1.

     

     

Item 9 Written Public Questions pdf icon PDF 929 KB

10/20

GUILDFORD ON-STREET PARKING REVIEW (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION FOR DECISION) pdf icon PDF 140 KB

    This report presents the representations resulting from the formal advertisement of proposals for new or changed parking restrictions in Guildford.

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    The Guildford Joint Committee:

     

    Town Centre Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ)

     

    (i)         AGREED having considered the comments made during the formal notice period, the proposals for the north part of Area C are not progressed.

     

    (ii)        AGREED having considered the comments made during the formal notice period, a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) is made under the relevant parts of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to implement the amended controls as originally advertised, including an extension to the operational hours of the parking bays and single yellow lines in Areas A, B and D to Monday to Sunday 8.30am to 9pm.

     

    (iii)       if (ii) is agreed, AGREED implementation takes place as and when parking behaviours return to a more normal state following the COVID 19 pandemic. If the order is to be made, this must be done within 2 years of the start of the original public consultation (20 September 2019). The need to introduce the proposals and implementation date to be determined by the Parking Manager in consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and 2 delegate members.

     

    Other Locations

     

    (iv)       AGREED having considered the comments made during the formal notice period, Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) are made under the relevant parts of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to implement new and amended parking controls to the existing as shown in ANNEXE 1.

     

    (v)        AGREED having considered the comments made during the formal notice period, those in 2.16 are not progressed at this time.

    Are members in support of these recommendations? If you do not support them please say or put a comment in the chat. If there are no objections I will assume that the recommendations are agreed.

     

    Reasons for recommendations:

    To assist with safety, access, traffic movements, increase the availability of space and its prioritisation for various user-groups in various localities, and to make local improvements.

     

     

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: Cllr George Potter declared a non-pecuniary interest as a zone B resident (albeit a non-car-owning one). Cllr Angela Goodwin and Cllr David Goodwin declared that they were both permit holders in zone B. Mr Matthew Furniss declared he also holds a permit for Zone A.

     

    Officer attending: Andy Harkin, Guildford Borough Council

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: Mrs Natalie White, a resident in zone B, read out a statement expressing her concerns about the proposed changes.

     

    Member Discussion – key points:

    A number of members supported the statement from Mrs White, recognising the problems that she had highlighted. There were suggestions that the controlled parking zone scheme should undergo a full review to ensure that it matched the requirements of current parking pressures, including the advent of Sunday trading. It would also be good to encourage less car use and ownership, and these issues could be addressed by an overall review of the CPZ scheme. The process would require significant input from the Parking team and could draw resources away from other projects, but it could possibly be scoped for future consideration.

     

    Some concern was expressed regarding the consideration given to objections received to proposals in the public consultation process, where some felt that negative responses were discounted if only a low number had been received. The consultation involved placing an advert in a newspaper and contacting 10,000 households by letter; perhaps this approach needed reviewing.

     

    After a lengthy discussion during which the work of previews reviews and working groups over a number of years to arrive at the proposals presented today was highlighted, a vote was taken on Recommendation (ii) by putting it to each member in turn. The remaining Recommendations were considered together.

     

    Resolved

    The Guildford Joint Committee AGREED:

     

    Town centre Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ)

     

    (i)         having considered the comments made during the formal notice period, the proposals for the north part of Area C are not progressed.

     

    (ii)        having considered the comments made during the formal notice period, a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) is made under the relevant parts of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to implement the amended controls as originally advertised, including an extension to the operational hours of the parking bays and single yellow lines in Areas A, B and D to Monday to Sunday 8.30am to 9pm.

     

    (iii)       if (ii) is agreed, implementation takes place as and when parking behaviours return to a more normal state following the COVID 19 pandemic. If the order is to be made, this must be done within 2 years of the start of the original public consultation (20 September 2019). The need to introduce the proposals and implementation date to be determined by the Parking Manager in consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and 2 delegate members.

     

    Other Locations

     

    (iv)       having considered the comments made during the formal notice period, Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) are made under the relevant parts of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to implement new and amended parking controls  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10/20

11/20

SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING POINT TRIALS (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION FOR DECISION) pdf icon PDF 130 KB

    • Share this item

    An overview of the Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Point Trials, setting out the programme of delivery of on-street charge points in the next 12 months and seeking approval to advertise the change in Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO) required to deliver the charging infrastructure in 20 parking bays in Guildford Borough.

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    Guildford Joint Committee:

     

    (i)            NOTED the overview of the plans and locations of bays to undertake the Electric Vehicle Charging Point trials funded by the Enterprise M3 (EM3) Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and led by Surrey County Council (SCC) in Guildford.

     

    (ii)           AGREED that the project sponsor, in consultation with the parking strategy and implementation team manager, the chairman/vice chairman of this committee and the appropriate county councillor can modify the layout and location of the bays prior to a traffic regulation order (TRO) being advertised.

     

    (iii)          AUTHORISED advertisement of all necessary TROs across the selected sites in the Borough of Guildford, as and when required, in order to allow the bays to be introduced and agree that if no objections are maintained, the orders are made.

     

    (iv)         AGREED that 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 Divisional member, with the addition also of the SCC Transport Strategy Project Manager.

     

    Reasons for recommendations:

    The committee is asked to agree the recommendations to enable the progression of the Electric Vehicle Charging Point Trials as per the business case that was approved and funded by the EM3 LEP.

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Cherrie Mendoza, Transport Strategy Project Manager

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None

     

    Member Discussion – key points:

    Guildford has 24 electric vehicles per charger, so there is a real demand for this infrastructure. There were requests to consider areas outside of Guildford town centre as locations for charging points, such as local shopping parades, with a balance needing to be struck between sites at ‘destination’ locations and those in more residential areas. Similarly, it was important to balance the provision of charging sites at on- and off-street parking locations to avoid an over-supply of charging bays. This particular report concerns the on-street trial organised by the County Council, using sites on its land so that aspects such as access, ownership and liability can be controlled. The Borough Council recognises Park & Ride locations as good places to install charging points and is considering these separately.

     

    Charging locations farther out from Guildford town centre are being considered for Phase 2 of the trial, with possible match funding available for this. Conversion of Car Club parking bays to EV charging points in some of these sites was also put forward as something to be explored.

     

    Members were invited to submit suggestions of potential new charging sites to the Project Manager; residents’ requests have also been collected over the past few years.

     

    Parking sensors will be installed to help with monitoring behaviour of users and enforcement.

     

    Resolved

     

    The Joint Committee (Guildford):

     

    (i)            NOTED the overview of the plans and locations of bays to undertake the Electric Vehicle Charging Point trials funded by the Enterprise M3 (EM3) Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and led by Surrey County Council (SCC) in Guildford.

     

    (ii)           AGREED that the project sponsor, in consultation with the parking strategy and implementation team manager, the chairman/vice chairman of this committee and the appropriate county councillor can modify the layout and location of the bays prior to a traffic regulation order (TRO) being advertised.

     

    (iii)          AUTHORISED advertisement of all necessary TROs across the selected sites in the Borough of Guildford, as and when required, in order to allow the bays to be introduced and agree that if no objections are maintained, the orders are made.

     

    (iv)         AGREED that 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 Divisional member, with the addition also of the SCC Transport Strategy Project Manager.

     

     

    Reason for recommendations

     

    The recommendations will enable the progression of the Electric Vehicle Charging Point Trials as per the business case that was approved and funded by the EM3 LEP.

12/20

GUILDFORD COLLEGE LINK+ 20 MPH SPEED LIMIT SCHEME (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION FOR DECISION) pdf icon PDF 599 KB

    It is proposed that the roads in Guildford bounded by the railway line, Stoke Road, Woodbridge Road and York Road are provided with a lower 20mph speed limit.

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    Guildford Joint Committee:

     

    (i)            AGREED a 20 mph speed limit is implemented on Gardner Road, Markenfield Road, Nettles Terrace, Dapdune Road, Park Road, Drummond Road, George Road, Artillery Terrace, Artillery Road, Stoke Fields, Stoke Grove and Church Road to support safer walking and cycling along the “Guildford College Link+” route and throughout the adjoining neighbourhood of residential roads.

     

    (ii)           AGREED in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 an order will be advertised for the 20 mph speed limit, and the Area Highway Manager in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Divisional Member for Guildford Southwest will consider the responses before proceeding.

     

    Reasons for recommendations:

    The proposed lower 20 mph speed limit on Markenfield Road, Nettles Terrace and Dapdune Road will contribute to easier and safer walking, scooting and cycling on the new “Guildford College Link+” route between Guildford rail station and Guildford College. Providing a 20 mph speed limit on these roads and throughout the adjoining neighbourhood of residential roads will ensure consistency of speed limit and will contribute to easier and safer walking throughout the residential area.

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: Mr Matthew Furniss declared a non-pecuniary interest as a resident on one of the roads in question.

     

    Officer attending: Duncan Knox, Surrey County Council, Road Safety and Active Travel Team Manager

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None

     

    Member Discussion – key points:

     

    Members were supportive of the introduction of the lower speed limit in the area described in the report, not just to bolster the College Link plan but to encourage an active travel neighbourhood and support the wider development of the permeability of Guildford town centre. Enforcement of revised speed limits is a key part of their introduction and police support for any changes is always sought.

     

    There was discussion about the consistency of the County Council’s approach to the introduction of 20mph limits; targeted plans are carefully considered and active travel schemes are being developed in a number of places around the county.

     

    Resolved

    The Guildford Joint Committee;

     

    (i)            AGREED a 20 mph speed limit is implemented on Gardner Road, Markenfield Road, Nettles Terrace, Dapdune Road, Park Road, Drummond Road, George Road, Artillery Terrace, Artillery Road, Stoke Fields, Stoke Grove and Church Road to support safer walking and cycling along the “Guildford College Link+” route and throughout the adjoining neighbourhood of residential roads.

     

    (ii)           AGREED in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 an order will be advertised for the 20 mph speed limit, and the Area Highway Manager in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Divisional Member for Guildford Southwest will consider the responses before proceeding

     

    Reason for recommendation

     

    The proposed lower 20 mph speed limit on Markenfield Road, Nettles Terrace and Dapdune Road will contribute to easier and safer walking, scooting and cycling on the new “Guildford College Link+” route between Guildford rail station and Guildford College. Providing a 20 mph speed limit on these roads and throughout the adjoining neighbourhood of residential roads will ensure consistency of speed limit and will contribute to easier and safer walking throughout the residential area.

13/20

BISHOPSMEAD PARADE ONE WAY SYSTEM (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION FOR DECISION) pdf icon PDF 3 MB

    • Share this item

    Seeking agreement on the introduction of a one way system on the north side of Bishopsmead Parade, East Horsley.

     

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    Guildford Joint Committee:

     

    (i)            AGREED the introduction of a one-way system on the north section of Bishopsmead Parade, East Horsley, in a southerly direction.

     

    (ii)           AGREED to promote a traffic regulation order for the introduction of a one-way system on the north section of Bishopsmead Parade, as shown on the plan below.

     

    Reasons for recommendations:

    Currently, drivers can access Bishopsmead Parade from the three existing entries and exits. Due to the slight bend in Ockham Road South and boundary vegetation, visibility is poor for motorists exiting Bishopsmead Parade at the north section. This creates a hazard for motorists at this location and may result in future incidents.

     

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Frank Apicella, Surrey County Council, Area Highways Manager

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None

     

    Member Discussion – key points:

     

    The Divisional Member for the Horsleys welcomed the proposal, highlighting the support from the local Parish Council that was enabling its implementation.

     

     

    Resolved

     

    The Guildford Joint Committee;

     

    (i)            AGREED the introduction of a one-way system on the north section of Bishopsmead Parade, East Horsley, in a southerly direction.

     

    (ii)           AGREED to promote a traffic regulation order for the introduction of a one-way system on the north section of Bishopsmead Parade, as shown on the plan below.

     

     

    Reason for recommendation

     

    Drivers can access Bishopsmead Parade from the three existing entries and exits. Due to the slight bend in Ockham Road South and boundary vegetation, visibility is poor for motorists exiting Bishopsmead Parade at the north section. This creates a hazard for motorists at this location and may result in future incidents.

14/20

REPRESENTATION ON WORKING GROUPS AND EXTERNAL BODIES (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION FOR DECISION) pdf icon PDF 124 KB

    • Share this item

    This report seeks the approval of Joint Committee working group members and the appointment of representatives to external bodies.

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    The Joint Committee (Guildford)

     

    (i)            AGREED the membership of the working groups and appointments to outside bodies, as detailed at paragraphs 2.1 to 2.8.

     

    Reason for recommendation:

    Good governance practice requires that the Committee reviews membership arrangements regularly to ensure that representation on the committee, task groups and partnerships is fair and provides the best outcomes for the interests of Guildford borough residents.

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officer attending: Gregory Yeoman, Partnership Community Officer, Surrey County Council

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None.

     

    The following nominations were made:

     

    Infrastructure Delivery and Transportation Working Group

    County: Cllr Matt Furniss, Cllr David Goodwin, Cllr Julie Iles, Cllr Keith Taylor.
    Borough: Cllr Joss Bigmore, Cllr George Potter, Cllr John Rigg, Cllr Paul Spooner.

     

    Parking and Air Quality Working Group

    County: Cllr Matt Furniss, Cllr David Goodwin, Cllr Keith Taylor, Cllr Keith Witham.
    Borough: Cllr Bob McShee, Cllr Susan Parker, Cllr John Rigg, Cllr Caroline Reeves.

     

    Safer Guildford Partnership: Cllr Furniss

    Guildford Health and Wellbeing Board: Cllr Fiona White.

     

    Resolved:

     

    The Joint Committee (Guildford)

     

    (i)            AGREED the membership of the working groups and appointments to outside bodies, as detailed at paragraphs 2.1 to 2.8.

     

    Reason for recommendation:

    Good governance practice requires that the Committee reviews membership arrangements regularly to ensure that representation on the committee, task groups and partnerships is fair and provides the best outcomes for the interests of Guildford borough residents.

15/20

DECISION TRACKER [FOR DECISION) pdf icon PDF 105 KB

    • Share this item

    This report updates the committee on the progress of decisions that have been made at previous meetings. The Committee is asked to agree that the items marked as complete are removed from the tracker.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The recommendations in the decision tracker were agreed as described.

16/20

FORWARD PLAN (FOR INFORMATION) pdf icon PDF 71 KB

    • Share this item

    The forward programme of reports for 2020/21.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The Chairman invited members to submit their suggestions for future agenda items to the Partnership Community Officer (PCO). The PCO stated that the next Parking Review would be added to the Forward Plan for the next meeting, and discussion of a possible car-free day would be included on the list of items for informal meetings.

17/20

DATE OF NEXT MEETING

    • Share this item

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The next formal meeting will take place on Wednesday 18th November 2020 at a time to be confirmed.