Agenda and minutes

Call-in: Meeting on London Road Guildford Active Travel Scheme, Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee - Tuesday, 19 November 2024 2.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Woodhatch Place, 11 Cockshot Hill, Woodhatch, Reigate RH2 8EF

Contact: Dilip Agarwal, Scrutiny Officer 

Note: London Road Guildford Active Travel Scheme - Independent Technical Assessment Of Section 1 - Call In Meeting by Committee 

Media

Items
No. Item

43/24

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

    To report any apologies for absence and substitutions.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Apologies were received from Cllr Luke Bennett (substitute Cllr Jeremy Webster), Cllr Jan Mason (substitute Cllr Steven McCormick), Cllr Cameron McIntosh (substitute Cllr John O’Reilly), Cllr Lance Spencer (substitute Paul Follows), Cllr Mark Sugden (substitute by Trefor Hogg), and Cllr Liz Bowes.

44/24

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

    All Members present are required to declare, at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter:

     

    1.      Any disclosable pecuniary interests; or

    2.      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:

    Councillor Catherine Baart declared that her son lived very close to London Road, and that he cycles to work, but he does not cycle on Section 1 of the road.

45/24

QUESTIONS

    To receive any questions from Members or the public.

     

    The public retain their right to submit questions for a written response, with such answers recorded in the minutes of the meeting; questioners may participate in meetings to ask a supplementary question.

    Additional documents:

46/24

MEMBERS' QUESTIONS

    • Share this item

    The deadline for Member’s questions is 12pm four working days before the meeting (Wednesday, 13 November 2024).

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    There were no Members’ Questions.

47/24

PUBLIC QUESTIONS pdf icon PDF 149 KB

    • Share this item

    The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (Tuesday, 12 November 2024).

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    There were 11 written questions submitted, in writing, before the Committee meeting. According to the Council’s Standing Orders, only six questions could be addressed during the meeting. The first six questions and their answers were included in the supplementary agenda circulated prior to the meeting.

     

    Five members of the public who submitted questions were present and asked supplementary questions.

     

    1.    Sam Neatrour asked a supplementary question seeking confirmation whether bus passengers will disembark into a pedestrian-only area, ensuring that the bus stop is not shared with cyclists.  Matt Furniss, the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth, said all floating bus stops were removed after consulting with the Surrey Coalition of Disabled People. The scheme was designed so that pedestrians can step into a pedestrian-only zone when getting off the bus, while cyclists would be encouraged to go behind the bus stop so that pedestrians would walk out into a pedestrian-only zone.

     

    2.    Pat Daffarn asked a supplementary question seeking confirmation that Members had reviewed both the officers’ report and the Burford-to-Guildford submission, including the safety improvements detailed in the annex of the Burford-to-Guildford submission. Matt Furniss, the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth, said that the Cabinet had considered both written and verbal evidence. He committed to reviewing the route, revisiting the referenced report, and exploring minor amendments, particularly regarding drain covers and other issues raised.

     

    3.    Terry Newman asked a supplementary question about whether Surrey County Council believes it can adequately justify and defend a decision to overlook its mandated safety and design standards if the scheme proceeds. Matt Furniss, the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth, said that while Surrey’s Healthy Streets framework guides new developments, retrofitting all existing infrastructure to modern standards is unfeasible due to spatial constraints. However, incremental betterment, such as enabling safe walking and cycling routes, is still valuable and worth pursuing.

     

    4.    Doug Clare asked a supplementary question about whether the Cabinet considered that 94% of the proposed scheme would be significantly safer when making their decision. Matt Furniss, the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth, said that all evidence was presented in the report. He expressed greater concern about cycling on pavements, citing a recent coroner’s case. The Cabinet Member concluded that the decision is political, with Cabinet Members making their judgments based on the evidence presented.

     

    5.    Oliver Greaves asked a supplementary question about whether all relevant safety concerns have been adequately presented and if those involved have been fully informed of these concerns. The Chairman confirmed that they had been.

48/24

CALL-IN: LONDON ROAD GUILDFORD ACTIVE TRAVEL SCHEME - INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT OF SECTION 1 FOR CONSIDERATION TO PROCEED pdf icon PDF 107 KB

    The Select Committee has called in the decision relating to the London Road Guildford Active Travel Scheme.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

     

    ·         Cllr Matt Furniss – Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth

    ·         Cllr Denise Turner Stewart – Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Customer and Communities

    ·         Cllr David Lewis – Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources

    ·         Owen Jenkins – Interim Executive Director Highways, Infrastructure and Planning

    ·         Lucy Monie – Director, Highways and Transport

    ·         Roger Williams – Active Travel Programme Manager

     

    Key points raised during the discussion:

     

    1. A Member said that the Cabinet’s decision to refuse the scheme should be reconsidered. He argued there was not enough evidence to support the refusal and that it did not address safety improvements, secondary effects, or policy and funding impacts. He also stressed the need for decisions based on evidence. The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth said that Active Travel England (ATE) confirmed funds could be reallocated without loss. The project remains a scheme available for future Council implementation. The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Customer and Communities said that the evidence suggested that introducing a potential risk in a scheme meant to improve safety would not be considered a safety improvement. She stated that the Council's role is to consider safety and risk and the decision made was due to safety concerns that could not be overlooked. The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources clarified that the decision was based on a technical report from ARUP, not on a non-technical opinion, and emphasised that his concerns were about the evidence provided, not the principle of shared spaces.

     

    1. A Member asked whether the Cabinet Members agree that, overall, the benefits to pedestrians and cyclists outweigh the 5% of the area where the scheme is not perfect. The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth said that he does agree that any improvement is better than none, but concerns were raised that prohibiting shared space due to safety issues could hinder walking and cycling projects, considering many areas lack the space—particularly the width of 1.8 metres—to make improvements. It was suggested that a review of Local Transport Plan (LTP4) might be necessary, depending on the decision. The Deputy Leader said that the report notes that 25% of shared paths in Surrey are 1.8 metres wide, without factoring in the reduced road lane width, presenting complex concerns for not only the narrow path but also the risk of vehicle wing mirrors encroaching on the path, weather, and other factors.

     

    1. A Member asked what was the alternative if the scheme did not proceed and how would existing safety concerns for pedestrians, cyclists, and local school children be addressed. The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth said that there were three sections to be upgraded, safety defects were to be reviewed, and further improvements were to be considered.

     

    1. A Member asked the officers to comment and confirm that, given all the considerations, they regarded the scheme as being as safe as possible and that the ARUP report reflected the same conclusion. The Interim Executive Director Highways, Infrastructure and Planning said  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48/24

49/24

DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING

    To note the next public meeting of the Committee will be held on Thursday, 5 December 2024.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The Committee NOTED its next meeting would be held on 3 December 2024.