Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Mole Valley Local Committee
Wednesday, 13 March 2019 2.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Pippbrook, Reigate Road, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 1SJ

Contact: Jess Edmundson, Partnership Committee Officer  Pippbrook, Reigate Road, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 1SJ

Link: View the webcast

Items
No. Item

OPEN FORUM SESSION pdf icon PDF 62 KB

The questions and responses from the open forum session are included as an annex to these minutes.

48/19

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

    To receive any apologies for absence and notices of substitutions from District members under Standing Order 39.

    Minutes:

    Apologies were received from Mr Cooksey, Mrs Clack, Cllr Michael who was substituted by Cllr Yarwood and Cllr Hawksworth who was substituted by Cllr Reilly.

49/19

MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING pdf icon PDF 148 KB

50/19

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:

    Cllr Kennedy declared that he had signed the petition regarding parking in Bookham that was up for discussion at today’s meeting.

51/19a

PUBLIC QUESTIONS pdf icon PDF 115 KB

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

    Minutes:

     

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager, SCC

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: The questions and officer responses were published in the supplementary agenda. Each questioner was invited to ask one supplementary question on the topic of their original question. Questions were taken in the order in which they were received.

     

    1.    Mr Jerry Maxwell-Timmins attended and put forward the following comment. He acknowledged the response he had received from officers but added to his point that the entrance to Ashcombe School, accessed from Mowbray Gardens had no indication it was a school entrance and drivers along the A24 had no signage to indicate there was a school entrance near where they were driving.

     

    Key points from the discussion:

     

    ·         The Area Highway Manager (AHM) responded by saying as the entrance was not a full formal entrance, only a back entrance that full signage wasn’t appropriate but she would look at the possibility to include signage in an appropriate place so as to not distract drivers travelling along the A24.

    ·         Members questioned whether the Governors of Ashcombe School had looked at this at all. Mrs Watson, as a Governor of the school confirmed this had not been raised previously but would look in to what could be done.

     

    ·         Members suggested a joined up approach with the school and Surrey County Council (SCC) was required to progress matters.

     

    2.    No representative from Bookhams’ Residents Association (BRA) attended the meeting. Members however had a brief discussion on the points raised in the question.

     

     Key points from the discussion:

     

    ·         The questions and concerns raised by BRA were not dissimilar to those of any other village in Mole Valley with regards to the local plan. The question put forward highlighted the concerns and priorities that BRA had for MVDC and SCC to take in to account when MVDC finalised their local plan.

     

    3.    Cllr Irvine was unable to attend the meeting but the AHM did show the committee an image of the proposed signage to be included on the underpass by the Burford Bridge. The signage was for dual pedestrian and cyclist use. It was requested that additional signage could be included to remind cyclists to dismount as the underpass was shared with pedestrians.

     

    4.    Ms Caroline Salmon was unable to attend the meeting and did not submit a supplementary question.

     

    5.    Mrs Nancy Goodacre attended the meeting and asked the following supplementary question in relation to her second question. She asked what the expected timing was for repairing the road as there was little clarity on this. She asked also for confirmation on the prioritisation of the scoring. The AHM confirmed that the scheme was on a list to be completed but this wouldn’t be in 2019/20 and would be some time after 2020/21. Priorities were ranked across the county and across the district. The closer to one a score was the higher the priority of that scheme.

     

    6.    Cllr Daly attended and asked the following supplementary questions for each  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51/19a

51/19b

MEMBER QUESTIONS pdf icon PDF 73 KB

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

    Minutes:

     

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager, SCC

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: The questions and officer responses were published in the supplementary agenda. Each questioner was invited to ask one supplementary question on the topic of their original question. Questions were taken in the order in which they were received.

     

    1.    Mr Tim Hall raised the following points in relation to the two questions he submitted.

     

    a)    He stated that the barrier on the Kingston Road bridge was coming away from the bridge and appeared to be very unsafe. He asked whether it would be possible for this to be looked at. The AHM confirmed that the bridge inspectors would take a look.

    b)    Mr Hall noted he had taken this up with the Cabinet Member for Highways as didn’t feel that a drainage asset cleaning rate of 72% since April 2018 was a good statistic.

     

    2.    Mrs Hazel Watson thanked officers for the response and had no supplementary question. 

     

    3.    Cllr Kennedy noted that the NHS statistic was shocking and anything that could be done would be greatly appreciated.

     

    The following member questions were asked, although not submitted in advance. The Chairman reminded members that questions should be submitted in writing in advance and not raised informally in such a way.

     

    4.    Mr Chris Townsend and Cllr Dickson asked for information on the progress of a previously asked question about flooding. The AHM confirmed that this had been passed to the Capital Drainage Team and any data received would be passed on when available.

     

    5.    Cllr Huggins raised the following question in relation to grass cutting on behalf of Mrs Clack. She stated there had been complaints about the litter along the A24 and with grass cutting due to take place in June queried whether there would be coordination between MVDC and SCC to ensure litter picking occurred before the grass cutting. The AHM confirmed that coordination took place to carry out the litter picking before the grass cutting and alongside the drainage and sign cleaning.

     

52/19

PETITIONS pdf icon PDF 57 KB

    To receive any petitions in accordance with Standing Order 65 or letters of representation in accordance with the Local Protocol. An officer response will be provided to each petition / letter of representation.

     

    One petition was received before the deadline.

     

    a)    Petition to address the issue of cars parking along Church Road opposite the entrance to Bookham Station.

     

    The full wording of the petition along with the officer response will be published within the supplementary agenda.

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: Cllr Kennedy declared he had signed the petition.

     

    Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager, SCC

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: The petition and officer response was published in the supplementary agenda. The lead petitioner, Mr Ryan Pannell was unable to attend the meeting.

     

    Key points from the discussion:

     

    ·         The divisional member noted that the problem with parking on Church Road was both during the day and at night. She added she had been in conversations with the Residents’ Association to ensure the request was submitted for consideration in the next Parking Review.

     

    Resolution:

     

    The Local Committee noted the officer’s comment.

     

     

53/19

A24 MICKLEHAM BYPASS AVERAGE SPEED CAMERA SCHEME EVALUATION [SERVICE MONITORING AND ISSUES OF LOCAL CONCERN] pdf icon PDF 97 KB

    This report provides an evaluation of the effectiveness in reducing speeds and casualties of the average speed camera scheme implemented in Summer 2018 on the A24 Mickleham Bypass.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Duncan Knox, Road Safety & Active Travel Team Manager, SCC

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: The Road Safety & Active Travel Team Manager introduced the report noting that the results following the implementation of the average speed cameras was positive so far, although the period of results was too short for robust statistical analysis. He added that speed assessments had also been undertaken on the main road through Mickleham village to check for negative effects on the alternative route. So far this had shown no negative effects. It was noted that there has been good compliance with the speed limit, adding that approximately 70 offences a month had been recorded.

     

    Key points from the discussion:

     

    ·         The members praised the successes of the scheme, noting it was good for improved road safety. Thanks went to officers and the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) for pursuing and funding the scheme.

    ·         It was questioned whether the scheme could be extended on the A24, south of Dorking towards Beare Green, as this was an area of concern for speeding and had a high accident rate. It was confirmed that there were other sites being looked at around the county for such schemes and officers were working with the Police to identify those sites most in need.

     

    ·         The Chairman noted that if the A24 south of Dorking was to be considered as a suitable road for average speed cameras, it would be well supported by the members of the local committee.

     

    Resolution:

     

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) noted:

          i.        The average speed camera system had improved compliance with the speed limit on the A24 Mickleham Bypass over a longer length of road.

         ii.        It was too early to draw any strong conclusions over the effect on collisions, but the emerging results were encouraging.

        iii.        There had not been any increase in speeds or traffic on the parallel Old London Road in Mickleham.

     

     

54/19

HIGHWAYS SCHEMES 2018/19 - END OF YEAR UPDATE [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR DECISION] pdf icon PDF 110 KB

    To inform the Local Committee on the outcome of the 2018/19 Integrated Transport Scheme (ITS) and highway maintenance programmes in Mole Valley and the amendments to the 2019/20 Local Committee capital budget.

     

    This report also seeks agreement on funding priorities for the local committee’s capital maintenance allocation.

     

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed:

          i.        To note the contents of this report.

         ii.        To note the decreased capital budget for 2019/20; and

        iii.        That the capital maintenance budget for 2019/20 is used to fund either local footway works or to match fund schemes on the existing centrally delivered wetspots programme improvements schemes as agreed by the Maintenance Engineer in consultation with each divisional member.

       iv.        That the capital improvement schemes allocation for Mole Valley be used to progress the Integrated Transport Schemes programme set out in Annex 3;

     

    Reason for decisions:

     

    The above decisions were made to update the Local Committee on the outcome of the 2018/19 highway works programme in Mole Valley, and amendments to the 2019/20 Local Committee capital budget.

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager, SCC

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: The AHM introduced the report noting there had been a large amount of work completed on the network. She drew members attention to the decreased Capital budget the local committee had following the redistribution of funds based on member numbers in each district/borough.

     

    Key points from the discussion:

     

    ·         The AHM put forward an amendment to recommendation iii) in order to widen the scope of what members could use the capital maintenance budget to fund.

     

    ·         Members welcomed the amendment, noting it would enable them to not be so limited in how the funds could be spent.

     

    ·         A question was raised over the £7500 Member Highways Fund and why the local committee wasn’t taking a decision on that. It was confirmed that the decision was for each divisional member to make, and then confirm to the AHM their intentions. The decision was not within the local committee’s power to decide.

     

    Resolution:

     

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed:

          i.        To note the contents of this report.

         ii.        To note the decreased capital budget for 2019/20; and

        iii.        That the capital maintenance budget for 2019/20 is used to fund either local footway works or to match fund schemes on the existing centrally delivered wetspots programme improvements schemes as agreed by the Maintenance Engineer in consultation with each divisional member.

       iv.        That the capital improvement schemes allocation for Mole Valley be used to progress the Integrated Transport Schemes programme set out in Annex 3;

     

    Reason for decisions:

     

    The above decisions were made to update the Local Committee on the outcome of the 2018/19 highway works programme in Mole Valley, and amendments to the 2019/20 Local Committee capital budget.

55/19

LOCAL TRANSPORT STRATEGY FORWARD PROGRAMME UPDATE [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR DECISION] pdf icon PDF 95 KB

    Surrey County Council maintains Forward Programmes of proposed transport schemes that would deliver each borough and district’s Local Transport Strategy, subject to funding and feasibility. The Mole Valley Forward Programme is presented to Committee for approval, and approval to publish online, as part of a proposed new regime of publishing an up-to-date Forward Programme for each district and borough annually.

     

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed:

          i.        To note the timeframes and approach for updating the District’s Local Transport Strategy and for future updates to the Committee regarding the Forward Programme.

         ii.        The revised version of the Forward Programme (Annex 1)

    Reason for decisions:

     

    The above decisions were made to:

           i.        Provide a confirmed timeline and process for working with the Local Committee to develop and maintain future Local Transport Strategies and Forward Programmes to ensure the Local Committee and officers are well positioned to work together.

          ii.        Allow Members and officers to progress with a common understanding of proposed transport schemes for the district (based upon the existing Local Transport Strategy, and ahead of decisions relating to a new Local Plan).

         iii.        Allow the Forward Programme to be published online, giving members of the public sight of the latest proposals and progress.

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Stacey Capewell, Transport Strategy Project Manager (Joint Post MVDC/SCC)

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: The Transport Strategy Project Manager introduced the report noting the Forward Programme list in Annex 1 was an aspirational list of schemes. The document was a living document and the full update for the Local Transport Strategy Schemes would be completed in line with the Mole Valley Local Plan.

     

    Key points from the discussion:

     

    ·         Members raised the following points about specific schemes detailed on the list:

                 ·       DW2 – a request was made for signage for the cycle track to be included at the entrance to Thorncroft Drive. Many people didn’t know the cycle track was there and if they did would use it rather than cycling down Dorking Road, holding up traffic. Officers noted they would take this request back to look at.

                 ·       SRN1 – It was commented that this scheme would be expensive and indeed aspirational as finding the funds could be hard.

                 ·       LBC2 -  In light of the recent news regarding the 479 bus route, members questioned whether this was still to be considered. Officers confirmed the report had been written prior to the Buses Excetera liquidation and despite this they were hopeful they could bring a quality bus corridor to Mole Valley.

                 ·       BF3 – It was noted there was no cost estimate for the scheme to create a formal cycling route between Fetcham and Bookham and asked if an approximate figure could be provided for this. Officers stated the figure would be hard to calculate without looking at the specifics of the scheme in question. Rough figures could be provided based on similar schemes elsewhere in the county.

                 ·       ASH3 – The current delivery stage of the scheme was indicated as Scheme Identification when it should be Design. This was noted and would be changed by the Transport Strategy Project Manager before the list was published.

                 ·       DW6 – Queries were raised over whether the promotion of the lift share and car clubs needed to be part of the local plan. Members asked where they should refer residents to if they wished to start their own car club. Officers confirmed information could be found on the SCC website about how to go about doing this.

                 ·       AR9 – It was requested that the cycling route from Ockley village up to the station be extended down to Capel as many people from Capel travelled up to Ockley station. The extension would create a safer route for them too.

     

    The Transport Strategy Project Manager noted all the comments made and confirmed she would make any necessary changes before publishing the updated list.

     

    Resolution:

     

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed:

          i.        To note the timeframes and approach for updating the District’s Local Transport Strategy and for future updates to the Committee regarding the Forward Programme.

         ii.        The revised version of the Forward Programme (Annex 1)

    Reason for decisions:

     

    The above decisions were made to:

           i.        Provide a confirmed timeline and process for working with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55/19

56/19

DECISION TRACKER [FOR INFORMATION] pdf icon PDF 72 KB

    The tracker monitors the progress of the decisions and recommendations that the  local Committee has agreed.

     

    The Local Committee is asked to note the progress made and agree to remove from the tracker any items marked ‘complete’.

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Jess Edmundson, Partnership Committee Officer, SCC

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: none

     

    Key points from the discussion:

     

    ·         Members raised questions about the length of time that some items had been on the decision tracker; querying whether items had actually taken so long to complete. With regards to on street parking implementation, it was noted that delays had occurred due to obstructions in the road when lines were being marked and therefore officers had to return at a later date to fill in the gaps.

    ·         With regards to Pippbrook Mill Path it was requested that the detailed timescales be provided for the completion of the action.

     

    Resolution:

     

    The local committee noted the decision tracker. 

     

     

57/19

FORWARD PLAN [FOR INFORMATION] pdf icon PDF 49 KB

    The Local Committee (Mole Valley) will note the contents of the forward plan.

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Jess Edmundson, Partnership Committee Officer, SCC

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: none

     

    Resolution:

     

    The local committee noted the forward plan of items expected to be received at future meetings.