Venue: Council Chamber, Pippbrook, Reigate Road, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 1SJ
Contact: Jess Edmundson, Partnership Committee Officer Pippbrook, Reigate Road, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 1SJ
No. | Item |
---|---|
The questions and responses from the Open Forum session are attached as Annex A to these minutes. |
|
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 Cllr Haque and Cllr Malcomson. Cllr Kennedy and Cllr Salmon attended as substitutes. |
|
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING PDF 95 KB
To approve the Minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record. Minutes: The minutes from the meeting held on 4 September 2019 were agreed as a true record and signed by the Chairman. |
|
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: Mr Stephen Cooksey declared two non-pecuniary interests.
1.
In relation to Item 5a, Mr Cooksey declared he lived in close
proximity to this location. 2. In relation to Item 6, Mr Cooksey declared he chaired the Cabinet Meeting of Mole Valley District Council that had approved the recommendations to go forward to the Local Committee.
|
|
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 Highways Manager (AHM), SCC and Steve Clavey, Senior Parking Engineer (SPE), SCC
13 questions were received from members of the public and were taken in the order in which they were received.
Question 1 was submitted by John Moyer. He did not attend nor ask a supplementary question.
Question 2 was submitted by Cllr James Friend. He did not attend but submitted the below supplementary question to the Chairman.
Given the speeds surveyed are quoted as a mean average speed of 36 mph and 85th percentile speed of 41 mph at Surrey Hills School and as a mean average speed of 30 mph and 85th percentile speeds of 34 mph at the Village Green Bus Stop, I am grateful that County council officers are meeting with police colleagues on 29 January 2020 to discuss the speed management plan, and that they will request an update and consideration of potential options for speed management and enforcement. Following the meeting, please can I and the Westcott Village Association be involved in identifying and agreeing those potential options in order to truly incorporate the reality of the local situation?
The AHM confirmed there was a meeting of the Road Safety Working Group on 6 February for which a local input would be greatly appreciated. She noted that although they might not be able to incorporate the suggestions with the Police priorities at least the local priorities would be heard and put forward.
Question 3 was submitted by Ron Billard who attended and asked the following supplementary question:
Thank you for the response. It is largely positive. Previously signage to deter cyclists from cycling on the pavement had been funded by the Local Committee. Is there any funding to fund any more of these. We are talking in the region of £800?
In relation to the sweeping of the multi-use track this is an environmentally friendly option for people travelling and should be considered a quick win.
Has this improvement scheme been added to the forward programme to be done in the future? If yes then the Cycling Forum would like to be consulted on the formation of any scheme. CIL funding from the nearby Kuoni site is very much welcomed.
The AHM responded. She started by stating there was no longer a small revenue funding stream for signs but the Local Committee had a small budget for funding safety schemes.
As for the cycle facility, this was an expensive scheme; costing several hundred thousand pounds and as such would be included on the Local Transport Strategy (LTS) list if the Local Committee agreed the forward programme (as detailed in item 9). It was suggested also that Mr Billard may wish to make comment on the Mole Valley Local Plan that was to shortly be out for consultation.
Question 4 was submitted by Eric Palmer. He attended and ... view the full minutes text for item 33/19a |
|
To receive any written questions from Members under Standing Order 47. Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager (AHM), SCC and Steve Clavey, Senior Parking Engineer (SPE), SCC
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: The questions and officer responses were provided within the supplementary agenda.
10 questions were received from members of the local committee and were taken in the order in which they were received.
Question 1 was received from Mrs Hazel Watson, who had no supplementary question to ask.
Questions 2 and 3 were received from Cllr Claire Malcomson, who was not in attendance and had no supplementary questions to ask.
Question 4 was received from Mrs Hazel Watson, who thanked officers for the response but had no supplementary question to add.
Question 5 was received from Mrs Hazel Watson, who had no supplementary question to add.
Question 6 was received from Mrs Hazel Watson, who made the below statement:
I don’t believe the question has been answered and doesn’t seem too difficult to answer.
The Chairman suggested it would be a good starting point to get a list of all the car parking bays and the number of cars that used them and ask the officer for more clarity on the answer. It was suggested that Dorking High Street would be a good place to start with this.
Question 7 was received from Mr Tim Hall. He had no supplementary question to ask but noted the figures in the answer were for information purposes for the Local Committee.
Question 8 was received from Mr Stephen Cooksey. He commented that he didn’t understand the answer provided and would like a site visit to be arranged with officers to discuss in more detail.
Question 9 was received from Mrs Clare Curran. She thanked officers for the response and asked if the AHM could talk through the process theoretically of how the scheme would come about from initiation to delivery.
The AHM gave the following response:
· The process starts with the feasibility. This would include looking at the topography, plants, electrics in the area. · A traffic order is then required and would need to come back to the Local Committee for permission. · The next stage is the design stage to see what could physically be put in on the ground · Then follows consultation. This would include with the local businesses and residents in area and before the traffic order could be implemented any objections would need to be looked at to see if they could be resolved. · Funding then needs to be available to carry out the work. If there is funding this is then let to the contractor to implement. · Following implementation, safety audits are conducted before the scheme is given the final sign off.
Question 10 was received from Cllr Nancy Goodacre. A full written response would be provided outside the meeting. |
|
PETITIONS
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. Minutes: Two petitions were received before the deadline. The full wording and officer response were provided within the supplementary agenda. |
|
The full wording of the petition and officer response will be provided within the supplementary agenda.
Minutes: Declarations of Interest: Mr Cooksey declared a
non-pecuniary interest that he lived in close proximity to this
location. Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager (AHM), SCC
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: The full wording of the petition and officer response was provided within the supplementary agenda.
Mrs Amelia Rahaman attended the meeting and addressed the committee with her concerns. She detailed that there were a lot of concerns over the dangers of the road and that given the old Kuoni site was shortly to be redeveloped this would only lead to more vehicles on the road. She added that in recent years there had been a perception of increased traffic and faster speeds on the road and something needed to be done before any more accidents occurred.
Key points from the discussion:
·
Members
thanked the petitioners for their petition and for highlighting an
important issue.
·
It was
acknowledged that it appeared as though work was underway and
something was going to happen. Questions were asked about how
quickly any progress would be seen.
·
It was
noted that with the redevelopment the demographic of the area would
change and that action needed to be taken before there were any
more fatalities. · The AHM added that the Road Safety Working Group was due to meet on 6 February and this would be included in the discussion. She added that the reduction in speed to 40 mph did comply with SCC setting speed limits policy.
· It was concluded that hopefully this was all moving at speed and that more conclusive information would be provided shortly.
Resolution:
The Local Committee noted the officer’s comment. |
|
The full wording of the petition and officer response will be provided within the supplementary agenda.
Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None Officers attending: None
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: The full wording of the petition and officer response was provided within the supplementary agenda.
Cllr Caroline Salmon addressed the committee with details of her petition. Noting she started this petition in response to the SCC paper that would be going to Cabinet next week. She added the council had a duty to preserve economic development in towns and villages, improve prosperity and welcome impulse shoppers. Taking away free on-street car parking was not going to help. She concluded that time-limited parking was essential for the churn in a town/village to ensure different shoppers could come and go as they needed to.
She urged the committee to think about how on-street car parking charges would affect the community and requested they did not introduce on-street car parking charges.
Key points from the discussion:
·
Members
noted that in areas where there was free parking or time-limited
parking there was a good churn and this should continue.
·
There was
a strong feeling of support from the Local Committee that they did
not wish to introduce on-street car parking charges in Mole Valley
at this time. · It was noted by members that the petition response did state there were no plans to introduce on-street car parking charges and the committee should therefore move on to other business.
Resolution:
The Local Committee noted the officer’s comment.
|
|
PROPOSALS FOR LEATHERHEAD HIGH STREET [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR DECISION] PDF 85 KB
Surrey Highways received a request from Mole Valley District Council to include the proposed changes to on street parking in Leatherhead High Street within the current parking review. This is in support of the Transform Leatherhead project.
To progress this proposal, which has been approved by Mole Valley District Council, the committee is asked to decide either to approve the formal advertisement of the County Council’s intention to make the changes to on-street parking restrictions or to defer the approval to the next parking review (likely March 2021). It is cost effective to carry out formal advertisement of changes to on-street parking within the advertising for the parking review. Additional documents: Decision: The Mole Valley Local Committee agreed to:
iii) Reject both options 1 & 2 put forward in the report.
Reason for decision
The above decision was made because the Local Committee felt neither option was a solution or was what the residents wanted. Neither option would achieve what Transform Leatherhead was trying to. Minutes: Declarations of Interest: Mr Cooksey declared a non-pecuniary interest that he chaired the Cabinet Meeting of Mole Valley District Council that had approved the recommendations to go forward to the Local Committee.
Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager (AHM), SCC
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None
The AHM introduced the report; highlighting that the Local Committee were being asked to support Mole Valley District Council (MVDC) to advertise the Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO) as detailed in the report. The scheme had already been approved by MVDC’s Cabinet and they believed it was what was needed to support the Transform Leatherhead (TL) Project. She added that work was already underway to declutter and improve the signage around the town centre.
The MVDC Cabinet member for Projects put forward the below points to support the proposal.
·
The TL
proposals had come about from the petition put forward to the Local
Committee by the Leatherhead Residents’ Association (LRA) and
what was practical to do.
·
To remove
the parking on the high street would improve the safety, create
better access for businesses, allow businesses to extend their
table and chair licences and improve access for people with
mobility issues.
·
There were
plans also to introduce more markets and introduce parklets to make it overall more
welcoming.
·
MVDC had
focussed on better promoting free car parking times and increasing
the number of free 30 minute bays. · She gave examples of other towns that had undergone similar transformations; Coventry, Loughborough and Shoreditch; noting that many other towns had also experienced the same decline in the high street as Leatherhead, and it was therefore essential to create a town centre experience to encourage people to come.
Key points from the discussion:
·
Members
showed their concern over the risk of removing the car parking from
the high street. They felt the parking was essential to keep the
evening trade alive. They noted it was dangerous to try and revive
the day time economy at the expense of the evening
economy.
·
It was
felt that more needed to be done by TL in terms of improved leisure
outlets and activities before a drastic change like this could be
implemented.
·
It was
noted that the decision would be a difficult one for the committee
to make as there were good arguments on both sides and there was no
easy solution.
·
The point
was made that Leatherhead High Street was not alone in being dead
between 2.30-6pm. This was common of the time, with trends changing
and people favouring online shopping
instead.
·
Support
was shown for what TL was hoping to achieve but several members
commented that they didn’t feel the time was right and in the
past many other schemes to improve Leatherhead had not worked.
There was belief this would be no different.
·
There was
lots of new developments in Leatherhead. Many of which did not have
adequate parking as it was. Removing another place to park would
only lead to further parking issues in the town centre. |
|
MOLE VALLEY ANNUAL PARKING REVIEW [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR DECISION] PDF 80 KB
To consider the outcome of a review of requests that have been received for either the introduction of new parking restrictions or changes to existing restrictions at various sites in Mole Valley. Requests were received from both local councillors and the public alike
Since the introduction of Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) in May 2005, new parking / waiting restrictions in Mole Valley have been introduced in several stages.
This report details locations and general proposals for the latest parking / waiting restriction review, to be progressed in 2020, and seeks approval to carry out statutory advertising of the proposals.
Additional documents: Decision: The Mole Valley Local Committee agreed:
i)
That the
county council’s intention to introduce the proposals in
Annex 1 with a few minor additions is formally
advertised, and subject to statutory consultation; ii)
That if no
objections are received when the proposals are advertised, the
appropriate traffic regulation orders are made; iii) That if objections are received which cannot be resolved, in accordance with the county council’s scheme of delegation, the Parking Strategy and Implementation Team Manager considers 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.
Reason for decisions:
The above decisions were made as it is expected that the implementation of the proposals will both increase the safe passage of vehicles and also ease the parking situation within mainly residential areas. Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Steve Clavey, Senior Parking Engineer (SPE), SCC
Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None
The SPE introduced the report, adding there was one omission he wanted to add. This was for another allocation of permits from 53 Church Street to Dorking Road, Leatherhead.
Key points from the discussion:
·
The
divisional member asked the SPE if it was possible to include one
other scheme in the review. It was to include some double yellow
lines (DYL) in Charlwood at the junction of Chalmers Close and
Ifield Road which was needed urgently due to the new pavilion. She
added that the Parish Council had funds to pay for this
lining. · Members noted that the Mole Valley Local Plan would need to address parking issues in close proximity to stations as restrictions implemented nearer stations was forcing displacement parking in to other roads. This was a common problem around the district and needed to be addressed.
Resolution:
The Mole Valley Local Committee agreed:
i)
That the
county council’s intention to introduce the proposals in
Annex 1 with a few minor additionsis formally advertised, and
subject to statutory consultation;
ii)
That if no
objections are received when the proposals are advertised, the
appropriate traffic regulation orders are made; iii) That if objections are received which cannot be resolved, in accordance with the county council’s scheme of delegation, the Parking Strategy and Implementation Team Manager considers 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.
Reason for decisions:
The above decisions were made as it is expected that the implementation of the proposals will both increase the safe passage of vehicles and also ease the parking situation within mainly residential areas. |
|
HIGHWAYS UPDATE REPORT [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR INFORMATION] PDF 97 KB
To inform the Local Committee on the progress of the 2019/20 Integrated Transport Programme, the capital maintenance programme, the Members Highway Fund, Transform Leatherhead, centrally funded highways maintenance programmes, and Road Safety schemes.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area
Highway Manager (AHM), SCC Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None
Key points from the discussion:
· A question was asked about the Members Highways Fund and when some pedestrian road signs were to be installed on Mill Lane. The AHM confirmed she didn’t have the information to hand but would get the answer and report back.
Resolution:
The Local Committee noted the contents of the report.
|
|
HIGHWAYS SCHEMES FORWARD PROGRAMME 2020-21 AND 2021-22 [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR DECISION] PDF 81 KB
This report seeks approval of a programme of highway works for Mole Valley funded from the Local Committee’s delegated capital and revenue budgets.
Additional documents: Decision: The Mole Valley Local Committee agreed to:
General
i)
Note that
the Local Committee’s devolved highways budget for capital
works in 2020/21, subject to approval by full Council,
£240,400.
ii)
Agree that
the devolved capital budget for highway works be used to progress
both capital improvement schemes and capital maintenance
schemes. iii) Note that should there be any changes to the programme of highway works as set out in this report, a report will be taken to a future meeting of Mole Valley Local Committee to inform members of the changes.
Capital Improvement Schemes (ITS)
iv)
Agree that
the capital improvement schemes allocation for Mole Valley be used
to progress the Integrated Transport Schemes programme set out in
Annex 1;
v)
Authorise
that the Area Highway Manager, in consultation with the Local
Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman, be able to vire money between the schemes agreed in Annex 1,
if required; vi) Agree that the Local Committee Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Area Team Manager, together with the local divisional Member are able to progress any scheme from the Integrated Transport Schemes programme, including consultation and statutory advertisement that may be required under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, for completion of those schemes. Where it is agreed that a scheme will not be progressed, this will be reported back to the next formal meeting of the Local Committee for approval.
Capital Maintenance Schemes (LSR)
vii)
Agree that
the capital maintenance schemes allocation for Mole Valley be
divided equitably between County Councillors to carry out capital
maintenance works in their divisions, and that the schemes to be
progressed be identified by divisional members in consultation with
the Area Maintenance Engineer. Revenue Maintenance – Member Local Highways Fund
viii)
Note that
members will continue to receive a Member Local Highways Fund
allocation of £7,500 per county member to address highway
issues in their division; and ix) Agree that the Member Local Highways Fund be managed by the Area Maintenance Engineer on behalf of and in consultation with members.
Reason for decisions:
The above decision were made in order to agree a forward programme of highways works in Mole Valley for 2020/21 – 2021/22, funded from the Local Committee’s devolved budget. Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area
Highway Manager (AHM), SCC Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None
Resolution:
The Mole Valley Local Committee agreed to:
General
i)
Note that
the Local Committee’s devolved highways budget for capital
works in 2020/21, subject to approval by full Council,
£240,400.
ii)
Agree that
the devolved capital budget for highway works be used to progress
both capital improvement schemes and capital maintenance
schemes. iii) Note that should there be any changes to the programme of highway works as set out in this report, a report will be taken to a future meeting of Mole Valley Local Committee to inform members of the changes.
Capital Improvement Schemes (ITS)
iv)
Agree that
the capital improvement schemes allocation for Mole Valley be used
to progress the Integrated Transport Schemes programme set out in
Annex 1;
v)
Authorise
that the Area Highway Manager, in consultation with the Local
Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman, be able to vire money between the schemes agreed in Annex 1,
if required; vi) Agree that the Local Committee Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Area Team Manager, together with the local divisional Member are able to progress any scheme from the Integrated Transport Schemes programme, including consultation and statutory advertisement that may be required under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, for completion of those schemes. Where it is agreed that a scheme will not be progressed, this will be reported back to the next formal meeting of the Local Committee for approval.
Capital Maintenance Schemes (LSR)
vii)
Agree that
the capital maintenance schemes allocation for Mole Valley be
divided equitably between County Councillors to carry out capital
maintenance works in their divisions, and that the schemes to be
progressed be identified by divisional members in consultation with
the Area Maintenance Engineer. Revenue Maintenance – Member Local Highways Fund
viii)
Note that
members will continue to receive a Member Local Highways Fund
allocation of £7,500 per county member to address highway
issues in their division; and ix) Agree that the Member Local Highways Fund be managed by the Area Maintenance Engineer on behalf of and in consultation with members.
Reason for decisions:
The above decision were made in order to agree a forward programme of highways works in Mole Valley for 2020/21 – 2021/22, funded from the Local Committee’s devolved budget. |
|
RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER [FOR INFORMATION] PDF 72 KB
The tracker monitors the progess of decsiions 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
The local committee noted the decision tracker. |
|
FORWARD PLAN [FOR INFORMATION] 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
The local committee noted the forward plan of items expected to be received. |