Agenda, decisions and minutes

Mole Valley Local Committee
Wednesday, 22 January 2020 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

Items
No. Item

OPEN FORUM pdf icon PDF 46 KB

The questions and responses from the Open Forum session are attached as Annex A to these minutes.

30/19

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

31/19

MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING pdf icon PDF 95 KB

32/19

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:

    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.  

      

33/19a

PUBLIC QUESTIONS pdf icon PDF 144 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 Highways Manager (AHM), SCC and Steve Clavey, Senior Parking Engineer (SPE), SCC


    Petitions, Public Statements, Questions:
    The questions and officer responses were provided within the supplementary agenda.

     

    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

33/19b

MEMBER QUESTIONS pdf icon PDF 154 KB

    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.

34/19

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.

35/19

PETITION TO: REDUCE THE SPEED LIMIT ON THE A24 SOUTH, UP THE HILL FROM THE COCKEREL ROUNDABOUT UNTIL PAST THE OLD KUONI SITE, FROM THE CURRENT 50MPH TO A SAFER LOWER SPEED REFLECTING THE RESIDENTIAL AREA pdf icon PDF 66 KB

    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.

36/19

PETITION TO: WITHDRAW THE IDEA PUT FORWARD IN THE RECENT PARKING STRATEGY UPDATE PAPER THAT THE COUNCIL SHOULD SUPPORT THE INTRODUCTION OF ON-STREET PARKING CHARGES pdf icon PDF 64 KB

    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.



37/19

PROPOSALS FOR LEATHERHEAD HIGH STREET [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR DECISION] pdf icon 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.

    ·         The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37/19

38/19

MOLE VALLEY ANNUAL PARKING REVIEW [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR DECISION] pdf icon 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.

39/19

HIGHWAYS UPDATE REPORT [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR INFORMATION] pdf icon PDF 97 KB

40/19

HIGHWAYS SCHEMES FORWARD PROGRAMME 2020-21 AND 2021-22 [EXECUTIVE FUNCTION - FOR DECISION] pdf icon 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.

41/19

RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER [FOR INFORMATION] pdf icon 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.

42/19

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

     

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