Agenda item

To answer any questions from residents or businesses within the Mole Valley District area in accordance with Standing Order 69. Notice should be given in writing or by email to the Community Partnership and Committee Officer by 12 noon four working days before the meeting.

No declarations of interest received.

Officers present:

Anita Guy (AG), Principal Engineer

Zena Curry (ZC), Area Highway Manager

Peter Shimadry (PS), Engineer

All written questions and responses can be found in the attached tabled papers under item 4a.

Mr Jim Howley was not present but received written responses to his questions in advance of the meeting.

                             ................................................................

Mr Mike Giles (on behalf of Westhumble Residents’ Association) received a written response in advance of the meeting and asked the following supplementary (text supplied by email)

“In view of the assurances recently given that the monitoring of the bridge condition suggests no imminent danger of a reduced weight limit and width restriction, and since Network Rail and WRA alike can have little or no confidence in the ability of Surrey Police or Trading Standards to enforce the restriction in the face of reduced manpower and the unpredictable timing of infringements, making coincidence of transgressors and enforcers unlikely in the extreme, is there any prospect of the police acting on information from residents, without the stipulation of unattainable photographic evidence? Such evidence requires a timed photograph, giving clear sight of the transgressing vehicle on the bridge, with the weight limit sign included in the same shot.”

The Chairman advised that he would take up the matter of the timed photo evidence with the police.

                                     ........................................................

Mr Roger Troughton (on behalf of Mole Valley Cycling Forum) was not present but had received a written response to his question in advance of the meeting. AG advised that she had received a further update from the contractor and that the lines had been overlooked; she will be following this up to ensure the work is done.

Mr Ron Billard (MVCF) asked a supplementary and wanted to know whether the policy on ‘rights of way’ could be looked at again as cyclists are using the A24 rather than the cycle paths as these are not continuous. AG noted the comments but stressed that at the moment the contractor was only replacing like for like.

                                     ..............................................................

Mr Bob Bull (on behalf of Sustrans) raised the following as an informal question (text provided by email):

Route 22 of the National Cycle Network runs through Dorking to Westcott. The section between the A25 and Westcott village is virtually traffic free. Much of it constructed in recent times. This section is for all non motorised users and proven very successful in its ok - usage.

We have two outstanding issues that have been presented to Surrey County Council on a number of occasions with no remedy so far.

1) From the A25 down Milton Court Lane the route becomes unmetalled. Our

understanding is that the legal position of the eastern half of this track is that of an unmetalled road, so it is the responsibility of Surrey Highways. Nevertheless, as part of the Dorking Westcott route, the Countryside Access budget funded the surfacing of the whole length with Fittleworth sandstone. Two years ago, statutory undertakers dug a trench at the start of the unmetalled section that has never been reinstated satisfactorily.

Cyclists, including NT workers, have complained that the surface is dangerous, particularly in poor light as there is no distinct difference in the appearance of the original and reinstated trench. However, there is a big difference in the quality of the surface that could easily result in a cyclist losing control or a pedestrian falling or twisting their ankle. On behalf of Sustrans and the National Cycle Network this section is now classed as dangerous to users and Sustrans have been advised accordingly.

2) The new build Westcott link from just beyond UNUM to the village has been a big success in terms of usage by all forms of users. We are now receiving regular complaints that the maintenance is poor. Serious encroachment has had the effect of reducing the width of the path. In places so bad with stinging nettles that parents were concerned for their children. We are concerned that years of campaigning resulting in a public inquiry and significant investment could be wasted if the path is damaged by such encroachment and lack of maintenance.

There are also regular complaints of dog fouling. I met some dog walkers this morning. Dog bins are provided at each end of the link. They complained that the path was now too narrow to pass horses, wheelchairs, bicycles coming in the opposite direction. The original concept that formed an important feature of the submission to the public inquiry was the available width. This to allow all users including horses and including the soft verge up to the fence. That verge is now unusable due to uncontrolled vegetation including swathes of stinging nettles.

In response ZC agreed to meet on site to go through the issues raised.

                             ................................................................

District Councillor Chris Hunt asked an informal question around what action SCC could take in response to the blocking of a private road that the public have had unfettered access to for  20years. Although signs state that it is a private road, no parking and no through-road but do not make reference to s.31 Highway Act (1980) in general and do not state that there is no public right of way.

In response AG advised that he should have already received an email reply from a member of the Highways team setting out the status of the road and that he should correspond directly with that officer, as he would be able to provide the relevant information.

                               .........................................................

District Councillor Hunt also whether SCC could either confirm or investigate who owns the land in front of Ashtead youth centre and also confirm that the advertising signs in the grass verge have the necessary permits or consents.

AG confirmed that the area in question is common land and therefore he would need to contact Mole Valley District Council.

                                ....................................................................