To answer any questions or receive a statement from any member of the public who lives, works or studies in the Surrey County Council area in accordance with Standing Order 69. Notice should be given in writing or by e-mail to the Community Partnership & Committee Officer at least by noon four working days before the meeting.
Decision:
That the Local Committee [Epsom & Ewell] agreed
To put the second phase of the work taking place at the Grosvenor Road/Langley Vale Road Junction on hold, whilst the Committee assess the effectiveness of the first phase of the work. A further report to be brought to the Committee on 29 February 2016.
Reasons: To address residents concerns over how the change in the junction will affect safety and traffic movements.
Minutes:
Four questions were received, the questions and answers are set out in Annexe A.
Question 1: Mr Olney asked what could be done to prioritise residents parking over that of shoppers and commuters. The Parking Engineer responded that the only way this could be achieved is by a Residents Parking Zone.
Question 2: Mr Olney reported that there have been issues in the area with “boy racers” and asked why only human fatalities are recorded. The Area Highways Team Manager responded that with limited resources available, traffic calming schemes across the County have to be ranked and areas where fatalities or personal injuries have been recorded are prioritised.
Question 3: Mr Olney reported that it appeared that the volume of traffic on the Dorking Road has increased making it more difficult for residents of the Wells Estate to turn right. The Area Highways Team Manager responded that any scheme to install traffic lights would require the acquisition of common land and would cost between £100,000 and £200,000. The Local Committee would be unable to afford this without a contribution from a development in the area. It would also lead to an increase in congestion on the Dorking Road.
Question 4: Teresa Cass asked what assessment and observation had taken place at the junction before the work was scheduled as she didn’t feel this had been addressed in the response. The Area Highways Team Manager responded that the local highways team have a number of years of experience of working in the Borough and a good knowledge of the area. Three site visits took place before the work was scheduled: one with the local team; one with the local team and the design team and one for a safety audit of the proposals. Each of these lasted around an hour. Teresa Cass expressed her disappointment that residents had not been consulted and that the County Councillor had not been supplied with the full plans of the scheme. She requested that in future both the county councillor and the relevant Borough members be sent the full plans in future before work begins. The Area Highways Team Manager apologised that in this case the county councillor had not been sent the plans, although she was aware of the work, and indicated that this would be the normal procedure. The work being carried out is a small scheme which the team thought would be beneficial to the area and had been surprised by the local reaction.
The Chairman proposed that as the first part of the work is almost complete, and as the Committee couldn’t agree to reverse this without further information, it should be completed and its impact assessed and a report be brought to the 29 February meeting of the Committee. The work to the other side of the road will be put on hold until this assessment has been completed. In addition the Area Highways Team Manager was asked to bring a report to the 7 December meeting detailing the history of the scheme, the engineering rationale, consultation process and areas where lessons could be learned for future schemes. It was noted that the residents are concerned that dangerous situations may result from this work and requested that if this proves to be the case the situation should be reviewed earlier. Residents were invited to send any feedback on the scheme together with any relevant photos to the Community Partnership and Committee Manager.
The Area Highways Team Manager agreed to contact a representative of the racehorse trainers to ask for their views.
A member asked whether the gateway would be installed. It was indicated that the one on the side of the road where the work would be completed would be put in place but that it would not be possible to put it on the other side as there would not be sufficient space. The member queried whether this was the right place to put the gates or whether they should be put further away and officers agreed to consider this further.
The local county councillor indicated that she would visit the site on Wednesday between 7.30 and 11.00am, which was felt to be the busiest period to see if a traffic survey is required and would also hold a meeting for residents in the village hall in November.
Resolved:
(i)
That the second phase of the work taking place at the Grosvenor
Road/Langley Vale Road Junction be put on hold, whilst the
Committee assess the effectiveness of the first phase of the
work. A further report to be brought to
the Committee on 29 February 2016.
(ii) That officers be asked to prepare a report for the 7 December meeting detailing the history of the scheme, the engineering rationale, consultation process and areas where lessons could be learned for future schemes
Reasons: To address residents concerns over how the change in the junction will affect safety and traffic movements.