Agenda item


Details of a traffic survey and a safety audit pursuant to Condition 18 of appeal ref: APP/B3600/A/11/2166561 dated 15 August 2015.





Alan Stones, Planning Development Team Manager

Samantha Murphy, Principal Planning Officer

Caroline Smith, Transport Development Planning Manager

Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Solicitor




Alan Hustings, a local resident, made the following points:


  1. The Independent Safety Audit in the traffic survey was based on the October 2014 Traffic Management Plan (TMP).  Therefore, considering the outdated 1100 Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) movements and not the 1500-1600 currently considered he raised concerns about potential further inaccuracies in the outdated traffic survey.
  2. He stated that Coldharbour Lane was a very popular recreational cycle route all through the year and therefore would benefit from the recommendations outlined by the Safety Audit. He also raised a concern about the TMP making no provision for pedestrians using Coldharbour Lane due to inconclusive surveying of pedestrians in the Lane.


Pam Pulling Smith, a Local resident, made the following points:


  1. Residents of Coldharbour Lane felt they had not been properly consulted.
  2. Concern was raised about restricted access to local businesses that would be caused by the road closures and HGV use of the Lane.  Elderly and unwell residents would also be restricted to attend hospital appointments and recreational activities in the area.
  3. The Committee were asked to consider the residents that would be directly affected by the TMP and were asked to drive on Coldharbour Lane to allow for proper consideration.


Pat Smith, a Local resident, made the following points:


  1. That no Traffic Survey had been completed in Dorking or Flint Hill.  Concern was raised as traffic issues were already severe in the area and further HGV movements would only add additional traffic problems.
  2. She had conducted her own survey which showed a large variety of road users using Flint Hill at sometimes dangerous speeds which highlighted the need for a formal traffic survey to be completed and considered. The current traffic survey was said to be insufficient due to it covering a limited area. She requested that a traffic survey be completed in Flint Hill and other affected Dorking roads.


Charlotte Nolan, a Local resident, made the following points:


  1. That there were inaccuracies in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) due to it being based on an outdated version of the TMP. It was further stated that the socio-economic impacts of the TMP had not be considered within the Traffic Survey. Many local businesses had expressed concern about impacts and had forwarded these to Surrey County Council. Members were informed of further impacts that had not be considered in the traffic survey which would have a negative affect on local businesses.
  2. She had noted that Europa conducted a survey in the area and discovered that a large number of cyclists used the road on a Saturday and therefore decided that it would not be appropriate to continue operations on this day. It was then stressed that cyclists were extremely active all through the week but this had not been considered due to the surveys being very outdated.


Richard Elliott, the applicant’s agent, made the following points in response:


  1. He emphasised that this item was for the consideration of the traffic survey and not the TMP. He also highlighted that the recommendation was to agree that the surveys carried out by the applicant met the requirements of Condition 18.
  2. He referred to a local residents comments stating that a survey was needed to be completed on Flint Hill. It was said that a continuous traffic flow monitoring point had been present in Knoll Road in order to record the vehicle flows in the area. In response to the resident stating that a EIA was needed in Knoll Road, he stated that the number of vehicles using the site was below the threshold for the road to be taken into consideration which the Planning Inspector had recognised.
  3. The committee were informed that a fourth survey had been carried out on a Saturday to ensure accurate and complete data was produced. It was said that pedestrians and equestrians would not be disregarded and logical safety measures and the Highway Code would continue to be followed.


Key points raised during the discussion:


  1. Officers reiterated the wording of Condition 18 to make clear the Planning Inspectors requirements outlined in the Inspectors report. It was said that the Planning Inspector showed concern over the high number of cyclists on Coldharbour Lane and the safety impacts of HGV movements on Saturday mornings.  It was further confirmed that the applicant had removed Saturday as an operational day due to the increased cyclist activity. Officers advised Members that they believed the applicant had completed the requirements outlined by the Planning Inspector. Officers provided further information on the details around the Safety Audit and confirmed that the submitted Safety Audit was satisfactory.  An update sheet was tabled at the meeting and is attached as Appendix A to these minutes.
  2. Members of the Committee raised concern that officers had put forward a recommendation to not accept all of the recommendations of the Safety Audit.
  3. Some Members questioned the accuracy of the Traffic Survey due to the results showing that there were no equestrians and very few pedestrians on the road. A Member said that they had vast local knowledge of the area and that this would be very unlikely.
  4. Officers stated that not all recommendations of safety audits were accepted and in the event of this, an internal process was carried out and an exceptions report produced.  In this instance officers had considered the two recommendations in the Safety Audit and deemed them inappropriate for a number of reasons. It was also reported that the two recommendations not accepted were dealt with under Condition 19.   With regard to the four surveys, officers stated that they reflected similar results of road users and therefore officers considered them as fit for purpose.
  5. A Member proposed that the Committee should accept all four of the Safety Audit recommendations due to there being good reason for doing so.  The Committee debated this proposal.
  6. The enforcement powers of the County Planning Authority were queried and officers confirmed that approved schemes may be liable to enforcement if found to be in breach of conditions.  This would include a series of warnings and, if necessary, a Breach of Conditions Notice.


A Motion was put forward by Mr Cooksey, and seconded by Mr Furniss, that the Safety Audit and its recommendations be accepted in its entirety.  The Motion was put to the vote with five Members voting for and four against.  Therefore the motion was carried.




  1. That the details of the traffic survey and Safety Audit submitted pursuant to Condition 18 of Appeal Decision APP/B3600/A/11/2166561 dated 7 August 2015 contained in application ref: MO/2017/0740 be approved.


  1. That all recommendations given in the Safety Audit be accepted.


Actions/further information to be provided:




Mrs Penny Rivers arrived at 11.06 am during the debate on this item and as she was not present from the whole of this item, refrained from the vote.


Supporting documents: