Agenda item

To receive any questions from Surrey County Council electors within the area in accordance with Standing Order 66.

Declarations of Interest: None

Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager

N.B All questions and written responses are included in the supplementary agenda.

1.    District Councillor Wellman (not present) had submitted a question and received a written response in advance of the meeting.

Councillor Cooksey put a supplementary on his behalf. He asked how this request would be handled as there was no funding currently available.

Response: It would be forwarded to the Asset Management Team and be assessed for the ITS list, but would still need to be prioritised for any possible future funding against other ITS schemes in the District.

2.    District Councillor Friend (not present) had submitted a question and received a written response in advance of the meeting.

Councillor Dickson put a supplementary on his behalf:

‘Could the Officers confirm the costs to deliver this item and how that relates to the economic and environmental benefits to the local area, that would be generated by reducing traffic into Dorking by making it easier for people to travel by bus.’ No appropriate officer was present so it was agreed to forward this question to the relevant team for a response outside of the meeting.

Members briefly discussed the need to ensure that services would be future proof. Many already use a phone app to check this information and it was suggested that the development of a Surrey app would be a sensible way forward. Some members expressed concerns about the accessibility of online information due to the lack of a wifi signal in areas like Westcott and that many users are elderly and may be not as familiar with obtaining information through mobile devices.

3.    Michael Agius had submitted two questions on behalf of Bookham Residents’ Association and received responses in advance of the meeting.

He was not present but the divisional member for Bookham and Fetcham West responded on his behalf.

(i)            When it rains the centre of the village becomes impassable and many properties are indirectly affected. She acknowledged the county council’s  difficult financial situation but would like to work with officers to find an alternative source of funding that would enable them to be able to identify what type of scheme would be needed. The Chairman supported her comments and suggested that a meeting between the relevant members and officers from the Strategic Network Resilience team should be arranged and should link in with the Bookham Flood Forum.

(ii)          The divisional member highlighted that the work by Thames Water and Surrey County Council was still incomplete and the Chairman suggested a site visit with officers.

4.    Stuart Cursley had submitted a question and received a written response in advance of the meeting.

As a supplementary he asked whether his original question and response would be shared with the district council since it currently appears to be using SCC's concerns being 'satisfied' as a reason  for not taking enforcing action to ensure that the actual width complies with the approved plans and drawings.?

The Area Highway Manager agreed to forward this question to the Transport Development Team for a response outside of the meeting.

Members raised concerns about MVDC taking action to enforce planning conditions and the Chairman suggested that a site visit with officers to review the situation would be helpful. The ward member for Okewood stressed that the district council was working with SCC and Linden Homes in order to find a solution.

5.    Jeremy Benham had submitted a question and received a written response in advance of the meeting.

He commented that the heavy vehicles using Cock Lane were also travelling down Kennel Lane. There had been recent works on Cock Lane to repair the carriageway  which he believed had the same construction as Kennel Lane and wanted to know if it would be reconsidered for re-surfacing in the near future.

The Area Highway Manager acknowledged that the data used to prioritise resurfacing works did not appear to be reflecting the real experience of residents and she would be contacting the Asset Management Team to discuss a possible way forward.

The divisional member for Bookham and Fetcham West explained she knew the particular area Mr Benham was concerned about (from the Glade downwards) well and was aware that there was an on-going problem of standing water, which was contributing to the deterioration of the road surface. For this reason the scope of the Bookham Flood Forum had already been extended to incorporate this area and it was progressing the matter  with Thames Water.

She acknowledged that some repairs had been done recently but that it was necessary to resolve the drainage issues before any extensive resurfacing work was done and urged members and residents to report any defects using the 'report it' function on the county

council's website.

6.    District Councillor Kennedy had submitted two written questions and received responses in advance of the meeting.

(i)            Cllr Kennedy commented that the lack of personal injury collisions was misleading as pedestrians were deterred from using the road. He asked whether there was any funding available to promote walking.

The Area Highway Manager explained that the county council was keen to promote 'active travel' . The accident data was used as part of the prioritisation process for allocating or applying for funding and priority was given to those locations where there would be an immediate impact on improving road safety.

The divisional member for Bookham and Fetcham West acknowledged the issue  and advised that the community was already trying to find its own solutions through the Bookham Residents Association rather than rely on funding from the county council.

(ii)          Members briefly discussed the reasons that had been given as to why developer funding would not be forthcoming from the redevelopment of the Tudor Motors Garage site. The parking issues were acknowledged and were due to be discussed further at a meeting of the Development Control committee at MVDC the following week.