Agenda item

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

No declarations of interest received.

Officers present:

Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

Anne-Marie Hannam, Senior Traffic Engineer

1.    Questions from members of the public and responses are included in the  Supplementary Agenda (tabled papers)

2.    Buckland Parish Council (represented at the meeting by Julian Steede) asked a supplementary (as part of the meeting’s Open Forum, but minuted here).

Supplementary question: If we assume the statutory notice is made during October and the 28 day consultation period ends before the end of November, could SCC please advise how soon the gates and bollards (to enforce the width restriction) are likely to be installed.”

Response: The Area Highways Manager explained that consultations on BOATS often produce significant comments or objections from interested parties, therefore it is not possible at this time to give exact dates but they will share these with the parish council when they are known. She also agreed to provide a chart for information that sets out the Traffic Regulation Order process.

The divisional member (Dorking Rural) had been contacted by the local landowner over concerns that since the temporary order had expired and the new one was not in place, vehicles had been using it again and he has had to rescue some who had got stuck. As a result she asked whether a second temporary order could be introduced.

The Area Highways Manager explained that another temporary TRO cannot be introduced until at least a year after the first has expired without gaining permission from the Secretary of State. She agreed to look with the Traffic Order team how best to communicate this message to the public, as well as to provide example timelines of the best and worst case scenarios.

3.  Paul Kennedy submitted the following supplementary questions:

Will the authorities commit to taking a more robust approach to enforcement of highways related conditions at the end of and if necessary during development work, both in this and in other cases, by for example:

a) ensuring there is a comprehensive post-completion highway survey;

b) putting the burden on developers to demonstrate that every piece of damage identified (not just isolated examples) for which they are seeking to avoid liability was either pre-existing or has been caused by a third party, especially where there has been a failure by the developers to undertake a pre-commencement survey;

c) requiring developers to reinstate all such damage including making a proportionate contribution to the cost of repairing damage which may have been partly pre-existing or caused by a third party but has been accelerated or exacerbated by the development work;

d) taking account of evidence provided by residents and giving residents an opportunity to validate other evidence submitted including the comprehensive post-completion highway survey? 

Response:  The Area Highways Manager understood the concerns being raised and agreed to forward these on to the Development Control Team for a response outside of the meeting. She will also look into a possible further inspection by local highways officers and try and find the necessary resources to make some improvements, including working with the Developer.

Members further discussed whether or not some of the issues raised were the county council’s responsibility or whether they sat with the district council as the authority that enforces conditions of planning applications. Members agreed that the two councils should look to working closer together in order to provide a better service to residents.