Councillors and committees

Agenda item

PETITIONS

To receive any petitions in accordance with Standing Order 68.  Notice should be given in writing or by e-mail to the Partnership Committee Officer at least 14 days before the meeting.  Alternatively, the petition can be submitted on-line through Surrey County Council’s e-petitions website as long as the minimum number of signatures (30) has been reached 14 days before the meeting.

 

Four petitions have been received, officer responses are attached:

 

1)  Bowes Road, Walton on Thames request for additional traffic calming and 20mph speed limit

2)  Nightingale Avenue,  West Molesey request for trees to be replaced

3) A309 Kingston by-pass pedestrian crossing, Hinchley Wood request to improve safety

4) Hare Lane, Claygate petition to improve road safety by reducing speed limit to 20mph

 

Decision:

That the Local Committee [Elmbridge] agreed:

 

Nightingale Avenue

 

To note the response provided, but to ask the Area Highways Manager to consider whether there could be more flexibility in the tree planting guidelines for residential roads with low footfall and to report back to the Committee if changes are possible.

 

A309 Kingston by-pass pedestrian crossing

 

That the Highways Area Manager be asked to consider whether there are any further measures, such as the installation of a rumble strip at this location, which could be considered to improve safety and report back to the Committee.

 

Hare Lane, Claygate

 

That £5,000 be allocated from the Committee’s parking surplus to fund a speed assessment in Hare Lane to inform a decision on what further work, if any, may be required in the area.

 

Reasons: to respond to issues raised by local residents in the form of petitions to the Committee.

Minutes:

Declarations of Interest: None

 

Officers attending: Nick Healey, Area Highways Manager (NE)

 

Petitions, Public Questions/Statements: Four petitions were received. An update to the officer response in relation to Hare Lane is attached in the supplementary papers for the Committee to reflect the petitioners intention that the area to be considered should be between the Swan public house and the railway bridge.

 

Petition 1 - Mr Dorudi indicated that he was representing the residents of Bowes Road who would like to see a traffic survey to determine speed and traffic volume.  The existing traffic calming has had little effect on the speed of traffic in the road and with around 800 residential units being built in the area in the next 12 months, the road which was only designed for residential use will suffer from increased traffic volumes.  There are many families in this area and the road is dangerous.

 

Petition 2 – Mr Matic Langford indicated that the whole street would like to find a way in which the street can retain its tree lined appearance and requested some flexibility in the guidelines used by the highways department.  Residents are happy to pay for the new trees.

 

Petition 3 – Mrs Bresson-Joseph asked the Committee to address the issues which makes the crossing, used by many local children, dangerous. Many cars jump the red light and she didn’t feel that the response to the petition addressed the particular issue of children using the crossing.

 

Petition 4 – Lucy Wright indicated that the area which the petition seeks to address is primarily residential and there is only a narrow footpath along approximately 380 of the 400m in question, which is on the opposite side of the road to the properties.  More children would be able to walk to school if the route was safer.  She didn’t accept that a reduction in the speed limit would impact on adjoining roads as there would be no time saved by taking an alternative route.

 

There was no indication of any further public questions or statements so the Committee moved to debate the options.

 

Member Discussion – key points

 

Petition 1 - Members acknowledged that it is a very busy road particularly at peak times and the roundabout at the end appears to be quite dangerous, but there does not seem to be an obvious solution.  The Area Highways Manager indicated that there had been no casualties in this are in the last three years and as traffic calming measures are already in place, other areas would be a higher priority for any investment.  The response was noted.

 

Petition 2 – The local county councillor supported the petition.  This road is similar to many others in the area.  Pedestrian usage is limited so there didn’t seem to be a need for a wide footway allowing people to pass each other as this would not be a regular issue and they would be happy to wait for others to come through.  Other members agreed that whilst it was good to have a standard to work to there could perhaps be more flexibility to have a slightly different standard on those footways that are lightly trafficked as long as there is sufficient access for a single disabled vehicle.  The Area Highways Manager indicated that there was no objection to the principle of trees in the public highway.  However, attitudes and standards have changes since many of the existing trees were planted.  The number of vehicles parked and using the road has increased substantially, regulations to allow access for the disabled have come into force and residents are more likely to submit insurance claims alleging damage to property as a result of tree encroachment.  It is also difficult for trees to thrive when planted in a hard surface, particularly if replanted in an existing tree pit.  Creating a new tree pit is difficult due to driveways and conflict with utility services.  He agreed to discuss the current guidelines with members of the Committee informally.

 

Petition 3 – The local county councillor agreed that this is a dangerous road to cross.  Prior to the crossing being installed there was a footbridge over the road which was safer to use but had come to the end of its life.  He suggested that a rumble strip could be used to encourage vehicles to slow down or that the speed limit should be reduced.  Other members agreed that this is a very busy road and that it was particularly important to ensure that the crossing is as safe as possible given that it is close to several schools and used by many children.  The Area Highways Manager responded that the area approaching the crossing already has most of the safety features that would be appropriate in this type of location.  There is no excuse for drivers not to be aware of either the speed limit or the existence of the crossing.  In addition the lights at the crossing detect the speed of approaching vehicles and adjust the timing of the green man signal accordingly.  Whatever measures are employed there will always be a minority of drivers who feel that they can ignore the red lights.  The installation of a rumble strip would be a relatively cheap measure, but has the potential for noise and vibration which could affect local residents and so the distance of properties from the location would have to be considered.

 

Petition 4 – The local county councillor agreed that the road is dangerous and that there is an area of vegetation on private land which should be cut back to increase the width of the footway and improve visibility.  It has proved difficult to find the owner of the property and he suggested that if this is not possible the county council should carry out the work and invoice the owners.  Members discussed 20mph restrictions which have been put in place in areas outside Surrey, without additional traffic calming measures.  The Area Highway Manager responded that unless the speeds are already close to 20mph the only way to consistently change driver behaviour is to change the road in a way that forces drivers to travel more slowly.  The Committee would need to decide whether this would be a priority for funding.  It was noted that Claygate Parish Council has funding from the local element of the Community Infrastructure Levy and may be able to contribute some funding if this was felt to be a priority for the area.  Members asked for a presentation at a future informal meeting on the impact of speed limits to improve their understanding of the issues.  The Chairman proposed that no action should be taken at this time.  On a vote this was DEFEATED by 5 votes FOR to 9 AGAINST.  The Committee, therefore agreed to allocate funding for a speed assessment and analysis of options.

 

Resolved:

 

Nightingale Avenue – Petition 2

 

To note the response provided, but to ask the Area Highways Manager to consider whether there could be more flexibility in the tree planting guidelines for residential roads with low footfall and to report back to the Committee if changes are possible.

 

A309 Kingston by-pass pedestrian crossing – Petition 3

 

That the Highways Area Manager be asked to consider whether there are any further measures, such as the installation of a rumble strip at this location,which could be considered to improve safety and report back to the Committee.

 

Hare Lane, Claygate – Petition 4

 

That £5,000 be allocated from the Committee’s parking surplus to fund a speed assessment in Hare Lane to inform a decision on what further work, if any, may be required in the area.

 

Reasons: to respond to issues raised by local residents in the form of petitions to the Committee.

Supporting documents: