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 Partnership Committee Officer at least by noon four working days before the meeting.
Eight public questions were received. The questions and answers were published in the supplementary papers for the meeting. The following additional points were made:
Question 1: Cllr Olney asked what the Committee was spending its highway budget on. He was referred to Item 8 Highways Update.
Question 4: Cllr Mountain stated that the new parking restrictions in Chartwell Place had been agreed to improve safety as currently a disabled child and those with buggies are often forced to walk in the centre of the road as the pavement is obstructed by vehicles. She reported that she had agreed to modify the times so that restrictions would operate between 8.30 – 11.30am and 2.00 - 4.30pm to allow nursery children to be collected and dropped off at school during this period. Cllr Mountain agreed to forward to the Headteacher a copy of a letter she had been shown be a resident in relation to vacant vehicles being left with their engines running.
It was suggested that commuters will continue to park on the outer ring of the road and that the current proposal will not make any difference to safety. Cllr Mountain agreed to consider further restrictions in a future review if necessary.
Noted that parents are permitted to leave vehicles on the yellow line in order to guide children to school. The Headteacher asked if it would be possible for the School to receive confirmation of how long this period would be, before an enforcement notice would be issued. Enforcement is carried out by the Borough Council on behalf of the County Council and the matter would be discussed with them.
The Headteacher reported that it was a resident who had alerted the School to the advertisement of the proposed restrictions and not a member of staff as stated in the response.
Question 7: Mr Collin highlighted a number of residents who reply on the 166 bus service and asked why the County Council is not able to do more to secure this service. The Area Highways Manager indicated that all bus services are run on a commercial basis, it does subsidise some services to extend timetables and maintain viability, but the funding available is limited. Transport for London services are operated on a different basis and the County Council is not able to support these financially although it can highlight the effect the changes will have locally. The local MP has also been made aware of the issue.
Question 8: Mr Collin felt that the response appeared to be only concentrating on services for those over 65 and that transfer of services from Epsom General Hospital to St Helier are ongoing to the detriment of local residents. He felt that it was important to address the issue now and not leave it until it was too late. The Cabinet member for Highways indicated that healthcare does not necessarily follow local authority boundaries and it is important to get the best care for Surrey residents although this may not be within the County. The health service, like local government, is facing significant financial pressures. It was agreed that the officer who had responded to the question would be asked to address this issue and their response sent to the questioner.