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 in attendance: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager

 

(For all written questions and responses see the supplementary agenda pack)

 

 

1.    Mr Jon Favel had submitted a question and received an answer. He was not present to ask a supplementary.

2.    Mr Ron Billard (representing Mole Valley Cycling Forum) had submitted a question and received an answer.

 

MVCF had forwarded a presentation to highways to be used as a free resource. The group were keen to assist the county council on cycling issues across the district.

 

The AHM explained that cycling issues were now addressed by a countywide team through the cycling officer.

 

The cycling strategy team would value the forum’s input when Mole Valley’s cycling strategy would be updated in the near future.

 

Highway officers would also be happy to meet with MVCF representatives in the future, in the event funding for a specific scheme was identified.

 

3.    Mr Roger Troughton had submitted a question and received an answer in advance of the meeting.

 

He asked how it had been decided to allocate the s106 contributions to provide Real Time Passenger Information at bus stops instead of measures for safe access across the A24. It was suggested that this had been considered the best value for the small amount of money that would have been available.

 

Some members expressed concern that they still had not received up to date information on how developers’ funds had been spent and what was still available to be allocated.

 

The AHM agreed to follow up on this issue with a view to bringing an item to the next informal local committee meeting.

 

The ward member for Okewood and Leader of Mole Valley District Council agreed to ensure that Community Infrastructure Levy figures were made available to the Committee, but stressed that only very modes sums had been collected so far.

 

Whether or not the local committee will have a role to play in the CIL decision-making process is still yet to be determined.

 

4.    Claire Malcomson had submitted three questions and received responses in advance of the meeting. She was not present to ask a supplementary.

 

The Chairman stressed that sexual health clinics across the county were fully functioning but that if members were aware of any issues, they should contact the divisional member for Dorking Rural in her capacity as Cabinet Member for Health. She would be happy to answer any questions on any public health matters but stressed the difficulties in finding the money for preventative work. She was working alongside officers in monitoring CWL.

 

 

 

5.    Peter Seaward (Bookham Residents Association) had submitted a question and received a response in advance of the meeting.

 

With regard to Lower Road, he stressed that the longer the situation was left unresolved, the more money would have to be spent in the long term.

 

The AHM explained that engineers had considered a new type of gully which might be part of a longer term solution but with only limited funding available, there were no alternative short or medium term measures that could be taken.

 

Mr Seaward asked why roads in Bookham that had previously been included  in Horizon 2 were no longer in the programme of works.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways explained that the Horizon project was constantly evolving and being a 5 year plan, revisions have had to be made to allow for emerging issues and changing priorities.

 

He would be introducing a new process whereby local members would play a greater role in discussing local needs.

 

Mr Seaward also raised the issue of increased council tax and commented that residents were dissatisfied with what they were getting in the way of services on the highways.

 

The Cabinet Member explained that over 70% of the council budget is spent on adult social care and looking after vulnerable young people. He acknowledged that residents tended to notice highways issues and for that reason 20% of the council tax increase was going to be reinvested in local communities through the local committees and its members.

 

 

6.    Mr Ian Anderson had submitted two questions and had received responses in advance of the meeting.

 

In his absence Cllr Dickson asked what could be done to get Hawk Hill (Guildford Road) included in Horizon 2 programme of works.

 

The Chairman also expressed his frustration in its omission and had put it forward to be looked at as part of the additional winter works programme.

 

The Cabinet Member acknowledged the difficulties but reiterated that this was one disadvantage of having a long-term programme. There was a need for flexibility to accommodate changing priorities and for this reason he was encouraging more engagement between officers and local members.

 

7.    The Chair of Governors of Oakfield School had submitted a question and had received a response in advance of the meeting. There was no representative of the school present and the divisional member for Bookham and Fetcham West confirmed that the issues raised would be further discussed outside of the meeting.

 

8.    Mr Martin David had submitted a question and received a response in advance of the meeting.

 

He was not present but had submitted the following supplementary via the Chairman.

 

“My question is to ask that SCC accept the community asset / benefit of the piece of unmade road in the middle of Cannon Grove, Fetcham in that this unowned piece of land provides a strategic right of way linking the communities of Fetcham and Leatherhead, connects the communities on  two sides of the same public road, provides access to community facilities such as a park, guide hut and tennis club as well as access to a number of properties and a business.

 

I would ask SCC to join an emerging partnership to protect this asset by providing appropriate legal and technical advice whilst also accepting their responsibility to the strategic right of way by bringing the walking route up to a standard suitable for the use by pedestrians including school children, the elderly and mothers with pushchairs to enable the easy pedestrian access between Fetcham & Leatherhead”

 

This question will be answered outside of the meeting.

 

9.    Elizabeth Daly had submitted two questions and had received responses in advance of the meeting. She was not present to ask a supplementary.