Agenda item

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

The Committee received three written public questions to which written answers were provided and tabled at the meeting (appended document). Two of the questioners asked supplementary questions in absentia (which the chairman accepted because the meeting had been re-arranged at short notice) and the third (Mr Telford) attended and asked a supplementary. Answers to the supplementary questions were as follows:

Public Question 1 – Supplementary question

Thank you for the response. This is word for word the same response that was given to a similar question on 25th by the Cabinet Member for Transport and the Environment, and by the Surrey Heath Local Committee on 4th July. It clearly doesn't answer the question - it merely repeats the resolution of SCC of 19th March.
The fact that planning matters are not within the remit of SCC does not prevent SCC making representations to RBC on planning matters. Section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 clearly makes this possible.
If SCC will not use its power in this instance of a clear and present threat to the green belt, exactly when will it do so, so my supplementary question is: 
 
What action will this SCC Committee take with respect to its resolved position of using its power to protect the green belt with regard to the DERA site?”

Mr Furey (Cabinet Member for the Environment and a local committee member) gave the following answer:

"The removal of Green Belt status lies entirely within the hands of the borough council and we are sure that they are capable of responding to representations and observing a lawful process."

Public Question 2 – supplementary question

The applicants submitted the following supplementary question, which was tabled at the meeting:

 PREAMBLE

1)Mis-direction:

The Applicants believe that the mis-direction by Andrew Milne at the LAC meeting in September 2012 is justification in itself for re-examining the issue before the LAC in open forum. This was raised in the Application dated 22^nd March, 2013 and in the original question. One of the Applicants has been requesting the SCC in writing ( including of the SCC Assistant CEO office) for clarification and justification of the “precedent” argument espoused at the LAC meeting in September 2012 by Andrew Milne of SCC Highways. There has been no answer to this question. The Applicants note that the Chair in his answer to the Applicants initial written question has ignored this element 3) of the question. We think that the Chair now needs to  explain what was the basis of the “precedent” notion as espoused by Highways and, if it is unable to explain this in detail and with legal basis, then this state of affairs should in itself be a reason for a re-examination by the LAC at this hearing on 8th July;

2) Police:

The conclusion which has been reached by the Chair ( in the answer to the Applicants initial question) that the gate is not “necessary”  is completely at odds with the dealings had by  the Applicants  with the Police. In fact, in a letter dated 22nd March 2013 from Surrey Police to County   Cllr Heath  ( as submitted with the Application) Surrey Police state:

“ I have been a Police Officer for 22 years at Egham. I first met Mr Shourie in the summer of 2011 when we walked the lane together and he outlined the issue and his proposal.  I have previously been supportive of the proposal to install a gate and I continue to support this proposal. The lane has suffered and since 2002 there have been 222 crimes or crime related reports recorded by the Police including the theft of lead roof tiles from the properties of  Mr Shourie, Mr Collins and the RAF Memorial to name but a few. I have been aware that the unmade road is an area for fly tipping which ranges from house hold waste to televisions and large lorry tyres which can number 10 to 20 in number.I am of the firm view that due to the isolated nature of the unmade section  lane which has no lighting that this is facilitating crime in this neighbourhood (in addition to the fly tipping) as vehicles used for crime can be parked in this unmade section. I believe that a gate would   prevent crime in the neighbourhood.  I feel that installing this gate would stop a lot of crime as the university has had  rooms broken into and the lane provides parking out of sight  of the CCTV. The RAF Memorial site has had copper drain pipes stolen and offenders have again parked in the unmade area and these thefts have run into tens of thousands of pounds on several occasions. I would more than welcome the installation of the gate as proposed. I am willing to appear at a council meeting to express this view in person or answer any questions.”

Given this written evidence as part of the Application, we are of the opinion that no  reasonable person  could conclude that  Surrey Police does not consider the gate “necessary”.

Further, with respect to the APU, as has been previously noted, the APU raised the issue of a gate with an occupant of  one the Applicant properties  unsolicited on a routine visit to Coopers Hill Lane.  The APU  has in a meeting with SCC Highways already confirmed (in addition to its’ letter of support dated 19th May, 2013) on 21st June that any additional measure of security in the lane would be beneficial.

The letter from the APU which has been submitted to the Chair on 20th May, 2013 states:

“The proposed installation of a gate …. in Coopers Hill Lane to prevent vehicle access would enhance the overall security in relation to aviation protection and would be in the interest of all agencies and residents of the area. We are aware of the incidents of fly tipping and unauthorised squatting along Coopers Hill Lane and immediate area and have liaised with Surrey Police and Royal Holloway Security in the past regarding these matters.”

Given these facts and statements from the Police, we do not think that any reasonable person  could conclude that neither  the Surrey Police nor the APU  “consider  the installation of a  gate at this location” as being  not necessary as stated in the Chair’s answer to the Applicants’ initial written question;

3) Answers to Emails:

In parallel with the initial written question (and now this  Supplementary Question), the Applicants have raised a series of questions and issues in emails dated 14th June, 25th June, 27th June, 1st July and 4th July. The Applicants  look forward to receiving full and detailed answers to these emails from the Chair following this meeting; and

4) New Evidence:

The unsolicited intervention of the APU ( since the Application was made) is new evidence in itself. The Applicants DISAGREE that the Application contains NO new evidence  since the last Application heard before the LAC in September 2012 given the 70  plus pages of evidence submitted.  Further and in the alternative, the Applicants are of the view that the APU evidence (in a  letter dated 19th May, 2013 as submitted  and the view expressed in the meeting with SCC Highways on 21st June, 2013 ) is in itself new evidence and justification alone for  a re-examination of this issue in open forum again. ]

“Can the Chair please explain why, based on an incorrect assessment of the Police evidence (as set out above), the mis-direction by SCC Highways at the LAC meeting in September 2012 and the introduction of new evidence from the APU since the Application, it is refusing to allow discussion of the matter again at today's LAC meeting or, failing which, at the next LAC meeting in September 2013.”

The chairman has given the following response on behalf of the Committee:

“According to Surrey County Council’s Constitution, questions to the Committee should be about general policy, not detail. However, I will summarise the history of this matter. When a request was made for a gate in Coopers Hill Lane at the Local Committee of June 2012, members were advised that a longstanding Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) prohibiting vehicular traffic (except for access) had been in place for several decades, and on that basis a gate could be installed without further legal process. At the subsequent Committee meeting of September 2012 members were advised that no such traffic order existed, and that there was no compelling highways reason to advertise or defend a new TRO to permit a gate. The Committee agreed that it would not advertise a new TRO. The applicants submitted a further request in 2013 for a gate in the Lane, based on a gating order on grounds of anti-social behaviour from fly tipping. The chairman and vice-chairman, taking legal advice from officers and having considered all the evidence submitted, decided that the new information provided was not significant enough to provide a sufficient case for a gating order and that therefore the matter should not return to the Local Committee yet again.”

In addition Councillor Patrick Roberts (Englefield Green East) asked why the application could not be re-considered in the light of additional support gathered, since he understood that it had been rejected by the Committee in September 2012 because of the discovery of an administrative oversight. The chairman answered that the Committee were advised at the September meeting that there was no traffic order in place, and rejected the request because there was no good basis to advertise a new legal order to introduce a gate. He did not consider it appropriate to discuss further at the meeting, as Public Questions were intended to address general policy not detail.

Public Question 3 – supplementary

Mr Telford asked if the highways manager could indicate how long it would take for enforcement by Surrey County Council, and when would inaccurate signage in Coopers Hill Lane be put right.

Mr Milne answered on behalf of the Committee, advising that he could not say when the Legal Services department would take further action, and undertook to ask Mr Gosden to write to the questioner about the signage.