Agenda item

To receive any written questions from Members under Standing Order 47.

Declarations of interest: None

Officers present: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager (AHM)

Also present: Mr Colin Kemp, Cabinet Lead Member for Place (CLMP)

Mr Hall had submitted written questions and received responses in advance of the meeting (see supplementary papers).

1.    As a supplementary he asked what action the county council was taking with regard to those assets that had not been cleaned and whether it was still being charged for work not done.

2.    The CLMP explained that assets were cleaned in line with a set schedule that extended over a period of 18 months – 2 years.

(Cllr Hawksworth joined the meeting)

3.    The divisional member for Dorking Hills expressed her concern about the issue of gullies not being included on the assets register and would like to be updated when they were added.

(Cllr Michael joined the meeting)

4.    The CLMP explained that when there was heavy rain it was not always the case that gullies were blocked but that the system cannot cope with the amount of water.

5.    Parked cars were an issue. Parking measures could only be suspended by way of a traffic order and where there were no restrictions, only those vehicles that had no tax or MOT could be removed. They could put out bollards but motorists could still choose to ignore them.

6.    (The Chairman welcomed Cllrs Michael and Hawksworth to the meeting).

Mr Townsend had submitted questions and had received responses in advance of the meeting (see supplementary papers).

1.    As a supplementary he asked whether any residual funds from the pedestrian crossing scheme on the A24 near Bramley Way could be used to fund the traffic calming measures outside the two schools (question 3).

2.    The AHM explained that until they had consulted on the design of the crossing, they would not know the amount of any residual funding. It might be possible to use some the members highways allocation, but it should not  exceed £2,500 (maximum limit for a single project).

Mr Cooksey had submitted questions and had received responses in advance of the meeting (see supplementary papers).

1.    Mr Cooksey did not think that the response had addressed the issue raised  (question one). The trading community in Dorking were very unhappy that there would be another Saturday closure of Ashcombe Road and that they had not been consulted on the scheduling.

2.    The AHM explained this was not a planned scheme and that they needed to carry out the surface dressing while the weather was warm and dry.

3.    As the work was taking place on a Saturday Mr Cooksey wanted to know who residents should contact to report any problems.

4.    Members agreed that the current system of reporting urgent issues did not adequately provide support over the weekend period.

5.    With regard to his second question Mr Cooksey highlighted the fact that there had been another similar instance on the previous day causing heaving congestion in Dorking and asked for urgent action to resolve the problems that were adversely affecting the town’s trading community.

6.    The AHM agreed to pass on this feedback to the relevant teams.

Cllr Kennedy had submitted a written question and had received a response in advance of the meeting (see supplementary papers).

1.    Cllr Kennedy appreciated that officers had explained the process but asked how the residents’ experience could be improved.

2.    The AHM recommended checking details on the roadworks.org website which gives information on permits and re-inspection dates.

Mrs Watson had submitted a written question and received a response in advance of the meeting (see supplementary papers).

1.    She had no supplementary but would contact the maintenance engineer with          her concerns.