Agenda item

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

Two public questions have been received.  The first public question is from Joanna McGowan:

How are GBC and SCC planning to ensure that mobility and accessibility issues are first and foremost when planning new and redevelopments in Guildford town centre?

The second public question is from Doug Scott:

My question is with regard to the failure of Utility Companies to re-instate the Setts, following digging up the Guildford High Street.

What is being done to ensure that the non-standard Setts outside Clarks Shoe shop, are replaced by Setts of the matching size, colour and texture, as specified?

What is being done to ensure that the Tarmac is removed from outside NEOM Organics and the Setts replaced?

The Setts are valuable and extremely difficult to replace. What is being done to ensure that, in future, Setts are reused and the High Street repaired to the Surrey Highways standard, as required by the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991?

Declarations of interest: None

Officers present: Frank Apicella, Area Highways Manager

The first question asked was from Doug Scott about the failure of Utility Companies to re-instate the Setts, following digging up the Guildford High Street. (see supplementary agenda for petition details and officer response).

Doug Scott stated that he was very heartened with the response that highways had come back with informing him that Thames Water were working with SCC to repair the damage to the setts. He commented that it is an ongoing problem with utility companies.

Member discussion - key points:

The Area Highways Manager informed the Committee that over the years some of the setts had gone missing however when he project managed the sett replacement scheme he had managed to find a source to replace them with very similar setts. He explained that Thames Water have agreed that they will put the tarmac back and then pay SCC to put the setts back as utility companies don’t have the skills to make the replacement. The Highways Manager commented that he would like to continue this dialogue with the utilities companies.

Resolved:

The Joint Committee noted the officer’s comments.

Declarations of interest: None

Officers present: Frank Apicella, Area Highways Manager

The second question asked was from Joanne McGowan about how GBC and SCC are planning to ensure that mobility and accessibility issues are first and foremost when planning new and redevelopments in Guildford town centre? (see supplementary agenda for petition details and officer response).

Joanne McGowan informed the Members that she hadn’t received the response to her question directly and that this was the first time she had seen the response from officers. She stated that the response to her question was legalese and was not a human response. Mrs McGowan informed the meeting that for people with a lack of mobility or a disability getting around Guildford town centre was very difficult. She wanted to know what was going to be done to engage with people who have accessibility issues to make sure their voices are heard when planning and redevelopment of the town is undertaken and to consider the impact this could have on them. Mrs McGowan asked for a more human response to her public question that considered people’s needs.

Mrs McGowan requested that the response to written public questions be e-mailed to members of the public in advance who are attending the meeting to hear the discussion on their question.

Member discussion - key points:

Cllr Angela Goodwin stated that responses to public questions should be in plain English and that she’d like to arrange a meeting with the relevant officers to discuss Joanne McGowan’s concerns.  The Members were informed that the response to the public questions had been published with the supplementary agenda and would usually go out to individuals directly who had submitted public questions.  The Chairman invited Mrs McGowan to come back to next Committee to receive a better more human response. 

Resolved:

The Joint Committee noted the officer’s comments.