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 attending: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager (AHM), SCC

Petitions, Public Statements, Questions: The questions and officer responses were provided within the supplementary agenda.

[2.46pm Cllr Harper arrived]

Question 1 was raised by Mr David Allbeury who attended the meeting and asked the following supplementary question:

1.    The answer provided is not totally satisfactory as doesn’t cover the issue of sightlines. I would suggest the use of a mobile lane closure vehicle to offer protection to the work force whilst clearing the sightline. The work could be done in short time and offers an option with limited resource.

The Area Highways Manager confirmed that the mobile lane closure vehicle was not appropriate on the type of road in question. She added that if there were concerns over the vegetation growth then the Revenue Maintenance Gang would usually carry out site inspections and undertake any ‘ad-hoc’ work that was needed when there were concerns over safety. However, as the divisional member hadn’t contributed money to fund the Revenue Maintenance Gang for 2019/20 there was only a limited resource to complete this work.

Question 2 was raised by Cllr Caroline Salmon who attended the meeting and asked the following supplementary question:

1.    The response was not what I expected. I was looking for long term solutions to the subway problems and would dispute the fact the subway doesn’t need anything doing to it. My question is therefore how much paint has to have fallen off and how stained do the walls need to be before it is considered bad enough to go on the programme of repairs and how long before this work will be prioritised?

The AHM advised that the Engineers focus on the structural appearance of the subways and not the aesthetical appearance. In previous years community groups had helped to clean up the subway. The resurfacing of the path would be treated the same as any other footpath and prioritised in the same way by the same criteria.

The divisional member added she had been speaking with youth club leaders in Beare Green about the issue to see if they could take on some of the work of redecorating the subway.

Question 3 was raised by Mrs Jenny Whiting who attended the meeting and asked the following supplementary questions:

1.    In relation to a) the map provided to show where the Mount Road starts and Arundel Road ends does not appear to be accurate. Has this map been checked by the land registry?

The AHM confirmed that there was difference between land ownership and highways rights and the map showed the public highway. Land registry had nothing to do with it.

2.    In relation to question c) I am concerned whether any consideration has been given to Mount Street being in a conservation area.

The AHM stated that it might affect planning consents which are done through MVDC and it would therefore be best to consult with the team at the district council.

Question 4 was raised by Mr John Moyer who was not in attendance at the meeting but members raised the following points in his absence:

With regards to a) the chairman stated that the answer provided was fine although the question did ask about the dealings with Thames Water, what was next with them and how did this move forwards?

The AHM confirmed that highways were in correspondence with Thames Water and site visits would be made to Cleeve Road for investigation.

With regards to b) the information on Hawks Hill was missing from the response. Officers would relook at this and ensure it was included and answered.

Question 5 was raised by Mr Roger Troughton who attended the meeting and asked the following supplementary question:

Thank you for your response; in your reply you said “The height of the existing subway under the A24 just north of Westhumble Street is lower than that required under the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.”  However, you did not mention the height of the subway or the figure in the manual.

I went down and measured the height of this subway at both entrances and the middle and found it to be fractionally over 7ft6in (approx 2.29m). 

I then went looking for a height figure in the manual and discovered Table 2.5.2 Dimensions for Underbridges which quotes the “Absolute Minimum Cycle Track Headroom” as 2.2m (regardless of subway length).

I found this in Interim Advice Note 195/16 Cycle Traffic and the Strategic Road Network (Oct 2016), which “supplements and amends the cycling specific information provided in a number of documents” including TD 36/93: Subways for Pedestrians and Pedal Cyclists Layout and Dimensions (part of Design Manual for Roads and Bridges) which may be the document you had been referring to.

In my original question, I did include a photograph of a segregated subway below the A3 at Malden Way which has a height warning of 6ft6in, some 12 inches lower than the height of the subway at Westhumble.  Obviously this situation is acceptable to Transport for London.

I would urge Surrey Highways to review the published guidelines and reconsider their decision, particularly if they are serious about encouraging cyclists to use this route in preference to the road. 

The AHM thanked Mr Troughton for his question and advised that the information he had gathered shouldn’t be used in isolation and other factors needed to be considered. It was appreciated that cyclists were encouraged to use the route for safety reasons and although it was noted there was a difference between an experienced cyclist and a Bikeability Level 2 cyclist (10-11 year old), all cyclists must be asked to dismount on approach to the subway. It was noted that different local authorities had different policies.

Question 6 was raised by Cllr Paul Kennedy who attended the meeting and asked the following supplementary question:

When can I expect an answer to my question?

The Chairman advised that the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care was looking in to the matter and awaiting an answer from the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG).

Members suggested the question be raised at the next meeting of the SCC Adults and Health Select Committee on 13 June 2019 or at the next meeting of the Health and Wellbeing Board on 5 September 2019. The Chairman agreed to put in a question on behalf of the committee to the Health and Wellbeing Board to obtain an answer.