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. Four written questions were received before the deadline and one urgent question received after that was tabled at the meeting and is attached as an annex to these minutes.

Question one was received from Mr Andrew Matthews. Mr Matthews did not attend the meeting nor ask a supplementary question.

Question two was received from Cllr Elizabeth Daly. Cllr Daly was present and asked the following supplementary question.

Thank you for the response to my question which you have agreed has been going on for some years. I think an except for access sign is a great idea and I would hope this could be implemented at the same time and prioritised as soon as funding permits.

It was noted by the AHM that it was her understanding the ‘except for access’ signs were already in place and that she would speak with Cllr Daly about this outside the meeting.

Question three was received from Cllr Paul Kennedy. Cllr Kennedy was present and asked the following supplementary question.

Thank you for the helpful response and for the logging the issue for further consideration. When this issue comes back up for consideration could you bear in mind that Fetcham and Bookham form their own little community and that a blanket 20mph zone is likely to give better compliance than a patchwork of different speed limits.

The AHM referred Cllr Kennedy to SCC’s Setting Speed Limits Policy that detailed how types of road and their strategic nature were taken in to account when setting speed limits but added Cllr Kennedy’s comments would be taken in to account when this was revisited.

Question four was received from Mr Roger Troughton. Mr Troughton was present and asked the following supplementary question.

We are rather disappointed with the response from Surrey Highways.

This is not a new issue, and over the years a number of government publications have covered this.  For example the Department for Transport's Cycling Infrastructure Design guide (LTN2/08) gives the following advice:

"Refuges and islands can create hazardous pinch points for cyclists. If they are introduced and it is not possible to provide a cycle bypass, the width available should either be sufficient to allow vehicles to overtake cyclists safely, or narrow enough to discourage overtaking altogether."

If we take as an example the pedestrian refuge just east of the Hillier Garden Centre on the A25 about 0.75mile east of Dorking (a pedestrian refuge which is not even in the desire line of pedestrians crossing at that junction), comments I have had from other cyclists include:

"...it has never been problems with the considerate motorist, but the high proportion of inconsiderate motorists or just the inattentive or plain stupid, especially when the M25 is closed and traffic is extra heavy."

"...dangerous overtaking at these places happens very frequently at least once on every trip I make..."

With the visible growth in new cyclists surely at the very least this, and other similar pinch points, need to have a proper risk assessment?

The AHM thanked Mr Troughton for his question and noted she had been able to get a bit of information from the Road Safety and Active Travel Manager. She added that the comments would be considered when moving forward with longer term active travel measures but as nothing had been agreed yet there was no further information to share. She noted from the Road Safety and Active Travel Manager’s information that the refuge in question had been designed to the standard and provided an easier and safer route for pedestrians to cross the road from the bus stop to the garden centre. The AHM asked the committee if they would allow her to respond more fully to Mr Troughton separately and outside the meeting. The Chairman agreed this would be sensible.

Question five was received from Mr Mike Taylor. Mr Taylor did not attend the meeting nor ask a supplementary question.