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 and Steve Clavey, Senior Parking Engineer (SPE), SCC

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

 

13 questions were received from members of the public and were taken in the order in which they were received.

 

Question 1 was submitted by John Moyer. He did not attend nor ask a supplementary question.

 

 

Question 2 was submitted by Cllr James Friend. He did not attend but submitted the below supplementary question to the Chairman.

 

Given the speeds surveyed are quoted as a mean average speed of 36 mph and 85^th percentile speed of 41 mph at Surrey Hills School and as a mean average speed of 30 mph and 85^th percentile speeds of 34 mph at the Village Green Bus Stop, I am grateful that County council officers are meeting with police colleagues on 29 January 2020 to discuss the speed management plan, and that they will request an update and consideration of potential options for speed management and enforcement. Following the meeting, please can I and the Westcott Village Association be involved in identifying and agreeing those potential options in order to truly incorporate the reality of the local situation?

 

The AHM confirmed there was a meeting of the Road Safety Working Group on 6 February for which a local input would be greatly appreciated. She noted that although they might not be able to incorporate the suggestions with the Police priorities at least the local priorities would be heard and put forward.

 

 

Question 3 was submitted by Ron Billard who attended and asked the following supplementary question:

 

Thank you for the response. It is largely positive. Previously signage to deter cyclists from cycling on the pavement had been funded by the Local Committee. Is there any funding to fund any more of these. We are talking in the region of £800?

 

In relation to the sweeping of the multi-use track this is an environmentally friendly option for people travelling and should be considered a quick win.

 

Has this improvement scheme been added to the forward programme to be done in the future? If yes then the Cycling Forum would like to be consulted on the formation of any scheme. CIL funding from the nearby Kuoni site is very much welcomed.

 

The AHM responded. She started by stating there was no longer a small revenue funding stream for signs but the Local Committee had a small budget for funding safety schemes.

 

As for the cycle facility, this was an expensive scheme; costing several hundred thousand pounds and as such would be included on the Local Transport Strategy (LTS) list if the Local Committee agreed the forward programme (as detailed in item 9). It was suggested also that Mr Billard may wish to make comment on the Mole Valley Local Plan that was to shortly be out for consultation.

 

Question 4 was submitted by Eric Palmer. He attended and asked the following supplementary question:

 

Is there no longer a dedicated cycling officer at SCC? I often use the road and do not agree that it is safe nor wide enough and therefore don’t think the response is justified. I would very much like to speak to the officer who provided the response, directly to discuss.

 

The AHM noted that although there was no longer a dedicated cycling officer there was a Safer Travel Team that looked at such things and had provided the response. She added she would take the query back and see if a meeting could be arranged with the questioner, officers and local councillors to discuss the requests.

 

 

Question 5 was submitted by Peter Seaward. He was present at the meeting and asked the below supplementary question:

 

Thank you for the work that is going on. What are the minor improvements works planned for 2021.

 

The AHM said she didn’t know the exact details but would come back outside the meeting with more detail.

 

 

Question 6 was submitted by Jon Favell. He did not attend the meeting nor submit a supplementary question. Although members did raise concern over roads in the area where patching work had been completed. They felt after the work the road had become worse and members had often been told by officers that the road was fine and without issue. The AHM agreed to take these comments back to the relevant team to investigate.

 

 

Question 7 was submitted by Roger Troughton, who did not attend the meeting although a question was asked about the timing, given there was no budget to do anything at this time.

 

It was confirmed that it was SCC’s intention to support borough and district councils to produce a plan. This was currently being trialled in Woking to see what the outcome was before rolling it out more widely.

 

 

Question 8 was submitted by Mike Giles. He attended and asked the following:

 

So, does SCC agree with the government that noise pollution of the type under discussion, experienced by a much larger number of residents than perpetrators, is a hazard to health, and since this problem is common to other areas of the county, whilst the officers say they cannot comment on SCC’s future plans for noise control, in the interests of efficiency, would not SCC coordinate future measures amongst its constituent districts and boroughs, and can the officers comment on an apparent discrepancy between their answer and a statement by the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner, David Munro, at a recent presentation at Dorking Halls, to the effect that SCC is by no means averse to expanding the coverage of average speed cameras in the county, and that, contrary to the implication in the answer, rather than being seen by the general public as a generator of income, average speed control is in the main understood and complied with by motorists of all types, thus potentially reducing income from speeding fines, whilst increasing safety, improving air quality and decreasing, if not entirely eliminating, levels of exhaust noise once the vehicles in question have achieved the monitored speed limit, as already demonstrated by the camera controlled section between Burford Bridge and Givons Grove roundabouts?

The AHM confirmed that average speed cameras were used in areas where there had been a history of problems or collisions. The A24, where the average speed cameras were, was not suitable for any other form of traffic calming. Those cameras only tackled speed and not noise.

 

The Police and Crime Commissioner had said he was open to the use of average speed cameras when there was funding for these.

 

The AHM asked the questioner to leave his question with the Committee Manager. She would provide a full answer to him.

 

 

Question 9 was submitted by David Allbeury. He was in attendance but had no supplementary question to ask.

 

 

Question 10 was submitted by Martyn Williams. He attended and made comment that the response he received seemed rather negative. He questioned the cost of between £10k-20k to implement and then remove a scheme. He didn’t believe this seemed like too great of a cost to save the high street. 

 

It was suggested by officers that much of what was being asked had already been answered within the report in Item 6.

 

 

Question 11 was submitted by Susan Leveritt. She was in attendance but it was suggested as her question was in relation to Item 6 also that this would be a more appropriate place to deal with this.

 

 

Question 12 was submitted by Cllr Paul Kennedy. He was in attendance and asked the below supplementary question.

 

In relation to the accident statistics quote in the response there seems to be a few accidents that don’t appear to have been included in the statistics.

 

The AHM confirmed that the statistics only included personal injury claims so vehicle only damage and deaths of pets, although distressing, weren’t included in the figures given. She noted that this road was also due to be discussed at the Mole Valley Speed Management Plan meeting on 29 January 2020.

 

 

Question 13 was submitted by Andrew Matthews, who was in attendance and asked the following:

 

If the voluntary payment scheme doesn’t work will the payment meters then be removed?

 

There was no officer present to answer this question. A written response would therefore be provided to Mr Matthews outside the meeting.