Agenda item

To receive any petitions in accordance with Standing Order 68.  Notice should be given in writing or by e-mail to the Partnership Committee Officer at least 14 days before the meeting.  Alternatively, the petition can be submitted on-line through Surrey County Council’s e-petitions website as long as the minimum number of signatures (30) has been reached 14 days before the meeting.

 

Six petitions have been received as follows:

 

Petition 1 – Safety Walton Road/ Langton Road junction

Lead petitioner:  V Davies                                       Signatures: 93

 

Petition 2 – Summer Road/ Hampton Court Way junction

Lead petitioners:  Karen Liddell & Julie Hennig   Signatures: 467

 

Petition 3 – Pedestrian Crossing Outside St Lawrence School

Lead petitioner:  Jim Davidson                               Signatures: 979

 

Petition 4 – C19 Active Travel Scheme – A244 Esher Road

Lead petitioner: Caroline Williams                         Signatures: 2624

 

Petition 5 – Queens Road, Weybridge loading bay

Lead petitioner:  Lisa Harris                                    Signatures: 49

 

Petition 6 – Safety on A244 Leatherhead Road, High Street, Warren Lane, Oxshott

Lead petitioner: Ian Dilks                                         Signatures: 973

 

That the Local Committee [Elmbridge] agreed to:

 

Petition 1:

 

(i)    Consider measures at the junction of Langton Road within the Walton Road scheme, to inform a future application for Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding

 

(ii)   Note that the subject(s) of an application will be proposed by the Area Highways Manager, in consultation with the divisional members and the Chairman/Vice-Chairman of the Elmbridge Local Committee

 

(iii) Note that parking measures at the junction will be considered within the next Elmbridge Parking Review, which is currently due to begin in December 2020.

 

Reasons: To respond to the issues raised in the petition.

 

Petition 2:

 

(iv)  Include a scheme at the Summer Road/ Hampton Court Way junction on the prioritisation list for consideration in a future highway programme.

 

Reasons: To respond to the issues raised in the petition.

 

Petition 3:

 

(v)   Undertake an officer assessment of the road safety concerns on the roads in the vicinity of the St Lawrence School with reference to the county council’s Road Safety Outside School’s policy and will report the findings (including any recommendations for highway measures) to a future meeting of the Local Committee.

 

(vi) This process also includes an assessment of the status of the school’s travel plan. If required assistance will be provided to the school to ensure their travel plan is up to date and ideally registered on the national online school travel plan portal Modeshift STARS.

 

Reasons: To respond to the issues raised in the petition.

 

Petition 4:

 

(vii)      Approve the construction of the three pedestrian crossings that were originally intended as part of the Esher Road Active Travel scheme;

 

(xiii)Approve that following the construction of the three pedestrian crossings, and after a period of bedding in, officers should undertake public consultation with the local community, and that the results of this consultation should be reported back to Committee for a final decision on whether to make this scheme permanent;

 

(ix)  Authorise the Area Highway Manager in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and relevant Divisional Member(s) to undertake all necessary procedures to implement the three pedestrian crossings and undertake public consultation for this scheme at the appropriate time.

 

Reasons:

Observations during the trial period by both local members and Surrey County Council Highways Service officers suggest that the scheme has no significant adverse impact in terms of congestion compared to the previous layout of the A244 Esher Road.  The primary objective of this scheme was to provide three new pedestrian crossing facilities.  However these have not yet been constructed.  This means that the local community has not yet been able to utilise the main intended benefit of the scheme.   There is no compelling reason to abandon the scheme at this stage.  The alternative scheme suggested in the petition is unfeasible and has significant disadvantages compared to the proposed scheme.  If the pedestrian crossings were to be implemented, as per the recommendations, the local community would be able to experience the scheme in full, and then provide feedback to enable Committee to decide whether to make the scheme permanent.  

 

Petition 5:

 

(x)   Include a scheme on the prioritisation list for consideration in a future highway programme to consider the issues with the loading bay in Queen’s Road as part of a wider assessment of possible improvements in the Weybridge area.

 

Reasons: To respond to the issues raised in the petition.

 

Petition 6:

 

(xi)  request that local members and officers meet within 14 days to determine what improvements in the vicinity of the A244 in Oxshott are feasible and should be developed and agree timescales for these and engagement with third parties.

 

Reasons: To respond to the issues raised in the petition.

 

 

Declarations of Interest: Mary Sheldon declared a non-pecuniary interest as a local resident in petition 4.

 

Officers attending: Nick Healey, Area Highways Manager

 

Petitions, Public Questions/Statements:

 

Petition 1:  Mrs Emma Purdy presented the petition on behalf of the lead petitioner.  She outlined that she had lived in Langton Road for 18 years and the dangers of leaving the road at the junction with the Walton Road.  There are lots of delivery vans parking on the double yellow line around the corner obscuring sight lines.  There has been a recent accident and the car was severely damaged.  Cars travel quite fast in this vicinity and there are many other vehicle manoeuvres in this area.  Residents would like safety to be improved perhaps with the installation of an island to prevent parking near the junction.

 

Petition 2: Peter O’Donnell presented the petition on behalf of the lead petitioners.  He made the following points: he has been a resident for 37 years; the road is narrow and serves a number of homes and other facilities such as sports grounds and small industrial units.  There are three sites in the vicinity which are due for possible redevelopment and residents would like a co-ordinated master pan approach to be employed.  Residents would not support a ban on right turns from the road and would like signage improved.  The suggestion of a roundabout has many positives for debate and residents would have liked a more positive response from officers to this suggestion.

 

Petition 3:  Jim Davidson presented his petition requesting a new pedestrian crossing.  The four way junction outside the school is dangerous during school drop off and pick up times with high footfall with no natural location to cross, stop lines at the junction are confusing and there is a blind corner with cars driving fast.  There have been four accidents since 2017 where emergency services have been called. There have been many near misses.  Any reasonably placed crossing would attract users.  He would like to see the speed limit in the area reduced to 20mph.

 

Petition 4:  David Moore presented the petition on behalf of the lead petitioner.  He commented that the scheme has caused significant congestion in the area and does not address the issue of providing a safe pedestrian crossing as previously requested.  Undertaking has become an issue and vehicles waiting to turn right are held further back in the queue.  There are other viable alternatives which should be investigated before the scheme is implemented in full.

 

Petition 5:  Eleanor presented the petition on behalf of the lead petitioner and spoke on behalf of the residents and businesses on Queens Road.  The loading bay is in constant use and causes a huge disruption to businesses and blocks the view when leaving South Road.  Lorries park on the pavement and is dangerous to the public. Trolleys fall into the road and onto the pavement and have damaged shop.  Action needs to be taken to relocate it.  South Road would be a preferable location nearer to the Tesco or further down Queens Road.

 

Petition 6:  Ian Dilks presented the petition.  A previous petition had resulted in very little action and the response to the current petition is disappointing.  The Committee should ask officers to draw up a constructive report working with FEDORA and other agencies.  Speeding issues are not being addressed and a 20mph zone should be considered.  There is no acknowledgement of the issue of HGVs, traffic should remain on the M25 and not use Oxshott as a rat run.  The weight limit of the Oxshott rail bridge has been requested from network Rail together with the results of the last safety assessment, but they have requested more time to provide that information.  This raises concerns on potential safety implications.

 

Member discussion –key points

 

Petition 1:  The Area Highways Manager responded that as outlined in his report there is already a feasibility study which has started to look at the safety on Walton Road.  Members will be steering the direction of the study.  He highlighted that it may take some time to evaluate options and find the best solution.

 

Members commented that there are many blind junctions around the County and that vehicles can park on yellow lines to load and unload.  It was suggested that enforcement of these should be raised with the Borough Council as the enforcement authority if vehicles are parking illegally.  The installation of a mirror opposite has also been suggested.  The Area Highways Manager commented that the installation of a mirror on the public highway would not be supported and that anyone doing so on private land should consider taking out public liability insurance.  It was also suggested that a reduction in the speed limit to 20mph on some stretches of the road could be considered.  The issue of the speed limit further on the Walton Road which is still at the national speed limit was raised and it was asked if this could be considered in the feasibility study.  It is understood that the issue of the national speed limit is being addressed as part of the development of schools in the area.  Members would need to consider which issues are of the highest priority for consideration in a feasibility study.

 

Petition 2:  The Area Highways Manager responded that this petition cuts across planning and highways and that any planning matters are outside the merit of the Committee.  The County Council is a statutory consultee on any planning applications passed to them by the Borough Council as planning authority.  It is not possible to comment on applications which have not been received, only the Borough Council can co-ordinate development with infrastructure to feed into the planning process.  A roundabout would require the acquisition of private land and would probably need to be much larger than the size suggested, it may also make it easier to take a short cut through Thames Ditton.  A roundabout or traffic light junction of sufficient size would likely to be too costly to be justified in relation to the size of possible developments.  If banned right turns could be enforced by CCTV as they are in London these could be prevented.  However this is not currently possible and to make any significant improvements in safety at the junction closing of the gap would be the only solution.  However this is not currently being considered.  There are some signing improvements being implemented and if members had any further suggestions for improvements they could raise these with officers.  Members are supportive of a master plan approach if Elmbridge Borough Council wished to consider this.  There is a crossing point for pedestrians at this junction and small cars are using this for manoeuvres.  It was suggested that a bollard could prevent this, officers agreed to look at this further outside of the meeting.  Adding this to the prioritisation list will allow a proper study to take place as and when appropriate but conversations will continue in the meantime.

 

Petition 3:  The Area Highways Manager commented that the issues raised by the petitioner could be considered as part of the road safety outside school assessment.  A suitable location for a crossing is not easy to define, but there are a number of possible options which could be considered.  Members supported the comments made and looked forward to the results of the investigation.

 

Petition 4:  The Area Highways Manager commented that pedestrian refuges are appropriate to assist all road users although they may not be the perfect solution for all.  A traffic light crossing would still require a pedestrian refuge and the requirement to close a lane in each direction as it would not be possible to cross four lanes in one crossing without causing further congestion. The divisional member thanked the petitioners for their contribution to the debate.  He emphasised that it the Committee agrees to move to the next stage of the trial that is not the end of the story and nothing will be made permanent until extensive consultation takes place and the Committee makes the final decision.  This scheme would have been recommended by the feasibility study which was in progress and addresses the safety issues raised in the March 2019 petition following a fatality in the area. The 2019 petition organisers support the proposed scheme as do the family of the person tragically killed.  The scheme has already had a positive impact on reducing speeding along the road and if the Committee does not agree to the next stage of the trial it is unlikely that any improvements in this area will be possible.

 

Members commented that they could understand the initial misgivings of the petitioners, but having looked further at the proposals they could see the benefits of the proposed changes.  Speeds on this stretch of road were excessive and have been reduced by the implementation of phase one and made the road safer and more enjoyable to use for pedestrians and cyclists.  If ultimately the Committee decides that the scheme should be removed the cost will be covered by the active travel funding.  Members asked if the crossing of the cycle way to enter side roads could be looked at as well as any other impacts which may have developed.  It was agreed that these issues would be taken into account as the trial continues.  Before the scheme is made permanent the traffic impact needs to be understood in the context of ‘normal’ traffic volumes post Covid.  The Chairman commented that he had been involved in monitoring the scheme and it is unquestionably a safety scheme.  It is the scheme which would have been recommended by officers who were carrying out a feasibility study following the March 2019 petition presented to this Committee. Active travel funding has helped to implement it over a year sooner.  He acknowledged that the traffic management during the initial implementation of the scheme had caused congestion and 96% of the signatures on the petition were made during this time.  Since the traffic calming cones put in place during the works were removed on 29 August only 4% (around 100 signatures) have been added as the traffic is now moving more smoothly on the road.

 

Petition 5:  Memberscommented that many of the issues seem to have arisen as a result of Tesco not taking their responsibility for their actions and agreements made when planning was granted.  The Borough Council should be approached to consider better enforcement and it was agreed that the information would be passed to them.  However Tesco are now using smaller lorries and it would be difficult for them to park on the pavement where there are street signs on the kerb.  The local member reported that there is a review planned for the whole of Weybridge as a result of planned redevelopments and this could be included in that review.  The Area Highways Manager commented that he is in agreement that there is no obvious alternative space and it may have wider implications which would need to be taken into account.

 

Petition 6:  The Area Highways Manager commented that a number of improvements have been made in the area, including hardstanding for enforcement by the police and an extension of the 30mph limit either side of the village.  There have also been pavement improvements and extensions.  Further improvements are being planned.  The centre of the village and the possibility of a speed management scheme are suggested for a feasibility study later in the agenda.  The A244 is a major route within Surrey’s network and is key to the movement of goods and services and it would not be appropriate to restrict HGVs.

 

Members were sympathetic to the issues raised and apologised if residents did not feel that the report addressed these.  They would be supportive of a number of proposed measures including a table in the centre of the village and speed roundels at either end together with pavement widening.  The Committee agreed to officers and local members working with FEDORA to look at options and that if there are reasons things can’t be done they are clearly articulated.

 

Resolved to:

 

Petition 1:

 

(i)    Consider measures at the junction of Langton Road within the Walton Road scheme, to inform a future application for Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding

 

(ii)   Note that the subject(s) of an application will be proposed by the Area Highways Manager, in consultation with the divisional members and the Chairman/Vice-Chairman of the Elmbridge Local Committee

 

(iii) Note that parking measures at the junction will be considered within the next Elmbridge Parking Review, which is currently due to begin in December 2020.

 

Reasons: To respond to the issues raised in the petition.

 

Petition 2:

 

(iv)  Include a scheme at the Summer Road/ Hampton Court Way junction on the prioritisation list for consideration in a future highway programme.

 

Reasons: To respond to the issues raised in the petition.

 

Petition 3:

 

(v)   Undertake an officer assessment of the road safety concerns on the roads in the vicinity of the St Lawrence School with reference to the county council’s Road Safety Outside School’s policy and will report the findings (including any recommendations for highway measures) to a future meeting of the Local Committee.

 

(vi) This process also includes an assessment of the status of the school’s travel plan. If required assistance will be provided to the school to ensure their travel plan is up to date and ideally registered on the national online school travel plan portal Modeshift STARS.

 

Reasons: To respond to the issues raised in the petition.

 

Petition 4:

 

(vii)      Approve the construction of the three pedestrian crossings that were originally intended as part of the Esher Road Active Travel scheme;

 

(xiii)Approve that following the construction of the three pedestrian crossings, and after a period of bedding in, officers should undertake public consultation with the local community, and that the results of this consultation should be reported back to Committee for a final decision on whether to make this scheme permanent;

 

(ix)  Authorise the Area Highway Manager in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and relevant Divisional Member(s) to undertake all necessary procedures to implement the three pedestrian crossings and undertake public consultation for this scheme at the appropriate time.

 

Reasons:

Observations during the trial period by both local members and Surrey County Council Highways Service officers suggest that the scheme has no significant adverse impact in terms of congestion compared to the previous layout of the A244 Esher Road.  The primary objective of this scheme was to provide three new pedestrian crossing facilities.  However these have not yet been constructed.  This means that the local community has not yet been able to utilise the main intended benefit of the scheme.   There is no compelling reason to abandon the scheme at this stage.  The alternative scheme suggested in the petition is unfeasible and has significant disadvantages compared to the proposed scheme.  If the pedestrian crossings were to be implemented, as per the recommendations, the local community would be able to experience the scheme in full, and then provide feedback to enable Committee to decide whether to make the scheme permanent.  

 

Petition 5:

 

(x)   Include a scheme on the prioritisation list for consideration in a future highway programme to consider the issues with the loading bay in Queen’s Road as part of a wider assessment of possible improvements in the Weybridge area.

 

Reasons: To respond to the issues raised in the petition.

 

Petition 6:

 

(xi)  request that local members and officers meet within 14 days to determine what improvements in the vicinity of the A244 in Oxshott are feasible and should be developed and agree timescales for these and engagement with third parties.

 

Reasons: To respond to the issues raised in the petition.