Agenda item

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

The full wording of the questions and officer responses will be provided within the supplementary agenda.

Declarations of Interest: None

Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager (AHM), SCC and Duncan Knox, Road Safety and Active Travel Team Manager (RSATTM), SCC

Petitions, Public Statements, Questions: The questions and officer responses were provided within the supplementary agenda. Seven written questions were received before the deadline.

Question one was submitted by Cllr Caroline Salmon, who asked the following supplementary question;

Do officers know what is causing the subsidence and do they feel leaving it until 2021 is safe?

The AHM responded by saying the whole area of A24 had undergone a detailed investigation and would continue to have frequent highways safety inspections and be monitored until the time that it prioritised for work.

Question two was submitted by Cllr James Friend, who did not attend the meeting but did ask that he be provided with an update when the meeting between officers had taken place. The AHM agreed this.

Question three was submitted by John Arnold, Mole Valley Cycling Forum. Mr Arnold attended the meeting and asked the following supplementary question;

Given that it is now nearly 2021, and there is no date for commencement of a Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) for Mole Valley and only a vague statement that  “other areas of the county, including Mole Valley, will follow (Reigate & Banstead) in due course.”  Without a LWCIP, Mole Valley will not be eligible for any government funding for cycling and walking improvements. The Mole Valley Cycle Forum, and other stakeholders, have ‘oven ready’ proposals for a workshop and would appreciate a firm date to be identified when the first workshop can take place which would be a constructive contribution to the LWCIP process.

The AHM thanked Mr Arnold for his question and noted a question about LCWIPs was recently asked at full council. It was noted that three LCWIPs had been diarised; Reigate & Banstead, Elmbridge and Runnymede. Approximately one every four months. The roll out of the LCWIPs was expensive and labour intensive and therefore it was not possible to roll them out in all areas at one time. Currently there was no further schedule for the remaining LCWIPs. But when a time for the Mole Valley LCWIP was known, it would be shared with the Mole Valley Cycling Forum. The AHM thanked Mr Arnold for his ‘oven ready’ proposals; adding it was always useful to know what the local community was looking for. She added however, these would not form part of the LCWIP process. 

Question four was submitted by Rosemary Hobbs. Mrs Hobbs attended the meeting and asked the following supplementary question;

How should residents inform Surrey County Council and Surrey Police when they have concerns about excessive noise and speed?

The RSATTM advised Mrs Hobbs that the SCC website contained a report it function. It was suggested this would be the best way to inform the County Council over ongoing issues of speeding. It was suggested a specific incident would be best reported to Surrey Police. He noted however, that providing details such as a number plate was not always easy or practically possible in such cases, particularly when vehicles were travelling at speed.

Question five was submitted by Cllr Roger Adams, who did not attend the meeting. The divisional member noted the question raised was a good one and one that was frequently raised by residents. She noted the officer response with regards to the compulsory purchase order of the adjacent land. And added that it may become possible to improve matters at the junction with A246 through a Section 106 agreement, should the Chalkpit Lane depot across the road be redeveloped.

Question six was submitted by Mr Andrew Matthews, who attended the meeting and asked the following supplementary question;

The planned provision for cycling to the new Howard of Effingham School appears inadequate, with only 10% of students able to store their bicycles at the new school, and with no dedicated cycle highway planned. This will result in cyclists competing with pedestrians on the shared path.  Given the recent government drive for people to take up active travel, can Surrey County Council explain why there is not a better plan for sustainable transport to the new school when the council recently applied for a £7.8million grant to improve facilities elsewhere in the county?  

The AHM thanked Mr Matthews for his question; noting that the response had been provided by colleagues from Transport Development Planning (TDP), who were not at the meeting. She stated that it would be best for the supplementary question to be responded to outside the meeting by TDP colleagues. This was agreed by the Chairman and Mr Matthews.

Question seven was submitted by Cllr Paul Kennedy, who attended the meeting and asked the following supplementary question;

The response mentions the Road Safety Working Group. Who is invited to this and who does this group report to?

The RSATTM explained this group was hosted by colleagues from within his team and included colleagues from Surrey Police and Area Highway teams. He added that each Borough/District had six-monthly meetings to review accident hotspots. This involved analysing the problem and looking at solutions. He added the schemes across the whole county were  prioritised based on number of collisions and cost benefit analysis. It was confirmed the working group was accountable to the Cabinet Member for Highways and in cases where speed limit changes were suggested as solutions, these were brought to the Local Committee for approval.