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, Katie Stewart, Executive Director for Environment, Transport and Infrastructure (ETI), SCC and Carolyn McKenzie, Director for Environment, SCC

Petitions, Public Statements, Questions: Seven written public questions were received before the deadline. The full wording of the questions and officer responses were included within the supplementary agenda.

Key points from discussion:

Question 2 was submitted by Julia Dickinson who attended the meeting and asked the following supplementary question;

In the officer response, it was noted further information is awaited from Coast 2 Capital. Can the response therefore be updated when this further information has been provided?

It was agreed that further information would be provided when available. The Local Committee agreed it would also be useful for them to be briefed on this topic in the future when the information was available.

Question 1 submitted by Cllr Roger Adams and Question 6 submitted by Cllr Paul were in relation to the Norbury Park sawmill. Both attended the meeting along with SCC officers; the Executive Director for Environment, Transport and Infrastructure and Director for Environment who responded to concerns raised.

It was noted there was lots of concern about the closure of the sawmill and questions were asked about the decision making process as it appeared the sawmill had been profitable for the vast majority of past years.

It was confirmed by Officers that the decision was about who should run the sawmill and not about whether it should be there. The decision taken by SCC was that it was not financially viable for them to run the sawmill. SCC would continue to work with local community interest groups to find a projects that could run sustainably at the site.

It was questioned about the cost for SCC to take on the sawmill running and what the quoted figure of £280k included. It was confirmed this figure included the purchase of the structure and equipment as well as costs for essential site improvements. It was confirmed that if SCC took on the running, the site would become illegible for certain grants and funding, they otherwise would have been able to access.

Members noted their disappointment about the lack of engagement and consultation with them. This was acknowledged by Officers and noted that conscious efforts would be made in the future to better engage with local stakeholders.

Question 3 was submitted by Peter Seaward who attended the meeting and asked the following supplementary question;

Thank you for this answer, do we know when these results will be known?

It was confirmed that the School Places Planning Team were due to meet with schools from March onwards and it was therefore likely the results would be available from early-mid summer.

Question 4 was submitted by Cllr Caroline Salmon who attended the meeting. She noted it was disappointing to not have a response as the issue was pertinent now.

The AHM requested further information about the issue and agreed to follow up on this outside the meeting.

Question 5 was submitted by Cllr Elizabeth Daly, who did not attend the meeting nor ask a supplementary question.

Question 7 was submitted by Cllr Paul Kennedy who attended the meeting and asked the following supplementary question;

Is it possible to provide a ball park figure for this work based on previous work?

The AHM confirmed she would provide the full list of ball park figures for work to the Local Committee.