Agenda item

To receive any written questions from Members under Standing Order 47.

Declarations of Interest: Mrs Hazel Watson declared a personal interest as a Governor of The Ashcombe School.

Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highways Manager (AHM), SCC

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

Question 1 was submitted by Mrs Hazel Watson, who asked the following supplementary question;

Do officers agree that banning a left turn at the junction of Station Road and Chalkpit Lane would help the problem?

The AHM noted that all possible options would need to be looked at within the feasibility study. She added there would be no reason to ban the left turn on safety grounds and also no guarantee that drivers would comply with this. She concluded further investigation would be required before any agreement or disagreement could be made.

Question 2 was submitted by Mrs Hazel Watson, who asked the following supplementary question;

My specific question was not answered in the officer response. Why was only one survey carried out at the time, when it was known that more surveys would be needed in the future?

The AHM responded by stating the original speed survey had been carried out for initial scoping and was just the first step, and not the full study. She confirmed the speed survey hadn’t been undertaken to specifically look at reducing the speed limit. It was conducted on the request of the Head Teacher of Boxhill School, who was concerned about the possible safety issues outside the school.

Question 3 was submitted by Cllr Rosemary Dickson, who made the following comment in response;

I do see that it is a bigger issue than just simply moving the white line. I am surprised there have not been any personal injury claims but I do know the museum has been hit by turning vehicles.

The AHM noted the comment and stated she would have a conversation with the Road Safety Manager about the junction. She concluded it would be unlikely the junction would get a full redesign but it would be useful for officers to keep an eye on this.

Question 4 was submitted by Mr Stephen Cooksey, who asked the following supplementary question;

Can I seek assurance that the investigative work will take place in the relatively near future?

The AHM confirmed that officers would try to progress this work as soon as possible; adding that engineers would be in touch shortly to see if the divisional member would like to use any of his capital maintenance funding to assist.

Question 5 was submitted by Mrs Hazel Watson, who asked the following supplementary question;

Are you aware I raised a question yesterday at Cabinet? The Cabinet member answered the question and offered to meet to discuss the scoring.

The AHM confirmed she would be happy to meet to discuss the scoring but noted the scheme in question only had a priority score of 70, compared to other proposed schemes, where the lowest priority score over the 3 year programme, was 190.