Agenda item

Six questions had been received from members of the public. The questions and responses were tabled and are attached as Appendix 2.

Six questions had been received from members of the public. The questions and responses were tabled and are attached as Appendix 2.

The following supplementary questions were asked:

·         Mr Beaman said that the hoped the County Council would submit a bid for funding from the Government’s Clean Bus Technology Fund and confirmed that he would be willing to assist with the submission, if required.

·         Mr Robertson made a detailed statement concerning the Eco Park. The Leader of the Council requested a copy of it so that an answer could be provided to Mr Robertson outside the meeting.

·         Mr Telford considered that the response had not said what action that Surrey County Council would take to protect the Green Belt in the Runnymede area. The Cabinet Member for Transport, Highways and Environment said that his response had stated the county position and re-affirmed that the need to protect the Green Belt was a matter decided at local level (the Runnymede Local Plan). However, the County Council was a consultee in the process and would respond to the consultation.

·         Mr Eastment expressed concern in relation to a small airport trying to obtain planning permission to build and encroach onto Green belt land. He referred to the Article 4 direction and acknowledged that they would know Surrey Heath Borough Council’s position after the meeting with Chobham Parish Council. However, he asked if Surrey County Council’s legal team could advise Surrey Heath Borough Council in relation to this matter.

The Cabinet Member for Transport, Highways and Environment said that the county council was unable to impose their views on the borough council and referred to the last sentence of his response, which stated that there was no requirement for the borough council to consult third parties. However, he referred to the meeting with Chobham Parish Council and said this was the forum to raise it and ensure that Surrey Heath Borough Council was aware of their concerns.

·         Ms Desoutter asked the Cabinet Member for Community Services whether, in future, the County Council would consult more widely with the general public before committing to events that involved road closures. She also asked whether there would be compensation for those residents whose holiday plans had been affected by the forthcoming road closures on 4 August 2013.

The Cabinet Member for Community Services said that information had been sent to those residents affected and more details would be sent out in July. She drew attention to the dedicated number included in her response that residents could use if they had specific concerns. She hoped that roads would re-open as soon as possible. She also informed Cabinet that a protocol detailing the process for organising future events involving road closures was being drawn up and would be subject to consultation over the summer months. With regard to compensation, she confirmed that none was available from Surrey County Council.

·         Mr Catt asked the Cabinet Member for Transport, Highways and Environment whether there were any restrictions within the contract with SITA that would prevent the County Council from taking the Best Value and safest solution to this problem and was advised that there was none.