Agenda item

The Select Committee has called in the decision relating to the London Road Guildford Active Travel Scheme.

Witnesses:

·         Cllr Matt Furniss – Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth

·         Cllr Denise Turner Stewart – Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Customer and Communities

·         Cllr David Lewis – Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources

·         Owen Jenkins – Interim Executive Director Highways, Infrastructure and Planning

·         Lucy Monie – Director, Highways and Transport

·         Roger Williams – Active Travel Programme Manager

Key points raised during the discussion:

1. A Member said that the Cabinet’s decision to refuse the scheme should be reconsidered. He argued there was not enough evidence to support the refusal and that it did not address safety improvements, secondary effects, or policy and funding impacts. He also stressed the need for decisions based on evidence. The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth said that Active Travel England (ATE) confirmed funds could be reallocated without loss. The project remains a scheme available for future Council implementation. The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Customer and Communities said that the evidence suggested that introducing a potential risk in a scheme meant to improve safety would not be considered a safety improvement. She stated that the Council's role is to consider safety and risk and the decision made was due to safety concerns that could not be overlooked. The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources clarified that the decision was based on a technical report from ARUP, not on a non-technical opinion, and emphasised that his concerns were about the evidence provided, not the principle of shared spaces.

2. A Member asked whether the Cabinet Members agree that, overall, the benefits to pedestrians and cyclists outweigh the 5% of the area where the scheme is not perfect. The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth said that he does agree that any improvement is better than none, but concerns were raised that prohibiting shared space due to safety issues could hinder walking and cycling projects, considering many areas lack the space—particularly the width of 1.8 metres—to make improvements. It was suggested that a review of Local Transport Plan (LTP4) might be necessary, depending on the decision. The Deputy Leader said that the report notes that 25% of shared paths in Surrey are 1.8 metres wide, without factoring in the reduced road lane width, presenting complex concerns for not only the narrow path but also the risk of vehicle wing mirrors encroaching on the path, weather, and other factors.

3. A Member asked what was the alternative if the scheme did not proceed and how would existing safety concerns for pedestrians, cyclists, and local school children be addressed. The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth said that there were three sections to be upgraded, safety defects were to be reviewed, and further improvements were to be considered.

4. A Member asked the officers to comment and confirm that, given all the considerations, they regarded the scheme as being as safe as possible and that the ARUP report reflected the same conclusion. The Interim Executive Director Highways, Infrastructure and Planning said that the officer’s report to Cabinet reflected the best possible scheme given the site’s constraints, as confirmed by the ARUP report, and met the requirements of local transport note (LTN) 1/20.

5. A Member asked whether professional technical evidence should outweigh non-technical opinions in decision-making, and whether the ARUP report’s conclusion on safety should be considered valid. The Deputy Leader noted that the report's findings were not acceptable to the Cabinet due to the risks. These limitations, tied to the route's location, were referenced but unchangeable, and it was up to the Cabinet to interpret and decide whether to proceed.

6. A Member asked why ARUP conducted a desktop-only exercise and did not require an actual site visit for the report; where were the business requirements given to ARUP; if the scheme was reassessed using the 2024 ATE Route Check User Manual, and if not, why not; and why the ARUP report overlooked key aspects of the ATE Route Check policies, as noted on page 114 of the Cabinet report. The Engineering Project Manager explained that it was standard practice for professional organisations to review drawing designs and perform a technical review based on guidance, including LTN 1/20 and HGV width principles. Regarding the business requirements, the points provided to ARUP were based on the issues concerning HGV width, user safety on the footway, and shared-use path. Concerning the Route Check Manual, the scheme was not reassessed using the 2024 ATE Route Check User Manual because it had already been reviewed. Finally, regarding page 114 of the Cabinet report, it was clarified that the ARUP report did not overlook key aspects of the ATE Route Check policies, as ATE had already signed-off on the design, confirming its adherence to their standards.

7. A Member, after reviewing the scheme and cabinet meeting, believed there were no grounds to refer the decision back and would have opposed the scheme in the first instance. He raised concerns about potential safety risks if traffic exceeds the projected 300 movements per hour and questioned whether prioritising cyclists might discourage pedestrian use, especially for disabled individuals. The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth said that if the scheme had been successful, it would have encouraged more cycling, reduced car usage, and prompted further evaluation of the road's suitability for the highest estimated use volumes.

8. A Member, after hearing the discussion, believed there might be grounds to refer the decision back to Cabinet. He questioned whether the scheme would improve pedestrian safety and asked whether this project should move forward or is there too much uncertainty to make a decision. The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth highlighted the increased number of crossings, continuous pavements, and reduced vehicle speeds, and while recognising the strong opposition to the initial road closure announcement, emphasised that after two years of consultation, a far better design had emerged, even though he was ultimately in the minority. The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources said that the decision to oppose the proposal was influenced not only by concerns about the shared space and comments in the ARUP report but also by the narrow width of the road and the risks to both pedestrians and vehicles. Additionally, the opposition of key organizations representing disabled and disadvantaged people in the county played a significant role in the decision-making process. The Deputy Leader responded to concerns about pedestrian safety, referencing road limits and lack of alternatives.

9. A Member asked the Cabinet Members if anything they heard had made them believe that they had not properly considered the safety and technical issues when making their decision, and whether the Committee’s debate had influenced any change in their views. The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources said that after considering all comments, he believed that the correct process was followed and key issues were addressed, and while he supported the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth's suggestion to explore small safety improvements, it did not change his decision. The Deputy Leader noted that the Committee acknowledged the qualifications of those producing the reports, and that their decision remained unchanged in light of the important, transparent, due process undertaken.

At the conclusion of the debate, the Chair invited the Committee to proceed with voting on the question: “Does the committee wish to refer the decision not to proceed with the scheme back to the Cabinet for reconsideration?” A roll call vote was taken. Voting was as follows:

Votes in Favour: Baart, Cooksey, Follows, Hogg, O’Reilly, Tear and Weerasinghe (7)

Votes Against: Beckett, Macleod, McCormick and Webster (4)

Not Voting: Witham (1)

The Chair declared the question PASSED.

Recommendations:

RESOLVED, the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee recommends:

1. That the Select Committee refers the decision of Cabinet made on 29 October 2024 not to proceed with the London Road Guildford Active Travel Scheme, back to the Cabinet for reconsideration on the grounds that: