Agenda item

To answer any questions from residents or businesses within the Tandridge District area in accordance with Standing Order 69. Notice should be given in writing or by email to the Community Partnership and Committee Officer by 12 noon four working days before the meeting.

Four received at time of despatch. Three responses attached and one to follow.

Five formal public questions were received. The written responses (which were provided to the questioners) are attached to the minutes as Appendix B.

Two questions were received from members of the public regarding the pinch points on Godstone Road, Lingfield.

Chris D’avray, from Lingfield Parish Council (Question 2) and District Councillor Brian Perkins (Question 5) submitted their public questions to the meeting; they received the response prior to the meeting.

Question 2 - Mr D’avray asked a supplementary question; he stated that in the last two years of monitoring, there were partial records in place due to the equipment on Station Road not working properly. He continued that he would like the pinch points nearest to the village removed however he would like to request a year’s further monitoring to be carried out at the other pinch point.

The Transport Development Planning Team Manager responded that the Section 278 agreement with the developer is a legal agreement with a monitoring period of a year which ended in September 2014. There is no scope in the legal agreement to change this other than to attempt to renegotiate with the developer. Therefore further monitoring could be at the expense of Surrey County Council not the developer.

Member Discussion – key points:

·         Members inquired what the cost of further monitoring for a year would be. The Transport Development Planning Team Manager responded that the approximate cost would be £2,000 for the monitoring, then (if appropriate) the cost of removal of the pinch points and then replacement with another measure would be around £20,000.

Question 5 - Cllr Brian Perkins asked a supplementary question; he stated that in the question response received, the Transport Development Planning Team Manager said that the signs were clear and comply with legislation. However although he agrees, he believes the sign at the furthest pinch points requires illumination at night.  He continued that he believed the pinch points were not wide enough which was resulting in many vehicles hitting the pinch points therefore he requests that these modifications be made.

The Transport Development Planning Team Manager responded that the pinch points furthest from the village have no illumination as per the planning conditions imposed on them. She continued that the pinch points meet the 3.5m requirements given for Fire Vehicles to be able to pass through. There could be scope to remove and replace the pinch points however this cannot be at the expense of the developer which is her recommendation.

Member Discussion – key points:

·         Members asked the Transport Development Planning Team Manager to remind them of the criteria. She responded that the criteria set was were congestion, traffic speed, traffic diversion and recorded personal injury accidents.

The Chairman then moved on to the related Item 7.

Formal Public Questions

Five formal public questions were received. The written responses (which were provided to the questioners) are attached to the minutes as Appendix B.

Questions 2 and 5 were discussed earlier in the meeting (received from members of the public regarding the pinch points on Godstone Road, Lingfield).

Question 1 - Mr Piers Clark asked a supplementary question; he asked how the committee would address resident concerns over safety caused by commuter parking on Grange Road. He explained that with the recent housing development and with Caterham being the last stop in Zone 6 there has been a constant increase in parking on the road from 7am to approximately 8pm. He expressed concerns over safety and being unable to drive out of their properties safely due to the sight lines being obstructed by the parking. He continued that there have been accidents where emergency vehicles have been obstructed also.

The Parking Strategy and Implementation Team Manager responded that he was sorry to hear of the difficulties and advised the residents to call the Reigate and Banstead Parking team if any of their drives are physically obstructed (in the short term). Longer term the parking review will be in March 2015 and this particular issue will be raised with the divisional member (Mrs Sally Marks) in the new year.

Question 3 - Mrs Claire Knight asked a supplementary question; she stated how dangerous the situation was as the residents have to come out of their properties blind and asked how the parking wardens proceed when called. Do residents need to take a picture and send it to the team or do the wardens come out to the location straight away.

The Reigate and Banstead Parking manager responded that the residents should call her team who will come out within 24 hours or if there is an officer located nearby then they will be sent to the road.

Mrs Knight requested that one of the team come to her property and experience trying to come out of her driveway.

The Parking Strategy and Implementation Team Manager agreed that he would try to do this at some point.

Member Discussion – key points:

·         Mr David Hodge reminded the residents that if somebody is parked across their drives they can also call the police. This happened to him personally and the police came and prosecuted the driver and issued a £300 fine to the driver.

Question 4 – Cllr Bob Milton from Chaldon Village Parish Council was unable to attend the meeting. Mr John Orrick asked two supplementary questions on his behalf (which the Chairman granted).

The supplementary questions were that the response to his question stated the need for a feasibility design to include consideration of traffic speeds, volume etc.  Can active consideration be given to the installation of traffic monitoring equipment in Rook Lane by SCC Highways to collect the necessary data? 

He also suggests that 106 funding could be available to carry out a feasibility study once other works in the immediate vicinity of the development have been completed.  Would the Local Committee endorse this offer and ensure that it is revisited at the appropriate time?

The Highways officers noted the requests.