Councillors and committees

Agenda item

PUBLIC QUESTIONS

To receive any questions from Surrey County Council electors within the area in accordance with Standing Order 66.

Minutes:

Five public questions were received, which are attached with the responses as Annex A to these minutes.

 

Question 1 - Mr Ward

 

The Committee agreed new speed limits for Hookwood some time ago with one change having to be referred to the relevant Cabinet Member. I understand that the Cabinet Member gave approval some time last autumn. Why have the new limits not yet been implemented and when is it intended that they will be implemented?

 

Mr Ward received a written response in advance of the meeting and asked how long it takes on average from the date of closure to the completion of works.

The Area Highways Officer confirmed that there is a standard 28 day notice with contractors on work, but confirmed in this case signage needs to be ordered.  The hope is that in a couple months all work will be completed and implemented.

 

Question 2 - Mr Seaward

 

During the exceptional wet weather through the winter of 2013 and 2014 in Bookham we suffered a series of serious flooding issues.  These were at three locations in the Lower Road.  One was at the junction of Child’s Hall Road and the north western corner of the Lower Road recreation ground.  The second at the junction of Lower Road and Manor House Lane where foul and surface water drainage systems failed. Foul water as a result entered local properties. The third was again on the Lower Road between the playing fields of The Howard of Effingham School and the Vineries Nursery causing the main footpath to the school to become impassable. Work between SCC, MVDC and ourselves eventually found ways of alleviating these problems but not permanent solutions. It was agree that this summer meetings would take place on site with SCC Highways officials to determine ways of rectifying these problems more permanently.  These meetings have not taken place. Could the Local Committee provide dates so that these meetings can take place and ways found to avoid a repetition of these problems in the coming winter?

 

Mr Seaward received a written response in advance of the meeting and asked for clarification on the Manor House Lane foul drain and emphasised that a permanent solution is required for this.  Mr Seaward also raised concerns regarding the impact of the flooding on children going to school at the Howard of Effingham and requested a site meeting with officers to look into both these issues.

 

The divisional member highlighted that adequate drainage must be provided in this area of road, as even without the levels of rain of this winter the gullies are not coping.

The Area Highways Manager suggested a site meeting after the next Bookham flood forum to look into these issues.

 

Question 3 - Mr Brookes

 

When the cleaning out of the soakaways in the Dorking Road was done in June only the gullies attached were cleaned out. I was told by the team doing the work that another gully vehicle would come next week to clean the rest of the gullies.  This hasn't happened and now all the gullies that collect the water etc. are blocked or full (some 25 in number). I also asked for the road to be swept at the junction of Admirals Road/ Chapel Lane as both these roads produce at least 75% of the silt, mud and gravel on to the Dorking Road. Admirals Road has mud from lorries using it to turn round and cutting into the banks. Chapel Lane is a single track road with only passing places and cars have and still do cut into the bank and bring silt and shingle into Dorking Road, Proper passing places with kerbs and signs needed here. This problem of silt coming down the Dorking Road causing blocked gullies and subsequent flooding throughout this road has been an issue accepted by SCC as part of their Wet Spot programme for at least 8 years now. Could I be reassured that until the longer term solution is found that these two roads, Chapel Lane and Admirals Road,  and the problems they produce be dealt with and the gullies in Dorking Road cleaned out more frequently than only once per annum - 4 times preferably - and so ensure that the system works with the soakaways effectively. An update on the long term solution for the Wet Spot activity would be welcome

 

Mr Brookes received a written response in advance of the meeting and asked if the soakaway referred to in the answer was an existing soakaway or a new one.  He also requested that gully clearing be undertaken 4 times a year instead of 2 and that road sweeping be undertaken regularly to allow for soakaways functioning correctly.

The divisional member expressed concern with the issues of gullies on Dorking road, this is an enormous problem and feels that gully cleaning needs to be addressed.

 

The Area Highways Manager confirmed that the silt levels are being monitored to feed into the central cleaning contract and would liaise with the rights of way officer to address the issue of the bridleway.

 

Question 4 - Mr Meudell

 

For the new Leatherhead to Ashtead cycle route:

 

Will the committee provide an estimate of the extent of work, and the costs, necessary to bring the path up to the requirements for safety of disabled road users?

 

Will the committee explain why the path as constructed deviates significantly from the proposals in the public consultation, and is of considerably lower standard (and higher cost) than that promised?  Furthermore, given the extended period between initial submission of the scheme to the Department of Transport and the consultation (approximately 12 months), why were these deviations not identified and notified to both the public, in that consultation, as well as stakeholder groups beforehand?

 

Mr Meudell’s questions were responded to as part of the Leatherhead to Ashtead item on the agenda.

 

Question 5 - Mr Browne

 

The Ashtead to Leatherhead cycle path project, which includes elements for pedestrian safety, was given approval to proceed by this Committee in September 2013 based on a budget of £850k and with a project programme of 18 weeks.

The tender received for the project amounted some £1.5m.  After a value engineering exercise reduced the costs by £400k, the project was committed to construction at a cost of £1.1m.  The nature and extent to which design changes gave rise to the substantial cost increase to £1.5m, and further changes to reduce the scheme to £1.1m, remain unclear.

 

The estimated cost of the project, as provided on 5th August in response to FoI request 11229, had risen to £1.225m, representing a 44% increase on the cost of the scheme approved by the Committee.  With the DfT contribution now standing at £695k (an increase of £100k) Surrey CC’s contribution has more than doubled (by 107%) from the original commitment of £255k to £530k.  The cost of 1.225m is also additional to the elements of the scheme provided in 2009/10 at a cost of £625k resulting in overall expenditure on this route of £1.85m.  It is not yet clear whether costs will rise further, e.g. in respect of any additional works arising from the safety audit or the disruption of the project due to the delays. As of 4th September the 18 week project has continued into a 29th week awaiting the replacement of road direction signs obstruction the cycle path on the Epsom Road.  Only 11% of the cycle path (circa 250 metres between Melvinshaw and Garlands Road) provides segregation between cyclists and pedestrians – including an impracticable and dangerously narrow constriction at the landing point for the pedestrian crossing on the Epsom Road serving Downsend Infants’ School.  The other 2,050 yards are a shared, sometimes narrow, pathway with no demarcation between cyclists and pedestrians.  The safety railings between the raised pathway and the Knoll Roundabout have not been replaced; reprofiled junctions on the Epsom Road have created new hazards for road and pathway users and added to traffic congestion; and the junction at Grange Road where the footbridge was removed has been left in an appallingly bumpy condition.  These, and other defects and safety issues, have been highlighted separately to Surrey Highways.  The cycle path is being largely ignored by local cyclists who continue to use the road and who are also frequently to be seen on the footpath on the other side of the road. Photographs and comments illustrating some of these issues are on Twitter @ashleacyclepath.

 

The cost of the 2009/10 and 2014 elements of the cycle path project using the costs so far provided amount to £1.85m.  This equates to £804 per linear metre (£533 per metre for the 2014 element alone) based on the stated length for the cycle path of 2,300 metres.  By way of comparison, a report was made at the September 2013 meeting of the Committee introducing Project Horizon. This was said to be a £100m project to rebuild 300 miles of the worst roads in Surrey, specifically targeting roads where the sub-base is no longer fit for purpose and full reconstruction is required. This is a cost of £207 per linear metre and involves much more substantial engineering works than for the cycle path and over much wider carriageways, typically some 3 times the width of the foot/cycle path.

 

Are members of the Local Committee able to say on what basis the expenditure incurred so far on the cycle path could be said to be value for money; and in the light of this can members be confident that the costs estimated for the more substantial highways engineering works and wider carriageways associated with Project Horizon, administered by the same managing agent as for the 2014 cycle path, can be delivered for £207 per metre?

 

Mr Browne’s questions were also responded to as part of the Leatherhead to Ashtead item on the agenda.