Decisions

Surrey County Council (SCC) has a statutory duty to support disabled children, young people and their families. Personal Support is part of the short breaks offer but is a specialist service and is only available following assessment. 

Personal Support is home-based care, primarily used by SCC’s Children with Disabilities team to provide families with respite care (short break), in accordance with their assessed needs. Personal support may also be used to provide other types of support such as emergency or crisis support and support outside the home for children and young people to access and be included in social and leisure actives in their local communities.

The services provided through the new contract will be available to all of the Children’s Services teams and the procurement value reflects this scope.

The new DPS for Personal Support Services will commence on 1^st April 2024 and it will be in place for 3 years, up to 31^st March 2027. There is also an available extension of 2 years taking this to 31^st March 2029.

It was AGREED that:

1. Surrey County Council will join the DPV set up by the Commissioning Alliance to deliver Supported Accommodation Services.         

2. All Call off contracts for individual placements and block contracts via a mini competition made under the DPV will be approved by the Director of Commissioning and/or Head of Service.

It was AGREED that:

1.The successful bidder Atkins Limited is awarded the contract.

The Council is seeking toappoint a Lead Design Consultant, Architectural Design and Principal Designer Services Consultant team to provide Design and Engineering Services to manage and monitor the design development and construction stages of the identified sites for the delivery of the Extra Care Housing and Supported Independent Living Programme; Surrey Outdoor Learning (SOLD); Highways Refurbishment; New Fire Stations and Training Centres; Looked After and Adopted Children (LAAC); School and Mixed Use Developments. This programme of works will include essential maintenance works.

The scope of work for each project comprises the Lead Designer, Principal Designer & Architect Services consultant undertaking the design work (in conjunction with the Project Management, Cost Management & Contract Administrator Services) to enable the achievement and completion of all tasks associated with the achievement and production of a Feasibility Study, the Employer’s Requirements for construction services as necessary to successfully enable design, delivery and handover of the project.

The project will be delivered via four contracts each allocated to a single design and build contractor (with the inclusion of enabling works to prepare the site and create the necessary access route ahead of development) covering four separate project areas:

ITT 1 – Mixed Minor Projects

ITT 2 - Mixed Major Projects

ITT 3 - Education Projects

ITT 4 - Residential/MMC Projects

The recommended route to market was to conduct a mini competition under Lot 3 of the Crown Commercial Services (CCS) Project Management and Full Design Team Services Framework (RM3741) to identify up to four suppliers to provide Lead Design Consultant, Architectural Design and Principal Designer Services for four separate project areas.

Estimated overall Contract Value (including extensions) per project area:

ITT 1 – Mixed Minor Projects = £3,750,000

ITT 2 - Mixed Major Projects = £3,750,000

ITT 3 - Education Projects = £3,750,000

ITT 4 - Residential/MMC Projects = £3,750,000

It was AGREED that:

1.           The successful bidder Atkins Limited is awarded the contract.

The purpose of this report is to obtain a Delegated Officer Decision to procure a 3^rd party data archiving solution based on confirmed costs, which have been updated following the completion of a procurement process. The procurement process formally commenced in March 2021 having completed required preparation and gaining a Delegated Officer Decision to proceed, which was approved on 29^th September 2020. This further Delegated Officer decision is required prior to contract award as the confirmed cost of the solution is greater than 5% higher than the projected cost estimate in the original Delegated Officer Decision report.

The data archive solution will provide long-term storage of 16 years of historic data held in the council’s corporate system, SAP.  SAP is the system that the council currently uses to manage its business-critical finance, procurement and HR & payroll processes - however it will be replaced by the Unit 4 system in Dec 2021.

The historic SAP data is required to be retained for operational reasons and will be subject to GDPR.  Alternative options to retain the historic data on SAP or migrate it to the new Unit 4 system (the SAP replacement) were rejected by Strategic Programme Board in 2020 because the hardware where the SAP system is installed has reached end of life, and it would be prohibitively expensive to fix;  also, as this legacy data is not required for the day-to-day running of the future organisation, it would be sub-optimal to migrate it to the new Unit 4 system (due to the impact on future storage costs and system performance).

The original business case cost estimate of the data archive project was £414k in total for 5 years (2021/22 – 2025/25).  This was based on high level estimates provided by suppliers informally and was included within the overall Digital Business & Insights full business case, which was approved by Cabinet in July 2020. 

A procurement process was initiated and an invitation to tender (ITT) for the 3^rd party archive solution was issued via a Crown Commercial Services framework to several suppliers.  The successful preferred supplier’s bid was the most affordable and met all mandatory technical requirements.

The new revised data archive project cost is £570k over 5 years, this incorporates the preferred bidder’s pricing estimates, and the latest Surrey infrastructure costs.  The cost is 38% higher than the original business case estimate of £414k because the preferred bidder’s quote is significantly higher compared with the original non-binding informal quote; and the infrastructure costs are higher as the technical delivery costs have been re-estimated now that the chosen solution is known. 

Following Delegated Officer approval, the project will award the contract to the preferred bidder and look to deliver the implementation of the data archiving solution for go-live in Q4 2021/2022. This go-live timing will follow the Unit ERP system go-live in December 2021 and will enable the council to decommission the existing SAP system.

It was AGREED to:-

1.           Proceed with the data archiving project based on new estimated costs of £570k over 5 years. 

2.           Award the contract to the preferred bidder and implement the solution.

That the Local Committee [Epsom & Ewell] agreed that:

(i)    the operating hours of the bus stand clearway at bus stop N, Station Approach, Epsom are 6am to 12 midnight Monday to Saturday and 9am to 6pm on Sunday, subject to 28-day consultation period.

(ii)   if any objections cannot be resolved, the Area Highway Manager, in consultation with the chair/vice chair of this committee and the county councillor for the division, decides whether or not they should be acceded to and therefore whether the proposed change should be made, with or without modifications

Reasons:

To ensure that the bus stand clearway at bus stop N, Station Approach is operational during the hours of service so that the bus can access the bus stand and wait between journeys at this stand without the obstruction of parked vehicles, and provide stepfree access to those wishing to use the bus stop and thus support the extended operating hours of the E9 & E10 bus routes.

That the Local Committee [Epsom & Ewell] agreed:

To co-opt substitutes for Borough Council members for the municipal year 2021/22.

Reasons: Standing Order 40(f) requires the Committee at its first meeting in the municipal year to agree whether it wishes Borough Council members to be permitted to have substitutes

That the Local Committee [Epsom & Ewell]:

(i)    Agreed the 2021-22 programme of Capital Maintenance schemes, as detailed in Table 2 of the report, and to authorised the Area Team Manager, in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Divisional Member to amend this programme as appropriate should unforeseen circumstances arise that would put the programme at risk of delivery;

(ii)   Authorised the Area Highway Manager, in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Divisional Member, to advertise a legal notice for a new Puffin Crossing on the A240 Kingston Road, between Aldi on one side of the road and Timbercroft on the other, and to resolve any representations that are received;

(iii) [by 5 votes FOR to 2 AGAINST] Authorised the Area Highway Manager, in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Divisional Member, to advertise a permanent prohibition of traffic order to prevent motor vehicles entering the section of Old London Road between Tattenham Corner Road and the Top Car Park on Epsom Downs overnight, as detailed in Table 3 below, and to resolve any objections that may arise;

(iv)  Authorised the Area Highway Manager in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and relevant Divisional Member(s) to undertake all necessary procedures to deliver the agreed programmes.

Reasons:

A programme of capital maintenance schemes needs to be agreed to invest Committee’s £217,000 allocation for this purpose. Officers have worked with Members to agree priorities. However, should unforeseen circumstances arise that

might put the programme at risk, the Area Highway Manager needs flexibility to amend the programme as appropriate.

A new Puffin Crossing is due to be implemented this Financial Year 2021-22 on the

A240 Kingston Road between Aldi and Timbercroft. Before any new traffic signal

controlled crossing is installed, a legal notice is necessary to inform the local

community and give opportunity for representations to be made.

That the Local Committee [Epsom & Ewell] agreed:

To include a scheme to improve the pedestrian and wheelchair crossing at the

College Road/Longdown Lane traffic lights in Epsom, on the prioritisation list for consideration in a future highway programme.

Reason: To consider whether the issues raised in the petition can be addressed.

See Minute 147/21.

There were none.

The Minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 29 June 2021 were approved as a correct record of the meeting.

There were no apologies.

RESOLVED:

1.    That Cabinet approves the principles proposed for the development of the Collaboration Agreement.

2.    That Cabinet agrees the delegation of  authority to the Executive Director for Environment, Transport and Infrastructure, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment and the Executive Director of Resources, to enter into the collaboration agreement and to take such actions and decisions necessary to facilitate the delivery of the Scheme within the approved budget.

3.    That Cabinet recommends to Council that all decisions and actions relating to the Council’s regulatory and planning functions that pertain to the River Thames Scheme be delegated to the Director of Law and Governance in consultation with the Planning Group Manager.

Reason for Decisions:

The River Thames Scheme Collaboration Agreement will provide a sound legal basis for partnership working between the EA and SCC to deliver the River Thames Scheme.

However, development of the Agreement will take some time and will not be complete until the end of the calendar year. As such, Cabinet approval of a set of Collaboration Agreement principles will provide political support and direction for the negotiation of the full legal agreement, ensuring that it will represent the Council’s best interests.

The delegation of the approval of the final Collaboration Agreement as set out in the recommendations will ensure that SCC decision making is as agile as possible and does not hold up progress on the Scheme.

In addition, Cabinet has previously approved, on 26 January 2021, the need to develop an approach to separate the exercise of the Council’s functions as (i) a joint applicant to the DCO and (ii) its regulatory functions as a local planning authority to avoid a perceived conflict of interest.  The final recommendation above puts this into action.

[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee]

RESOLVED:

1.    That Cabinet acknowledges the impact that COVID-19 has had and continues to have on Surrey, its residents and economy and the services provided by the Council.

2.    That Cabinet notes and endorses the actions being delivered through Surrey’s Local Outbreak Control Plan, including the vaccination roll out, and the ongoing support to vulnerable residents, including through the council’s Community Helpline and the COVID-19 Winter Support Grant scheme.

3.    That Cabinet reviews and comments on the lessons learned derived from a review by the Surrey Local Resilience Forum and County Council on the response to and recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Reasons for Decisions:

The recommendations set out in this report ensure that the Cabinet are appraised of the scope, detail and learning from our response to and recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic to date.

[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Resources & Performance Select Committee]

RESOLVED:

1.    That Cabinet note the Council’s forecast revenue and capital budget positions for the year.

2.       That Cabinet agree the carry forward of two amounts within the DSG schools block totalling £183k into 2021/22.

Reason for Decisions:

This report is to comply with the agreed policy of providing a monthly budget monitoring report to Cabinet for approval of any necessary actions. 

[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Resources and Performance Select Committee]

RESOLVED:

1.    That Cabinet approve the continued development of the Finance Services partnership with Tandridge DC through the development and delivery of the Tandridge Finance Transformation Programme.

2.    That Cabinet approve the commitment of the necessary SCC officer time to support the successful delivery of the TFT plan within TDC.

3.    That Cabinet approve the development of a Joint Working Agreement with TDC and delegate its final approval to the Executive Director, Resources, subject to the satisfactory negotiation of the details of the working arrangements.

Reason for Decisions:

TDC faces challenges both in terms of needing to improve its financial health and the capacity and capability of the finance function. SCC has been providing support to the TDC finance function since August 2020 during which time formative progress has been made. There is now a need to broaden the scope of the work to ensure that the changes identified as necessary (both within the TDC finance function and more widely across TDC) can be delivered.

A transformation plan (‘TFT’) has been developed which identifies a new operating model for the TDC finance function and includes a business case for the necessary investment to support the delivery of the TFT plan. This plan will involve the commitment of officer time from SCC to ensure its successful delivery. A Joint Working Agreement will provide the formal legal basis for the governance of the partnership and clarify the expectations of both Parties.

The development of the finance partnership with TDC supports the delivery of one of the SCC key objectives which is to develop Stronger Partnerships with other public services.

The successful delivery of the TFT plan will assist TDC to emerge with a stronger underlying financial position and a finance function which is capable of sustaining this over the longer term.

[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Resources and Performance Select Committee]

RESOLVED:

1.    That Cabinet grants Approval to Procure for a contract to enable the provision of cleaning consumables across Surrey County Council’s care homes, schools, offices and libraries. A decision is required to add this procurement to the Annual Procurement Forward Plan (APFP) for 2021/22.

2.    That Cabinet delegates the authority for contract award decision to the Executive Director for Resources.

Reason for Decision:

• To comply with the Procurement and Contract Standing Orders agreed by the Council in May 2019.
• To provide Cabinet with strategic oversight of planned procurement projects for 2021/22.
• To secure fixed product and service pricing where possible, and economies of scale for a wide variety of products ordered frequently across multiple sites within Surrey.

[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Resources and Performance Select Committee]

RESOLVED:

1. That Cabinet authorise the making of a compulsory purchase order (the Order) under the provisions of section 239 of the Highways Act 1980 to acquire the Order Land to facilitate the carrying out of the said Scheme, being satisfied that there is a compelling case in the public interest for the compulsory purchase of the Order Land  to facilitate the carrying out of the A320 HIF Scheme.

2. That Cabinet authorise the Executive Director of Environment, Transport and Infrastructure (in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure) to settle the final extent, form and content of the Order and all associated documentation and take all action needed to pursue the Order and secure its confirmation.

3. That Cabinet authorise the Director of Law and Governance (in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure) to negotiate, agree land acquisition terms, and enter into agreements with interested parties, including agreements for the withdrawal of objections; to give undertakings not to enforce the Order on specific terms; (where appropriate) to remove land or rights from the Order, or to request the modification of the Order by the Secretary of State.

4. That Cabinet authorise the Director of Law and Governance (in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure) to implement the Order powers following confirmation of the Order, including acquiring title to and/or possession of the land and paying compensation agreed or determined.

5. That Cabinet authorise the Director of Law and Governance (in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure) to enter into an agreement (or agreements) with Highways England under sections 6 and 8 of the Highways Act 1980:

6. That Cabinet accept the delegation of the functions of Highways England with regard to the improvements to highways at M25 junction 11 including the making of the compulsory purchase order in respect of the Order Land at junction 11 (where the Council is not the highway authority).  

Reason for Decisions: 

In September 2020 the Cabinet confirmed acceptance of the HIF funding award of £41.8 million (see Cabinet Paper at item 13). 

As at the Cabinet decision date of September 2020 the Scheme had not been fully designed, thus the final land take was not known, and the Report anticipated that a further authority to pursue a compulsory purchase order would be sought from Cabinet. This paper seeks that further authority to make a Compulsory Purchase Order and to seek its confirmation by the Secretary of State.

The decision as recommended by this report will enable the Council with funding for its Infrastructure Fund Forward Funding scheme from the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) to construct the necessary infrastructure improvements described above. To facilitate such construction, it will be necessary to purchase additional land adjacent to the A320 public highway from third party landowners either by negotiation and voluntary agreements or by compulsory purchase.

[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee]

RESOLVED:

1.    That the decision taken by officers since the last meeting be noted.

Reason for decision:

To inform the Cabinet of decisions taken by officers under delegated authority.

[This decision is subject to call-in by the relevant Select Committee Chairman dependent on the recommendation.]

RESOLVED:

1.    That Cabinet approves the proposed revised Minerals and Waste Development Scheme dated July 2021, which sets out an updated timetable in relation to the production of the Surrey Minerals and Waste Local Plan, as set out at Annex 1.

Reason for Decisions:

It is a statutory requirement to produce the MWDS and to keep it up to date. An update to the MWDS has been proposed by officers, which seeks to extend the production timeline for the new SMWLP. The extension of time will allow the first public consultation stage for the new SMWLP (Issues and Options) to commence in October 2021 (previously June 2021). This will allow consultation to commence after the summer, in the expectation that many residents may be taking the opportunity over the summer period to go on holiday. The delay will therefore enable the best possible reach of the consultation to residents.

[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee]

RESOLVED:

That the delegated decisions taken since the last meeting of the Cabinet be noted.

Reason for decision:

To inform the Cabinet of decisions taken by Cabinet Members, Strategic Investment Board and the Committee in Common subcommittee under delegated authority.

There were none.

There were none.

There were none.

There was one public question. The question and response were published as a supplement to the agenda.

There were six member questions. The questions and responses were published as a supplement to the agenda.

That the Local Committee [Elmbridge] agreed that:

The committee approves the membership of the task groups, as set out below for the 2021/22 municipal year:

    (i)        Parking Task Group – Agreed to discontinue this group. 

   (ii)        Cycling and Walking Task Group – SCC members: Mr John O’Reilly, Rachael I Lake, Ernest Mallett; Elmbridge BC members: Cllr Janet Turner (subject to being happy to continue), Cllr Ashley Tilling and a vacancy

  (iii)        Esher Transport Study Member Task Group – SCC members: Mr Tim Oliver, Mr Steve Bax; Elmbridge BC members: Cllr Simon Waugh

  (iv)        Brooklands Transport Study Member Steering Group – SCC members: Mr Tim Oliver, Mr John O’Reilly; Elmbridge BC members: Cllr Peter Harman

Reasons: The report proposes local committee task group membership for the forthcoming year to enable the provision of informed advice and recommendations to the committee. The appointment of councillors of the Local Committee to external bodies enables the committee’s representation on and input to such bodies.

That the Local Committee (Elmbridge) agreed:

(i)     To authorise the creation of a new cycle route along the east side of Seven Hills Road, in the form of a shared surface on the existing (widened) footway, in consultation with the Divisional Members and residents as appropriate;

(ii)   To authorise the Area Highway Manager to finalise the preferred options for improving the junctions at either end of Baker Street, Weybridge, in consultation with the Divisional Member and local community as appropriate, and to undertake any necessary legal procedure that may be necessary to deliver this scheme;

(iii)  To authorise the creation of a new cycle route connecting the end of Grotto Road to Oatlands Drive, in the form of a shared surface on the existing (widened) footpath, in consultation with the Divisional Members and residents as appropriate;

(iv)  To authorise the Area Highway Manager to advertise the legal notice for the introduction of a new Pegasus Crossing in Copsem Lane, Esher, at the point where the track underneath the powerlines crosses the road, in consultation with the Divisional Member and local stakeholders as appropriate, and to resolve any representations that might be received;

(v)   Subject to Elmbridge Borough Council awarding CIL funding, to authorise the Area Highway Manager to advertise the legal notice for the removal of one Zebra Crossing and the introduction of a new Zebra Crossing in Walton High Street , in consultation with the Divisional Member, ward members and local community as appropriate, and to resolve any representations that might be received;

(vi)  Subject to Elmbridge Borough Council awarding CIL funding, authorise the Area Highway Manager to deliver the road safety scheme Ember Lane, including any necessary legal procedure, in consultation with the Divisional Member and local community as appropriate ;

(vii)[Recommendation deleted as CIL decision has been deferred a decision pending consideration of whether the proposed scheme is the most appropriate] To reinstate the Task Group to consider the way forward;

(viii)Delegate authority to the Area Highway Manager to develop an overnight weight restriction for Oxshott Village, taking into account any potential impact on surrounding roads, in consultation with Divisional and Ward Members, the Mole Valley Local Committee and local communities as appropriate, including any legal procedure necessary to introduce the restriction, and should a scheme be identified that is supported by these stakeholders to implement the scheme;

(ix)  Agree the 2021-22 programme of Capital Maintenance schemes, as detailed in Table 2 below, and to authorise the Area Team Manager, in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Divisional Member to amend this programme as appropriate should unforeseen circumstances arise that would put the programme at risk of delivery;

(x)   Agree to remove from the programme of works the part-time pedestrianisation proposal for Bridge Road, East Molesey, which emerged from the Active Travel scheme;

(xi)  Agree to defer the trial of a new part time pedestrian area at the Lime Tree in Thames Ditton High Street, and to delegate authority to the Area Highway Manager to continue discussion with the Division and Ward Members and the local community with the intent of agreeing a consensus on how Thames Ditton High Street might be improved;

(xii)Authorise the Area Highway Manager in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and relevant Divisional Member(s) to undertake all necessary procedures to deliver the agreed programmes.

Reasons:

Elmbridge Borough Council has awarded CIL funding for implementation of a number of schemes that have been promoted by the Local Committee.  At the time of writing this report the outcomes of some applications for CIL funding were not known.  Delegated authority is needed to facilitate the delivery of these schemes in consultation with local stakeholders.

The feasibility study for speed and traffic management measures in Oxshott Village centre has begun.  A proposed overnight weight restriction has been identified as a potential quick win; delegated authority is needed to move this forward through its consultative and legal processes.

A programme of capital maintenance schemes needs to be agreed to invest Committee’s £311,000 allocation for this purpose.  Officers have worked with Members to agree priorities.  However should unforeseen circumstances arise that might put the programme at risk, the Area Highway Manager needs flexibility to amend the programme as appropriate.

In March 2021 Committee agreed to two public consultations – relating to Bridge Road in East Molesey and Thames Ditton High Street – these consultations have now been completed in consultation with local Divisional and Ward Members.

The Local Committee (Elmbridge) agreed:

(i)     The county council’s intention to introduce the proposals as detailed in Annex 1 are formally advertised, and subject to statutory consultation, subject to the deletion of “Matthew Arnold Close” from the School Road description on page 23 and the addition of revoking double yellow lines in part of Avondale Road.
    

(ii)    That if necessary, adjustments can be made to the proposals by the parking strategy and implementation team manager in consultation with the chairman, vice-chairman and divisional county councillor prior to advertisement.

(iii)   If any objections cannot be resolved, the parking strategy and implementation team manager, in consultation with the chairman/vice chairman of this committee and the county councillor for the division, decides whether or not they should be acceded to and therefore whether the order should be made, with or without modifications.

(iv)   To note responses to various petitions (parking scheme request forms) that have been received for consideration as part of this review, as detailed in Annex 2.

(v)    To note the locations where we have received requests for new or amended parking controls, and following analysis, have recommended no changes at the current time, as detailed in Annex 3.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:

Changes to the highway network, the built environment and society mean that parking behaviour changes and consequently it is necessary for a Highway Authority to carry out regular reviews of waiting and parking restrictions on the highway network.

That the Local Committee [Elmbridge] agreed:

To note the question submitted and to add the issue of whether it would be appropriate to harden verges in areas where there is insufficient parking to the Committee’s prioritisation list for further consideration.

Reasons:  Verges are currently being badly damaged by parking and a solution to parking issues in these areas should be considered.

That the Local Committee [Elmbridge] agreed:

That a parking restriction to prohibit the parking of HGVs in Redhill Road overnight be added to the current parking review.  The parking strategy and implementation team manager to agree an appropriate weight limit and times in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee and the divisional and ward members.

Reasons:  To prevent disturbance to residents from anti-social parking of HGVs

That the Local Committee [Elmbridge] agreed:

To co-opt the substitutes for Borough Council members for the municipal year 2020/21 as listed in the report.

Reasons: Standing Order 40(f) requires the Committee, at its first meeting in the municipal year, to agree whether it wishes Borough Council members to be permitted to have substitutes. 

The Cabinet Member for Education and Learning determined the statutory notices published for each of the two proposals below thereby bringing into effect the formal commencement of the proposals:

1. Removal of the boarding provision at Sunnydown School
2. Expansion of Philip Southcote School and Sixth Form and creation of Satellite Centres at Chertsey High School and Kings International College

The Cabinet Member for Education and Learning determined the statutory notice published thereby bringing into effect the formal commencement of the proposal that St Andrew’s Catholic School will enlarge to 1,200 places in national curriculum years 7 to 11 from September 2022. The proposal was agreed without modification.

The Runnymede Joint Committee AGREED that:

(i)            the proposed amendments to on-street parking restrictions in Runnymede as described in this report and shown in detail on drawings in annexes A - F and I (EV Bays) are approved.

(ii)           the joint committee agrees the funding approach as detailed in paragraph 5.1 of this report.

(iii)          the intention of the county council to make an order under the relevant parts of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to impose the waiting and on street parking restrictions in Runnymede as shown on the drawings in annex A - F is advertised and that if no objections are maintained, the orders are made.

(iv)          That the Parking Strategy and Implementation Team Manager is delegated authority to adjust the positions of the on-street Electric Vehicle charging bays in consultation with the Chair, Vice-Chair and Local Member prior to statutory consultation. These locations are listed in each County Councillors division of this report, and displayed in their own set of drawings (Annex I)

(v)           That the Parking Strategy and Implementation Team manager is delegated authority in consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Local Members to replace the existing clearway on the A30 between the Windsor and Maidenhead boundary and the crossroads of the A30, St Judes Road and Bakeham Lane and to replace it with either ‘no waiting at any time’ restrictions or a red route clearway (which would also cover the highway verge) subject to the outcome of a statutory consultation.

(vi)          If there are unresolved objections, they will be dealt with in accordance with the county council’s scheme of delegation by the parking strategy and implementation team manager, in consultation with the chairman/ vice chairman of this committee and the appropriate county councillor.

Reasons for recommendations:

It is recommended that the waiting restrictions are implemented as detailed in Annexes A - F. They will make a positive impact towards:

·         Road safety

·         Access for emergency vehicles

·         Access for refuse vehicles

·         Easing traffic congestion

·         Better regulated parking

·         Better enforcement

This will help us achieve our 2030 Community Vision objectives

• Residents live in clean, safe, and green communities where people and organisations embrace their environmental responsibilities.
• Journeys across the county are easier, more predictable, and safer.

The Runnymede Joint Committee AGREED:

(i)            That the Joint Committee asks the Englefield Green Parking Task Group to reconvene to discuss the results, look at how we can better engage with the local community and what other parking controls options would be suitable for the area.

Reasons for recommendation:

The total number of responses, 117 out of a total of 533 properties invited to participate (22%), has provided insufficient data to progress with a permit scheme with any confidence. We would have liked to see a much higher response rate to get a good representation of resident’s views from across the whole consultation area, with a significant majority expressing support.

For Petition 1, requesting a 20mph speed limit in Rosemary Lane, Thorpe, the Runnymede Joint Committee NOTED:

(i)            A speed survey will be undertaken to measure vehicle speeds in Rosemary Lane. The results of the survey will then be assessed in conjunction with the road safety record for the location.

(ii)           If the assessment identifies a problem with excessive speeds and poor road safety relative to other sites on the Runnymede speed management plan then Rosemary Lane would be categorised as a high priority site. Options for reducing vehicle speeds would then be assessed to determine what type of measure(s) would be most appropriate and effective.

Reasons for recommendations:

Rosemary Lane is not an existing site on the Runnymede speed management plan and vehicle speeds have not previously been monitored. In response to the concerns raised by the petition, a speed survey will therefore be undertaken in Rosemary Lane. The results of the survey will then be assessed by specialist road safety officers from the county council and Surrey Police.

For Petition 2, requesting a 20mph speed limit and traffic calming measures in Victoria Street, Englefield Green, the Runnymede Joint Committee NOTED:

(i)            The results of a speed survey and an examination of collision data indicate Victoria Street has both a good level of compliance with the speed limit and a good safety record relative to other locations on the Runnymede speed management plan.

(ii)           There are currently no proposals to introduce traffic calming measures or a reduced speed limit in Victoria Street, and the introduction of such measures would be difficult to justify as a priority when many sites on the speed Runnymede speed management plan have a significantly lower level of compliance with the speed limit and a much poorer safety record.

(iii)         Victoria Street will be retained on the Runnymede speed management plan and vehicle speeds and collision rates will be monitored within the next six months.

Reasons for recommendations:

Given both the good level of compliance with the speed limit and good safety record relative to so many other sites on the Runnymede speed management plan, it would be difficult to justify the introduction of measures at the location as a priority. Furthermore, the introduction of measures such as traffic calming and a 20mph speed limit would be unlikely to have any significant impact given the already relatively low average speed.