Transcript

Good afternoon. Welcome to Cabinet Member for Highways Transport and Economic Growth Decisions on Tuesday, the 24th of September at 12 p.m. I'm Matt Furness. I'll be chairing this meeting. So we'll just quickly run through the agenda. Item one, declarations of interest, no interest to declare. Item two, we haven't had any members questions. And we do have a public question but member of the public hasn't arrived yet. So we'll just come back to that in case he joins. So we'll move straight to item three, petition road safety improvements in the vicinity of Sandcross School. We have the lead petitioner here, Louise Cleland. Would you like to come up, Louise, to present your petition and any other points? And then I will ask all of the officers to make any points in response to that. So OT, three minutes. Thank you very much everyone. My name is Louise Cleland and today I'm presenting an e-petition to our Surrey County Council to implement measures both in moving, to become both moving traffic and parking in the vicinity of Sandcross School in Rygate. This will not only improve road safety but also improve facilities for walking and wheeling to the school. I present this petition not only as a concerned parent of a Sandcross School pupil but a local resident and former Sandcross School pupil myself. I wish in conjunction with the headmaster of Sandcross School, Mark Richards, who's here today. Another Sandcross School parent, Charlotte Haswait, and is supported by a local Councillor, Catherine Part, who is also here. Mr. Richards, the headmaster, has informed me there have already been multiple near misses and knocks over the last few years and it is only a matter of time before there is a fatality. We ask the council to undertake a full road safety review and improve road safety before this occurs. Currently there are 677 pupils enrolled at Sandcross School, with 104 members of staff, totalling 781 commuters to the school, including parents, carers and family members accompanying pupils to the school. There can quite easily be an excess of 1,000 people going to and from the school on a twice daily basis. This is just Sandcross School traffic, not taking into consideration any other local traffic travelling to schools or to places of work. There are significant pressures on the surrounding roads, pavements which need to be addressed immediately for safety. Cars are able to park close to the school, which means sight is reduced for cars and pedestrians. Cars regularly and dangerously mount the curb to pass on what is already very narrow footpaths. Cars speed down the road. Their speeding is now greater and assisted by the newly resurfaced road. The speed limit is 30 miles an hour, which is unsuitable for the road and its location. In 2022, the position of the road safety outside schools team was that they would wait and see what happens with the proposed housing development for the land adjacent and surrounding the school. In the event that land would be developed, there would be developer money available to address road safety. Your response to this petition sets this out too. However, as Catherine Bart has previously highlighted to you, that development should only take place if there are fewer than five years' worth of housing development land in the borough's local plan. This position has never been reached. Whilst I understand the significant cost of traffic calming measures and that the council would like to offset these costs from developer money, this should not delay a separate road safety review and an implementation of measures around Sandcross School. As the current pupils, family, carers, staff and local residents are at risk of having an accident or fatality under the current arrangements. Any review and spending by the council to improve road safety cannot wait until planning permissions are granted to use section 106 or seal money. This could take many, many years for planning to be granted and money to be recovered. Road safety is a very real problem today. Whilst you have included some long-term plans for the roads outside of Sandcross School, subject to planning, we would like to know why the council would not undertake a full review now, rather than immediately dismiss our request due to waiting for planning permission to be granted. This cost is a concern to the council. There are measures that can be implemented in the short term that will benefit the pupils, families, staff and local residents, both current and future. These include reduced speed restrictions, additional yellow lines, fixing signage, improving signage, which are all of low cost to the council compared to some of the traffic improvement measures raised and refused in your response. We ask the council to look at what they can do now to improve road safety, not what they can do in several years' time. In summary, the most important aspect to this petition is the safety of the children, their family, carers, staff and local residents. We ask the council to commit to improving the road safety around Sandcross School now, rather than dismissing it for reasons of planning, development and financing. Myself, Mark, Charlotte and Catherine would all be available to assist with this if needed. I thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Catherine, you wanted to say a couple of words as well. Would you like to start now? [ Pause ] Yes. What I would like to say is that in July 2021, in full council, we announced that there was going to be 3 million pounds to address the and clear the backlog of road safety outside school assessments as a dedicated fund to that. And Sandcross School is on that list. Now, it's on the list. I think the wording is it suggests that any work is scheduled to take place in year two or year three to allow time for the possibility that the scheme will be progressed by the developers. And it's the only school on the list with any link to the developers. So, we are now coming to the end of that three years. And, you know, there isn't a fixed developer in place yet. There may be in the future. There may not be in the future. But my point is that when that 3 million pounds was budgeted, presumably, it included the work at Sandcross School and on the basis that the developer came along, that would be some money that could go back around into the county council's general coffers. We seem to have got to a position where no-- other than the double yellow lines, extending the zigzag lines, which are all in hand actually, but the raised table, the zebra crossing, the other things that are described in the council's road safety outside schools report for Sandcross School. This seems to have morphed to we're not going to do those unless a developer pays, which I think is unfair, and I'd just like to point out that, obviously, the county council also has a planning application to move Friary School just down there. And there are umpteen in the planning application, there are multiple raised tables, multiples of crossings, 20 miles an hour zone. The money seems to have been made available to back up that. Sandcross School has been waiting for road safety-- thank you. Thank you. Duncan, as road safety and sustainable school travel manager, do you want to come back on any of the two points the speakers made? Needs some improved infrastructure and you're right, it was on the list and when we were looking to commission it, it just felt that it would be traffic calming if that is going to come forward as part of the development. And I think there was a planning application, it was processed last November and rejected in the end, but then there was another planning application put in, in parallel to that last July, sorry, a year ago in July, if you like, which is still in process. So, we could go ahead and, you know, use that three million pounds, we could have gone ahead with that. But then, if we did that and then a few months later planning commission was granted, then the council will be spending potentially, you know, over 100,000 pounds just to spend, you know, tax managed money on that kind of scheme when it could be done through external source of funding. But, you know, I do understand the frustration because it's more delay and it takes longer. And I think it's-- so I don't know when and why again, but instead that would happen exactly. But if they are granted planning commission, then there's, you know, several hundred thousand pounds worth of traffic calming measures along that stretch which I think would make a real difference. We can, as a council, if we want, decide to proceed ourselves. But if we did do that, we would need funding in future years for road safety outside schools which isn't currently guaranteed. But if there was some money, we could go ahead with that, but it would be at risk that sometime afterwards, shortly afterwards, more than that I'm afraid. Thanks Duncan. Catherine, because the budgets are being renewed for [inaudible] thank you Duncan. Just moving then to item 4, petitioner Mixon's Lane under petition. If you'd like to come up please. We've got three minutes and then you're very lucky. You get two individual councilors to speak on this item. So Jonathan and Mark both indicated they'd like to say some words and then we'll come over to you. So this will win over to you, three minutes. Members of committee, good afternoon. The residents of Pentham Park and Leyland Reach have suffered for many years the annual break up and flooding of the privately owned road Mixon's Lane which is our only access road. Mixon's Lane is currently not fit for purpose. The road has been patched so many times over previous years. It's now beyond patching and unable to cope with the increased volume of traffic. The drains have been broken and blocked for many years. There are approximately 70 bus movements per day servicing the island, plus revenue vehicles, carers, other service vehicles, visitors, deliveries, both light and heavy goods vehicles. The result with this is that vulnerable but independent elderly residents at times are unable or afraid to venture out of Pentham Park when the road is in flood because they're afraid of damaging their cars or afraid of falling and getting soaked by passing vehicles because the flood water covers most of the road. These people are isolated unless someone helps them with their daily needs like shopping or getting them to appointments. The most recent temporary repairs of the road were completed by Barpley Leisure Group last year who owned Pentham Park, not the road, at a cost of 6,000 pounds. The repairs were major because the road had been severely broken for several months. They realized that our situation was desperate, so Barpleys took it upon themselves to do the works. Mixton's Lane, unfortunately, is already breaking up and we're not even into winter yet. We have in the past had our essential bus service withdrawn due to the condition of the road and we've had further threats of withdrawal of the service to which came very close last winter. There have been many cars damaged, including my own. Even an ambulance was a casualty of the potholes with a burst tire. Many of our residents need daily carers. They've been times when this has not been possible due to the state of Mixton's Lane. Is it acceptable that our residents are subject to actions of a private company who care nothing for their neighboring community? Is it acceptable that Surrey Council does not act to ensure safe passage of the public to access their homes? It clearly has the powers to compel landowners to take that responsibility. For far too long, about 40 years too long, the residents have endured this because no one will help them. The 500 or so rate paying homes and businesses on our island, probably more than a thousand people, urge Surrey Council to support our petition. Mixton's Lane and its drainage must be built to highway standards to cope with the volume of traffic and that is our essential bus service can use it without fear of damage or injury to themselves or their vehicles. The alternative course is for SCC to adopt Mixton's Lane. Of course, that's probably not going to happen. After all, this is not an insignificant road going nowhere. It's the only way on and off of our island, servicing our homes. Would it be allowed today to build an estate of new homes without an access road? I don't think it would. Thank you. Thank you. Jonathan? Thank you very much, Matt. And also thank you to Mr. Baldwin who is a community champion in and around Penton Park. And I thank you for your efforts in this petition and for joining us this afternoon. I know this road well. It is a link road linking the communities of Churchill with the residents of Penton Park and also Lane and Reach. I take the view that on its face, this road is a danger to traffic. However, the challenge we have and I mean traffic both motor traffic but also pedestrian traffic, but it is a private street. And so the solution is not an obvious one. There is a potential for this authority to take steps pursuing to section 56 of the highways act, which could include action taken against the landowner. But there are also other options as well. And I take the view, Matt, that an appropriate way forward as a response to this petition would be for this authority to take the lead in inviting all interested parties to a roundtable meeting to explore what options are available, including the potential of legal action against the landowner. But that's a matter for a meeting and I would be happy to attend that meeting if that is a decision that you make today, Matthew. Mark, did you want to say anything? Thanks, Matt. And thanks to Alan for his tenacity in constantly championing the rights of that community. It's a large community there on the Caravan Park. This is the single point of access in and out. As Alan has said, it floods regularly, not just in extreme conditions. And there is obviously concerns about the condition of the road in itself. Alongside the community on the Caravan Park, there's a residential road which runs parallel Laelam Reach. We've got businesses at the bottom as well. There are lots of interested parties here. But fundamentally, it's the responsibility of the landowners. And this is something that is frustrating. Why is Surrey County Council always going to be the ones to pick up the tab? This is privately owned. This company should be at least talking to us at the table to pick us up. So thanks, Alan, for bringing that forward. I'm sure Surrey County Council can lend its weight behind the conversation, which I hope will take steps to bring in an outcome that we can all be happy with. We've got great relationships with Thorpe Park, who are park owners on one side of the road. Barker's Homes have been very communicative in helping out. Our MP, Jonathan, and our Surrey County Council, there was one person missing from this conversation. Let's hope that we can put some weight behind this and get them to the table and get a result for our residents. Which, you know, hopefully will then last for 20, 30 years. And then we'll have that ongoing relationship to keep that road maintained. Okay. Okay. Let's move on to the next steps. Well, I think probably the important thing to recognize here is we don't have the power to require the marina, just go to the marina and say you must do this work. We do have powers where the road becomes dangerous to require the frontages. So, yeah, we can't do things the way -- [ Inaudible ] It refers to the frontages all the way through, unfortunately, yeah, so that the actual ownership -- To find a solution. Yeah. I agree. Okay, sir. Thank you. So, yes, you've got the petition response, but in addition, I will write to all of the landowners, the team we're already starting to work on, who are both afraid as well, just to see what would need to be done. But as you see in the petition response as well, if it is brought up to adoptable standards, the county council will adopt it. Just moving on then to item five, which is -- oh, that's not -- sorry, that was you. Item five, countryside integrated transport schemes prioritization process, 2526 delivery program, Zina, hand over to you if you want to have a quick introduction. And there's one change, which I think you're aware of, which I'd just like to make. Yes, thank you, cabinet member. The report sets out the detail of the county-wide ITS program that includes about the prioritization process, how the scoring is undertaken, and how it's moderated. We're also working on a clearer process to find alternative routes to delivery on other funded -- the report that's with you today. Part of the changes that we're asking for your approval for are some minor changes to the definitions and processes within that to reflect on the audit that had been carried out so that more information comes back to ensure that no one or no community is left behind. We've had an unusual situation that hasn't happened before, where a third scheme within the same area did meet the [inaudible] scheme. So as I understand it, you'd like to change out one of the schemes for [inaudible] and so the scheme for [inaudible] crossing on [inaudible] road will be changed to a 20 mile an hour and traffic calming. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. It's always a difficult one. I'm sure Councillor King's probably going to have a bit of a go after the meeting, but I think it is better that we don't have the same area benefiting two years in a row. So if we can move it on to the next scheme on the list. As you said, it was very close. I think it was the county to benefit rather than the same few. But subject to that change then, just with three points. The proposed prioritization set out in Annex A of the report is agreed. The proposed ITS schemes to be funded from the plan 2526 [inaudible] transport scheme as set out as an [inaudible] commissioning manager to make any minor amendments to the schemes which may be required to ensure the schemes are progressed in consultation with the divisional member and where required county member. I agree that's one as well. Thank you. And to our last item, we have some item number. Revision for the charge of suspending bus stops in Surrey. I'll hand over to Valerie, if you'd just like to give a quick summary just on the proposed changes that would be made. Thank you. Yes, thank you Matt. So in-- sorry. Can you tell anyone about the inconveniences of utility companies on the highway. No, thank you for that. It is time that we did review and there's three recommendations that are in front of me. So just read those out. Number one, increase the charge to suspend a bus stop to 175 pounds a day for a three-day maximum period which will apply to all works promoters, developer works, utility works, third-party works, works that close a bus stop or take place at any bus stop without proper authorization which applies to all works promoters, developers works, utility works, other third-party works, excluding those works undertaken by the county council because I hope we would do it properly. And three, delegate the approval of further changes to the director of highways and transport in consultation with cabinet member. I think at 1233, I think that's our longest cabinet member decisions meeting. I'll close the meeting there today. Thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]