Subscribe to updates
You'll receive weekly summaries about Surrey Council every week.
If you have any requests or comments please let us know at community@opencouncil.network. We can also provide custom updates on particular topics across councils.
Transcript
Good afternoon, everybody. It is now just gone two o'clock, so we'll make a start to this special meeting of the Communities, Environment and Select Committee. Could I just welcome everybody here this afternoon, all of the councillors who are members of this committee and any substitutes that are attending on behalf of the community. Absentees, officers and cabinet members, and could I also thank those members of the public who have made the effort to travel over to Rygate this afternoon for this meeting. I know some of you will have got questions and we'll come to those in a short while. Firstly, a few admin points. There is no fire drill planned for today, so in the event of a fire alarm sounding, everyone is asked to leave by the nearest exit and assemble at the top car park, reporting to a member of the building staff management team. Staff will be on hand to help guide you to your nearest exit. Or, if there is a fire, follow me out of the building, is the usual advice. On your mobile phones, please ensure that mobile phones are either switched off or put on silent mode. Regarding social media, in line with the Council's guidance on the use of social media, I'm more than happy for anyone attending today's meeting, including members of the committee, to use social media so long as this doesn't disturb the business of the meeting. Today's meeting is being webcast to the public and recording will be available afterwards. I'd also like to mention that this meeting allows for participation by video conference via Microsoft Teams and that some attendees are participating remotely. For those participating remotely, if the chat feature is enabled, please do not use it. It limits the transparency and open discussion, which we aim to have and maintain in a public meeting. For those officers who have joined the meeting remotely, please use the raise hand function to indicate if you would like to speak and mute your microphone and turn off your camera when not speaking. For those officers and members who have joined us here today in person, I please ask that anyone presenting to speak clearly and directly into their microphones, and when called to speak, press the right-hand button on your microphone and start speaking when the red light appears. And please remember to turn off the microphone when you have finished. If you are sharing a microphone, you may need to press the right or the left hand. So item one is apologies for absence. Now you'll appreciate that this meeting has been convened at relatively short notice as it's a special meeting. So we do have a number of apologies today, but we also have a number of councillors who are acting as substitutes. Firstly, I will give apologies from Councillor Lance Spencer. Lance is vice chairman of this committee and he took the call-in to ask for this call-in to occur. Unfortunately, the meeting has been fixed on a date that is not convenient for him because he's away on family business. So today we have a substitute and Councillor Paul Follows is substituting here today for Councillor Spencer and will be speaking to the call-in. So welcome. Also apologies from Councillor Luke Bennett, Councillor Mark Sugden, our other vice chairman who is unwell, Councillor Cameron Mackintosh and Councillor Jan Mason. The following substitutes are attending Councillor Jeremy Webster for Councillor Bennett, welcome to Jeremy. Councillor Trevor Hogg on behalf of Councillor Sugden, welcome to Trevor. Mentioned welcome to Paul Follows. Councillor Stephen McCormack who is attending for Councillor Jan Mason, welcome to you Stephen. Councillor John O'Reilly who is here on behalf of Councillor Mackintosh. I think we are one member short who hasn't arrived, Councillor Bowes. So assuming that she's not able to be here, we'll give her apologies. Item two is declarations of interest. All members are required to declare at this point in the meeting, or as soon as possible thereafter, any disclosable pecuniary interests and or any other interests arising under the code of conduct in respect of any items of business being considered at this meeting. Catherine. I'd just like to declare that my son lives very close to London Road. He cycles to work but he doesn't cycle on the section one. Thanks. Okay. Are there any other declarations of interest from any other members? Okay. Item three is members' questions. The deadline for members' questions was the 13th of November at 12pm and we received none. Item four, public questions. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting, which was the 12th of November. Eleven questions were received but the Council's standing orders specify that only six questions can be taken at a meeting. So the first received are the ones that are listed. Questioners can participate in the meeting and ask one supplementary question. Written responses to the original questions have been published in the supplementary agenda. So question one today was from Sam, and I hope I've pronounced it, Sam Neutra. That's fine. Okay. I have the same problem sometimes. So I'd like to ask you, Sam, do you have a supplementary? You've had the written answer to your question. You've seen that. Yep. Would you like to ask a supplementary question? Yes, please. Please come forward and push the red button on the right. Can you hear me okay? Thank you for having me today. My supplementary question, councillors, and I want to thank you for confirming that there are no bus stops in this scheme and what the layout of the bus stops will be. You may know there are already shared bus stops on London Road at the moment, such as the ones at the Burfum shop parade. And I'd ask you, is there any data on the safety of these over the years? Because I'm not aware of any safety data involving pedestrians, but there is contrastingly a lot of cycle injuries that's taken place on the same spot. So given that there are no floating bus stops as proposed, can the committee confirm that passengers will exit a bus into a pedestrian-only area, importantly, that is not shared with cyclists? Is that clear? Who would like to answer that? Thank you, Chair. Thank you, and thank you for your question. So, as you see, following consulting with the Surrey Coalition of Disabled People, we removed all floating bus stops because of their concerns about that. I have to say my experience, particularly with broader floating bus stops, I was very happy to support that decision. So, as part of the scheme as designed, it only features shared space at the bus stops along the route with no floating bus stops. The cyclists will be encouraged to go behind the bus stop so that pedestrians will be walking out into a pedestrian-only zone. I hope that answers what you are asking. I believe so. I think it's important that when people get off the bus, it is to an area that is only for pedestrians. And if cyclists are in there, they should not be in there and should be dealt with under any laws that exist for cyclists on the highway. Thank you, Sam. The second question is Pat Daffan. Pat, welcome. If you have a supplemental question, please put it. First of all, thank you for your response, which is basically the majority of the Cabinet took into account both written and verbal evidence. To put my supplementary question into context, I'd like to point out that walkers and wheelers can be split into three categories. The first category are those who are on foot and on wheel for sport. Most of those people own cars, okay? The second category are those who have cars, but choose for exercise, environmental cost and time. Yes, time, not to drive. I find it quicker to cycle into town. By the time I've cycled in, done what I've done, my neighbours are queuing up to get in the car park still. It's ridiculous. The third category, and this is an important category, are those who cannot legally drive. We talk about kids, disabled and elderly, some of whom have had to return their licences. So we talk about some of the people complaining about this, so they're going to have to give up their licences at some point, and then they're going to be living on an island. That third group, prams, three-wheel scooters, bikes, disabled who cannot legally drive, are passengers that are driven short distances because the act of travel is perceived unsafe. The number of people who tell me they don't cycle because of close buzzing cars, et cetera. Disabled scooters are seen on London Road, and Ian Gurney, I hope I've got his name correct here, Ian Gurney represented Disabled Access Forum at the Guildford Local Cycling Walking Infrastructure Plan in December last year. Stated that drains on the road and uneven pavements impede his small wheels on his mobility scooter. He was having serious problems, actually, even getting into the council chambers down at Millmead. We all want good alternatives to driving, and at the Local Cycle Walking Infrastructure Plan, we all worked together. That included Roy Vassel representing... Mr Davin, I appreciate that you want to comment, but could you try and limit what you're saying to a supplementary question? I will be, right. I just pointed out Roy Vassel representing the Surrey Coalition for Disabled was actually implementing that. So 99% of the scheme is reported as safe. Would you expel a child with a report card like that? Where is the SEC's desire to improve and mitigate perceived issues? Signage would actually improve the problems we've got. I spoke at the Cabinet meeting on the 28th. The local demographic, current and future, was not considered. Today on BBC Radio Surrey, Nicky Robinson from the Surrey Coalition of Disabled say that the buses are dropping off people into cycle lanes. That's not there. My perception is that reports are not read and decisions are pre-made. Bear witness to the fact that... Mr Davin, I am trying to be sympathetic, but you are not here to make a speech. Okay. You're here to ask a supplementary question. Okay. What is it? Well, basically, can the officers confirm that they've actually read the officers' report? And have the officers read the Burford-McGuilford area 12th of November submission, whose annex pointed out all the safety improvements that the scheme will provide? Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Furness, or an officer? Would you prefer an officer? No, it's entirely up to you, between you. You fight amongst yourselves. I think so, yes. I think, actually, Mr Duffin was asking about members reading the officers' report, rather than officers reading their own report, which I hope they did. So, it's quite a difficult one, because, as the original answer says, the majority of the Cabinet took account of written and verbal evidence. And I hope you appreciate, I am supportive of the project, and now having to defend a decision which I did not vote for. So, a bit of an unusual situation I'm in. What I think I can say is that we will look at the route, we will revisit the report that you have referenced, and see what minor amendments we can make, particularly around drain covers and so forth, which we have put a significant amount of additional capital into resolving. So, we will see what we can do along those lines, along this stretch of road, as highlighted by the various access and disabled groups. Thank you very much, Mr Duffin. The third question is from Terry Newman. Mr Newman, welcome. Would you like to ask a supplementary question? I'll try and keep it brief. My original question was not about how the funding was obtained, but how, if the scheme were to go ahead, Surrey County Council would be able to answer the question as put by the Public Accounts Select Committee in November of last year, that despite spending over $2.3 billion on active travel, DFT knew far too little about what it had achieved. Surrey County Council accepts responsibility for the safety standards and financial efficacy, and has published Healthy Streets for Surrey as a guide for designers. And there are a number of mandated points in that document that are more restrictive than LTN 120. For example, designers must comply with two-metre-wide pavements and defined pavements as solely for pedestrians. And cycle provision must be segregated on roads with high speeds and or volumes with a suitable buffer between the carriageway and the cycle lane. So, does Surrey County Council consider that adequate justification has been made to overlook these mandates and will subsequently be able to defend a position should the scheme go ahead? Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Ferris. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for that supplementary question. I'm pleased to Healthy Streets to Race because this is our template for all new infrastructure and designs on developments that are being brought forward in Surrey. I think as members and members of the public appreciate that you cannot retrofit to the new modern standards all existing networks that we do have. There physically is not the space or land in all cases, so some compromises will have to be made. I do think it is important that we try and deliver for all residents as far as possible. It's not going to ever be a perfect 100%, but I do think the betterment, even to about a small degree, is worth the money, which allows people to walk or cycle, provide safe routes to schools and so forth. So, I have to say that we do everything we can. We're never going to get to 100% on design standards just because the physical infrastructure environment that we have would not allow it. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much. Question four was from Jim Allen. As far as I'm aware, Mr. Allen isn't with us today, so he's had an answer to the question that he submitted. Next one is from Doug Clare. Mr. Clare, welcome. Your supplementary question. Thank you, Chairman. Good afternoon, councillors. The new proposed, I put it to you, the new proposed scheme is safe. Surrey County Council have spent a million pounds on design, as far as I know, and have had this safety report from Arup. And, at present, the London Road to cycle along is not safe. I cycle along it regularly, and I am close past by cars and cut up, and it's a dangerous place. I understand that the Cabinet had safety concerns over a small stretch of some 80 metres of shared use. But, when they made the decision, did they take into account the fact that 94% of the proposed scheme will be much, much safer? Even this small 80 metre length will be safer than it is at the moment. But 94% will be much safer than it is at the moment. It will encourage school children to ride to school. Pat's talked about mobility scooters riding along the gutter. We've seen two recently using the road. It will take them off the road. Please tell me that they've taken the fact that 94% will be much safer. I don't think they've taken notice of that. Councillor Furness? Thank you. Or an officer? Well, I think it's going to be one for the Cabinet members, to be fair. But it might be one that the Committee members might want to ask the other witnesses in particular. I mean, the evidence was all presented in the report. We have tried to make it as segregated as possible all the way along the length. It's been a long two and a bit years, let's put it that way, on trying to get to a scheme which we could hopefully accommodate everyone's views. Clearly that wasn't the case. But I do, as I emphasise again, if you do read the report, we do have a significant amount of shared space in the county. We are not unusual. It happens across the country. We have very, very few incidences on those shared spaces. I'm probably more concerned about where we don't have shared space and people are just cycling on pavements, to be fair, which we have had a recent coroner's case against us on. So I think we just need to take it into account. All the evidence was presented in the report. But I would probably say it was, as it being a Cabinet decision, it's a political decision. So the members will have made their judgement based on the views that they heard and the evidence presented. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. So I ask that this committee sends this back to the Cabinet and hopefully we can persuade the Cabinet that it is safe. That is indeed what we are here this afternoon to consider. Thank you. And the final question, I understand, is Oliver Greaves, who is joining us online. Mr Greaves? Yeah. Hi. Can you hear me? Welcome. And what's your supplementary question, please? Yeah. Thank you, councillors. So the supplementary question and what I was concerned in reading the answer was whether all the evidence has been faithfully presented or whether it's been edited severely as was the case when I tried to ask a question and most of it was edited out. In particular, on the safety, one point being that the distance separation from an HGV wing mirror to a potential pedestrian, if they're sensitive, is only five inches along the whole length. But moreover, as was answered in question one by Matt Furness, he said that floating bus stops have changed the shared space and gives the impression that the Surrey Coalition for Disabled are happy with this. But I was on the phone to them to check this only 20 minutes ago because when their lead made the speech three weeks ago, she was incredibly concerned about shared spaces and felt it was a big misrepresentation of Councillor Furness to say the changes are floating bus stops. She said their position has not changed. They are very against shared spaces. They tried to ask a question. The only reason they're not there in person was that they'd been disallowed to be asked as apparently the site for Surrey. And her CEO was on the radio this morning reinforcing the concerns that the disabled coalition about shared spaces. So the question I prefer the chair rather than Matt Furness is whether all these details have been presented and they have extensively been made aware of these pretty significant safety concerns. I'll answer that in a moment. First of all, our committee scrutiny officer is going to respond to your point about your question to this meeting being edited. Yeah. Thank you, Chairman. Yes, Mr. Reeves, just to provide clarity on that. It is usual practice in line with the council's constitution and standing orders for public questions to be redrafted on occasion to bring them into proper form and to secure reasonable brevity. And that was the case with your question that you asked and also with some of the other questions that we received. There is also a limit on the number of questions that can be taken at a meeting, which is why not all the questions were able to be taken today. Thank you. Yes, but on that point, the person with the democratic services agreed with my question and then it was further edited. So there seems to be a change on that, actually. Well, you've had an answer on that particular point, Mr. Reeves. Okay. My answer to your question is yes. I'll ask if either the cabinet member or anyone else wishes to add to that. No, the answer is yes. Great, thank you. As we've mentioned earlier, there were a number of others who did submit questions to this meeting. The constitution allows us to take those only in order that they were received, but everybody else who has asked the question will get a written response to the question that they put in. Now, item four is the substantive item today on the London Road Guildford Active Travel Scheme. The independent technical assessment of Section 1 for consideration to proceed. Now, just to reintroduce them, the witnesses that we've invited today are Councillor Matt Furness, the cabinet member for Highways, Councillor Denise Turner-Stewart, who's the deputy leader of the cabinet, Councillor David Lewis, the cabinet member for Finance. But I can see also that we have Councillor Mark Newty with us, so welcome. Owen Jenkins, who's the interim executive director for Highways Infrastructure and Planning. Roger Williams, welcome, who's the active travel program manager for SCC. And Lucy Money, who's the director for Highways and Transport. So, the introduction to this item from me, just to explain for those present the background to the call-in and the structure of the meeting. At the end of this meeting, the select committee members will be asked to either agree that the decision should stand or refer it back to the cabinet for reconsideration. If the decision is referred back, the select committee then needs to give valid reasons for doing so and to ask the cabinet to take a different decision with some clear recommendations. Now, as to the reason for the call-in, members who did the call-in, which in this case was Councillor Lance Spencer, although he's not here today, would be asked to briefly outline their reasons to the meeting for doing so. Because Lance has a family commitment, Councillor Paul Follows is here and is substituting for him and will now speak on the call-in request on his behalf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, good afternoon. Thank you for attendance today to discuss this matter. Of course, an important decision for Guildford, but an important decision regardless of your opinion about the specifics of the scheme, for the reasons that I will outline. One thing I hope that unites us as elected people, regardless of any party or other religions, is a commitment to robust, evidence-based decision-making. The basic thrust of this call-in is a defence of that essential concept, and I do not intend to advocate for or against the scheme on its merits or demerits, and I will confine my arguments to the decision-making process and evidence as a result. The primary rationale for the decision of the cabinet to refuse relates to the safety of disabled pedestrians. This, of course, is something that we must, of course, give due consideration to. However, the available evidence, including the safety audit, did not suggest a safety risk to disabled persons. The scheme was not evaluated against any of the existing road layouts, which is approximately 40% shared usage already, and a key consideration should have been whether this scheme was a safety improvement on the status quo or not. There is, of course, that existing specific and real safety issue that was due to be addressed by this scheme. The decision of the cabinet to refuse does not address this severe and outstanding concern. Now, as the leader of a borough council myself, I must admit I was surprised to see reports to an executive body that do not address the secondary consequences of a potential decision. In this case, the secondary consequences are clear. The section of the route attracting safety concerns was about 5% of a section with shared usage, a path of about 1.8 metres. That's sort of a little bit about my height. I think Councillor Potter there has a tape measure with what 1.8 metres looks like so you can see. But just under six feet on either side of the road. Indeed, this is the sort of width that you actually do see elsewhere in the county on shared spaces and is an improvement above many of the county services already. And as the cabinet member has confirmed in response to one of the questions we heard earlier, is something that we see often in Surrey and has been subsequent to a coroner's report on another matter. Whatever my opinion, the cabinet should adequately address the technical and safety considerations and potential mitigations. 95% has been thrown out in deference to a non-technical opinion on that remaining 5%. The layout proposed had only been arrived at because there was really no space for anything else, and I think that needs to be properly accounted for too. The decision not to go ahead with the scheme has significant implications, including the loss of funding, the retention of the existing layout, which has officially been deemed unsafe, as well as considerable impact on local planning policies at the Guilford Borough level and the Local Cycling, Walking and Infrastructure Plan, the LCWIP, all of which rely on the provision of a sustainable movement corridor along this section of the London Road. It also, of course, runs contrary to many of the policies of this council, including its highways policy and its climate change policies. There is no evidence that these implications were considered, and beyond all of this, I have a wider concern that other active travel and safety schemes, regardless of their funding source, support from highways professionals, or other properly established bodies, will get a long way through the process before almost arbitrarily being halted without supporting evidence. This meeting, as I said, is not to rehash the Cabinet meeting itself, but to ask the Cabinet to weigh the evidence and consider the implications an alternative. I appreciate that the Cabinet takes a political decision, but they should also be basing those decisions on evidence. Mr. Chairman, Members, I ask you to support a referral back to Cabinet for these matters to be considered. It is my intention to propose grounds for that following the debate. Once again, thank you, Members, and I look forward to an interesting discussion, I'm sure. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Followers. Could I ask the Cabinet member if he wishes to respond, or indeed any of the officers would like to comment on what Councillor Followers has said? I think there would just be one point that I would like to comment on. That was just around the recent Congress report was about a cyclist on a pavement. It wasn't a shared space. And the second point is that active travel include have confirmed since the meeting that we can transfer the money to other projects, so there won't be a loss of funding. Any funding that we currently put into this current project, the project will still exist. It will still probably be on a shelf, potentially, depending on what the decision process happens next. But it wouldn't be lost. It is still a designed and cleared scheme that could be implemented if this Council say wishes to in the future. Thank you. Could I ask Councillor Dees-Turner-Stewart if you would like to say anything at this stage in response to what you've heard or any other comments? Thank you, Chairman. I would just respond to Councillor Followers referring to this opportunity to test if this scheme would be a safety improvement on the status quo. I think the evidence that we saw led us to the conclusion that introducing a potential element of risk within a scheme, which would be deemed to be a safety improvement, would not be interpreted as a safety improvement. So being able to predict a safety improvement based on a scheme that we could see from the evidence that there was an element of risk too, would not be interpreted in that way. Council Followers also, and my colleague, Council Fairness, has referred to the funding question, but Council Followers has cited layout planning policies, LCWIP, this scheme being contrary to our highways and climate change policies. But we are not here just to implement schemes that are compliant with policies when there are elements of safety or risk that is being brought to our attention. We have considered that, and the decision that was taken was taken mindful of all of those policies and all of those elements, but actually was deemed to be a concern that wasn't able to enable the scheme to go ahead. Thank you. Councillor Lewis, is there anything you want to add at this moment? Yes, thank you, Chair. Councillor Followers says that the decision was taken on a non-technical opinion relating to 5% of the affected road. Well, I can't speak for my fellow Cabinet members, but as far as I was concerned, and I've checked the notes that I used when I spoke at the Cabinet meeting, most of the speech I made quoted from the Arup Report, and it detailed the concerns around the proposals, and I quoted directly from the Arup Report. So I don't think there can be any suggestion that Arup are not a technical organisation to give technical evidence. So as far as I was concerned, and I did make it clear when I made my decision that I wasn't opposed in principle necessary to the shared space. In my own division, we have a recently introduced shared space which works very well. But I was concerned about the evidence and the information provided by Arup. So I dispute the suggestion that decisions were made on a non-technical basis. As far as I was concerned, it was made very much on a technical basis, on the basis of a technical report. Thank you. And, Catherine Newt, was there any comments you wanted to add? Not really, Chair. I'm in a similar position to Councillor Furness's, and I actually voted for the scheme. So I found myself sitting here just making sure due process is a thing to happen. happen. That's fine, as it will be. Okay. Right. So could I ask members now of the committee if there are any comments or questions that you would like to make? Councillor Bart. Thank you. I've got a couple of points to make. One is that on the basis of expertise and experience in the Arup report and indeed in the engineers within the highways, if I can just get rid of some of the notifications that keep coming up on my screen. So from Arup, I'm not going to name your names, but the people who wrote the Arup report, we have one who has the qualifications that are recommended in the local transport note 120. They are civil engineers. They have 30 years of experience, national highways certified as a road safety auditor. Another person who has 18 years as a transport planner, member of the Transport Planning Society and is a chartered transport planning professional. People who have 29 years experience in planning, design and operation and mobility and transport in the UK and internationally. So these are people and of course we've got our own highways officers who also have these qualifications. So my contention is that a report was commissioned from people who have vast experience, who are professionals, who have reputational risk, who work in this area. And although the scheme is not perfect and has to, but it is, we mustn't, I think we must not let perfection be the enemy of the good here. And for 5% of the cycle of the route, which overall delivers benefits for pedestrians in terms of new crossings, areas that are shared at the moment become segregated. And also the bits that are shared will be better managed because they will have signage and support for reminding cyclists who has priority. Again, benefits for cyclists because it gets them off the awful road. So in terms of delivering LTP4, there are benefits overall for pedestrians, there are benefits overall for cyclists. It's not a perfect scheme and it's been endorsed by people who are dedicated professionals. And therefore, I think that turning the scheme down on the basis that it isn't safe is not acceptable. Thank you. Catherine, on the basis, I didn't hear a question there. I won't put it to our witnesses. Would you like to make a question? We've heard what you said. Oh, yeah. What was the question? Do you agree with me? Yes. Do you agree with me that, do you agree with me that overall there are the benefits of, to pedestrians and cyclists, overweigh the 5% area where it's not perfect? Thank you. Would you like to take that, Councillor Furness, or hand on to... Shall we do a double act, Chair? Yeah. Seeing as it was like a, there was different views. So, yes, I would agree. I think my principal concern is any betterment is better than nothing. My biggest concern, though, is that if, as an authority, we're now saying any shared space, bearing in mind the amount we have, only 5% was up 1.8 metres. I'd just like to emphasise for four members, there was a larger percentage of shared space, but it was much wider. That was the most narrow point. If we're saying shared space is not allowed on any safety concerns, that's going to make it very difficult for us to deliver any improvement on projects around walking and cycling improvements, because we would not physically have the space in quite a few areas, particularly villages and so forth, to actually make those improvements. So, I would say that would be my concern, but I think we do need to take it in the realms. There was clearly concerns from members. I'll let them speak to that, but depending on how the decision ends up, I think we'll probably have to have another little look at LTP4 and where we go from there, based on the decisions from various committees. Okay. Anyone else? Council Turner-Stewart? Thank you, Chairman. So, there's a reference in the report to 25% of the shared paths in Surrey being 1.8 metres, but I don't think that's necessarily in a combination with the reduced road lane width as well. So, the risk that was perceived on the shared use path was not just the limited width and space on that shared use path. It was also that, in addition to the pressure on the road lane, because of the compressed width and the propensity of those wing mirrors, which are sighted in numerous locations within the report, the potential for those wing mirrors to either collide if the vehicle isn't centred in the lane or if the vehicle is in any way beandering. And let's face it, we have driver behaviour, driver error. There's lots of different potential elements, weather conditions, sunlight, anything that could cause vehicles not to be in the correct position in order to not encroach on that shared path. So, there's more there than just the concern over the width of the shared path to the users. Yes, my further point, which you just reminded me about, and I would say with the HGVs, is that when I'm cycling in the road, the position of the HGV wing mirrors in relation to my head is entirely down to the HGV driver. So, as a cyclist, I would prefer not to be in the position where I'm being overtaken by an HGV on a narrow stretch of road. I think that the, I think that one thing I think we could think about is why, you know, are the HGVs, do they have an alternative route? Basically, have the, has managing the HGVs in that particularly narrow section, we're talking about the possibility of two HGVs coming by at the same time, do HGVs have to go along that route? And are there things such as, I don't know, you know, poles at HGV wing mirror height that would encourage the HGV, for example, to stick in the part of the road that it's supposed to be in and not, as you, as you said, get too close to the shared pavement and then the wing mirrors are near people's heads? And has that been explored as a, as a way of managing, because you, your visual image of the HGV wing mirror coming past people's heads is really, it's very strong and I'd like to know, is there a way of managing that, has that been considered for that short section? Mr. Jenkins. Yeah, happy to come in on that. I mean, obviously, the report lays out all of the evidence designs and so on that were, were considered and rerouting HGVs was not one of those options that was looked at within this scheme. And if I may just come back to your other point around this, is that clearly there are within the scheme design some compromises because of the width of the carriageway and the width of the shared space. And I suppose from the report clearly details that we believe that was the best possible scheme, I suppose, for that road layout, but it was with compromises and therefore that's what the cabinet decision was about and therefore that's what the conversation was about amongst cabinet members as to whether to support the scheme or not support the scheme. So in other words, was it worth still having those remaining compromises within the road width and the cycle lane width, which was really the question being answered. Thank you. I'd like to ask our witnesses a question. Namely, what is the alternative? If the scheme does not proceed, how will existing safety concerns of pedestrians, cyclists and local school children be addressed? So there are three sections that are being upgraded. There is a crossing which is currently under construction at Winter Hillway, which is currently under construction. The Otsgrove AA roundabout, depending on how old you are and how long you've been in Guildford, is due for an upgrade as well, which will improve pedestrian and cyclists. And we've already completed a new crossing, a zebra crossing on Nightingale Road adjacent to the Guildford High School to facilitate access from the station. As I said in my answer to one of the speakers, we will go through, we will look, see if there are any safety defects that we do need to tackle, whether it is from drain covers or any other points, and see what other measures that we can do there and work with the local divisional councillor with their highways fund as well to see what can be improved as well. Thank you. Thank you. I've got Councillor Cooksey next, followed by Councillor Followers. Yes, thank you, Chairman. It is a very unusual case, isn't it, with regard to the way in which the Councillor has operated. It's unusual, I think, for the Cabinet to make this sort of decision at the last minute, which he seems to have done. It's unusual for the report and the views of senior highways officers to be rejected by Cabinet at Cabinet stage. And it's unusual for a report such as the Arup report to be, the recommendations of that report should be rejected. So I wonder if I could just ask the officers to comment and to confirm that, given all of the considerations, they regarded the scheme as being as safe as possible, and could I ask them to confirm that the Arup report indicated the same situation? I'll take the first part, and possibly Lucy will come in afterwards if I've forgotten anything. But, yes, the first part of your question, is it unusual? It happens. It happens. It happens in multiple ways. You know, sometimes an officer recommendation is taken all the way through the process and accepted. Sometimes an officer recommendation is taken but with certain caveats or changes. And sometimes an officer recommendation is not taken, as in this case. So that does happen, and that's part and parcel of the process we work within. We present our report and the officer recommendations, and it is for Cabinet to decide. So that is normal part and parcel of the constitutional process. So although it doesn't happen very often, it is also part and parcel of the proper process from that point of view. So just coming back to the report itself, obviously, you've seen that and read it. That report was for recommendation from officers, taking into account sort of the constraints, if you like, within that site and so on. And, yes, the Arup report also confirmed and then reconfirmed the fact that this was a scheme that was the best possible scheme within the constraints of that road width. And from that point of view, also met the requirements of LTM 120 and so on. However, as I said earlier, there were compromises within that which had to be part and parcel of the political judgment as to whether that was the right scheme to go ahead with or not. Okay, Steve? Okay. I think just one point, sir. I think it is important that we have a confirmation, and I know that no scheme is perfect, no scheme can be perfect, but that this, in the view of officers, is as good a scheme as is possible, given the circumstances and all of the research work that you've done. Yeah, if I can come in, just to add, to fully support what Owen has already explained. But, yes, we've spent a lot of time as officers looking at the options here and working through various stages to propose this scheme. We have worked alongside the cabinet member in developing the direction of travel, I suppose. So, supplemented that with the Arup report to check. So, as officers, yes, we're comfortable that the scheme we proposed went through a robust process. It considered feedback and views, importantly, has been amended to try and address those. And the proposal that we took to cabinet is the best proposal that we could put forward at that time that addresses the situation we have to offer an improvement to infrastructure. Thank you. Paul Fulis. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. You yourself asked that key question, in my opinion, about alternatives. So, thank you. I'll keep my questions too restricted to the decision-making process. So, just addressing the comments of the deputy leader, I think what you're trying to say is that we shouldn't introduce new risks when addressing old ones. I get this. It sounds to me very much like the cabinet member for highways gets this too. But that is also a balance and proportionality to play a role in that. So, more to the point, it seems to me like you're effectively attempting to establish a false equivalence between professional technical highways evidence and non-technical opinion of an outside body. Do you accept that these are not equal in the decision-making process, is my first question. My second question, addressing the comments of the cabinet member for finance, the Arup report concludes the scheme is safe. And I think to say otherwise is to be selectively choosing individual lines. Does the cabinet member agree that the Arup report concludes the scheme is safe and that equally professional technical evidence to the contrary is not present? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Councillor Pernan Stewart. Thank you, Chairman. So, more than one of your select committee have identified the qualifications that are held by the authors of the report and, indeed, our highways engineers. But their findings are caveated and there are margins that are referenced that the cabinet were not comfortable with. And they were referenced in the report. They weren't, you know, a sort of an assumption or a conclusion that was reached in absence of considering the evidence. They were included within the evidence. And those margins of safety and risk are so narrow that I think the cabinet's view was actually that wasn't a consideration of risk that they were willing to carry in order to allow this scheme to progress. And those limitations are down to the location and the space within that part of the route. So, they can't be adjusted. But they are referenced in the report. As, you know, there's a reference to a design of reduced width shared path which recognises the discomfort and minimises the risk of conflict as much as possible. I mean, that's the statement of their findings, but that is for us as cabinet members to interpret and to reach a decision. Thank you. Thank you, Denise. And just following up on Stephen's point just now, I'm reminded of an old saying in government of advisers advise, but ministers decide. I think we have a similar scenario here where council officers make their recommendations, but at the end of the day, it's for cabinet members who are elected to make decisions, whether that's for or against. The last speaker I have a note of at the moment is Councillor McCormack. Thank you, Chair. I'd just like to ask, I think, four questions referencing the Arup report, please. And the first question would be, why was a desktop-only exercise undertaken by Arup? And why wasn't a real-world site visit required to actually provide that report? That's the first question. Mention is made in the documents about requirements. What were the requirements given to Arup, i.e. the business requirements, to actually do their work? And where can these be seen, please? Because I don't see them in the documentation pack. And was the scheme reassessed using the Active Travel England route check user manual published in 2024? If not, why not? And the Arup report overlooked fundamentals of the ATE, the Active Travel England route check, policies as per page 114 of the cabinet report. So why was this? So four questions there, please. Thank you. Thank you. Hi. In terms of the Arup desktop report, it is normal in terms of engaging professional organisations to ask them to review a design, which effectively is what we ask them to do. And it's not unusual that they would look at the design drawings and the design that we had sent them and they would do a technical review, which is what we asked of them to do. That's standard practice within the technical field that you send them design, you send them the process, they will review that and critique it based on the design guidance, LTM 120, and other design principles and guidance around HGV widths. So that's the standard practice that is not unusual to this particular scheme. In terms of the requirements, the requirements that we sent to Arup were specific to the points that the leader made on the 27th of February in his meeting, which were two elements. The first was whether there was sufficient width for two HGVs to pass. That was the first point that the leader made on the 27th of February. And the second was, was there sufficient width for users to pass safely on the footway, on the shared use path? So those were the things that the leader spoke about on the 27th, and we asked Arup to look at those specific elements. In terms of your point around the route check tool, this scheme started life in 2021, and went through the route check tool equivalent of Active Travel England at that point when we applied for funding, which was a predecessor to that tool. We went through that process, we provided that information to Active Travel England, and they therefore gave us funding. We have not, as yet, gone through that process again with the updated version, because we had already previously done it. Obviously, LTN 120 is the guidance process that we have used in terms of designing the scheme, which is the latest guidance from Active Travel England. Route check tool is about, if you're bidding for a new scheme, a route, you will use route check tool to ensure that Active Travel England are prepared to fund it. We did not, at this moment in time, believe, given the previous route check tool that we used, the previous version of it, as well as designing it to, the latest guidance of LTN 120, fear that it was needed to look at that route check tool again, because we'd have previously done it. Forgive me, in terms of the last point around the ATE policy. Can you just help me on that point? Apologies. Yep, just bear in a second, I'll find it again. So, the question, the last question was, the Arup report overlooked fundamentals of the ATE policies as per page 114 of the Cabinet report. Why was this? So, if you reference page 114 of the Cabinet report. Can you give me a minute just to find that? Yep, please. While you're looking that up, I'd like to make another comment, and I'll come back to you in a second. Could I just repeat what I said earlier to everybody, that this meeting allows for participation by video conference, via Microsoft Teams, and that some attendees are participating remotely or even in the room for access to remote participation. For those who are, if the chat feature is enabled, please do not use it. Its use limits the transparency and the open discussion of this meeting, which we hope to maintain in what is a public meeting. So, if you have access to the chat, please do not use it. Thank you. Roger, has that given you enough time? Can we come back to you, if you're still looking that up? I have another speaker, and that's Trevor Hogg. Thank you, Chair. I've got a really simple question, which is, given that just a very short part of the route is very narrow, is there any real reason why we shouldn't just require cyclists to dismount for that section and make it pedestrian only? So, that's the main question. Chair, would you like me to come back on that? Yes, please. Thank you. There isn't any reason why we couldn't do that, absolutely. I think the concern was more about how you would enforce that, because it is such a short section, only 70 metres. We would hope that cyclists would all be law-abiding. They would see the signs say dismount and dismount and walk their bike along. Let's just say it was a concern that we didn't believe that would happen. But there is always an opportunity to put that in place if it was wished. I'd just point out that in that circumstance, they would be legally liable if there were any injuries. And rather than just saying priorities, which is a matter of judgement, open to question, you'd have a very simple situation now. Have you found any reference yet that Councillor McCormack was asking about? Chair, I might be able to help. It's page, it's, the page numbering is page 114 in the document, but actually in the PDF itself is actually page 40 of 60. So it's a cabinet report that went on the 29th of October. So that may well be part of the confusion here. And it references ATE policies. And again, policy P01, cyclists separated from pedestrians. P03, does route feel direct, logical and intuitive to understand? P06, does the route join together? And again, there's several questions in there. I found the apologies for some delay. This was a response from a resident called Olly Greaves, which was specific to the Arup report. And the points that he makes are comments about whether or not we have, the Arup report has looked specifically at policies around Active Travellingland. What I would say is Active Travellingland have signed off effectively the design of the scheme. And so as far as we are concerned, we have looked at the policies of Active Travellingland and Active Travellingland are indeed comfortable with our proposals. Sorry. Yes. If I might come back on that point, please. So Active Travellingland have basically said that they're not here to make delivery decisions. So it's up to, sorry to implement the scheme, so to indicate they're happy with the scheme is not completely true or accurate, is it? You know, they're not going to basically say yay or nay on the scheme design. It's up to the implementation to actually do that. So could you just clarify that for me, please? Yeah, I'll come in there if that's okay, Chair. So when we're referencing this section, this is about the Active Travellingland and the LTM 120 standards, and therefore what we're saying is that Active Travellingland are comfortable and we have followed the standards. You are absolutely right. They are not there to make operational decisions about implementing the scheme or not implementing the scheme. That is actually something for our Cabinet, which is the conversation we're having today. So when Roger refers to the fact that Active Travellingland are comfortable with our scheme and the proposals we've put forward, that means that they are comfortable we are following the standards that they have set out within their guidance in LTM 120, not that they are saying that we should implement that scheme because that's not their remit. Thank you. Councillor McLeod. Thank you, Chairman. I knew nothing much about this scheme before this call-in occurred. I don't think it came to this committee before. So in order to make the right contribution, I have spent quite a bit of time over the weekend reading all the papers and listening to the Cabinet meeting probably three times in total because, as Councillor Follower says, we've actually been asked to decide not whether or not the scheme should go ahead, that's not our role, but whether or not the Cabinet took a reasonable decision and took the decision based on evidence. So listening to the Cabinet meeting and the people who spoke to the Cabinet meeting was important to my mind. you obviously begin to form your own impression of whether or not the scheme is the right scheme and it seems to me and it seems to me that it's a difficult one to decide this, actually. It says in the call-in papers there's overwhelming evidence in favour of this scheme but there clearly isn't, actually. It's a highly controversial scheme both in terms of the public response that's been to it and there's very mixed views on the Cabinet and from everybody else. And I have to say that I felt the Cabinet meeting was a very good meeting and everybody spoke very sincerely. Both the people in favour of this scheme, Cabinet Farmers being the main person who spoke in favour as the portfolio holder, he put a good case for the scheme and the two other members, Councillor Newtie and Councillor Heath, I think, also made good contributions. But their contributions, by the way, they didn't actually address the merits of this particular scheme but particularly they were addressing more their support for this type of scheme which is a perfectly valid position to hold. But I do actually feel in coming to what we've been asked to decide on that the Cabinet members who spoke against the scheme, I thought they also, they all made very good points in that the two Cabinet members who spoke first, Councillor Mooney and Councillor Denise Stewart, they were mainly concerned about the safety issues and the Cabinet member for adult social care seems to me has got a particular responsibility here because the Surrey Coalition for Disabled People are against this scheme actually and Councillor Mooney was supporting them which she is absolutely intangible to do. Then we had two contributions for Councillor Denas who actually I know very well Councillor Denas, he's a Waverley Councillor and Councillor Denas is an ex-senior police officer actually so he was speaking for concern about the safety in terms of the vehicles passing each other closely and as an ex-senior police officer he's concerned about that and Councillor Lewis who also spoke actually I thought he made a very, very good contribution he spoke from a professional background prior to having become a Councillor and he gave a very measured opinion in my view as to why the scheme shouldn't be go ahead. Finally the leader actually made what I thought was a very, very telling point actually which I would like an answer to that he actually said although the Arrott report supported the scheme that was on the basis of the current sort of volume of movements on that particular part of this section of the scheme which currently is about I believe 170 movements and the Arrott report said that this scheme could support up to 300 movements at the peak level and obviously that's not what happens at the moment. But as the leader said if this scheme proves to be successful and you know the children from the two schools actually spoke about this how they were looking forward to many, many more cyclists using the scheme actually if the scheme is successful it would clearly go fairly quickly above the 300 and in that sense it would become unsafe even based on the Arab figures and the Arab analysis of the situation so I would like to ask about that point actually if this scheme it seems to me actually what we're doing here in the hierarchy of travel you know we're very concerned about the cyclists on the road here and quite rightly because cyclists should be regarded as more important than car drivers so we're trying to restrict the width of the road in terms of the drivers we're trying to take cyclists off the road and put them into this shared scheme in fact and in the face of it that's a good thing to do but in the hierarchy of travel the highest level is the pedestrians in fact the pedestrians come above cyclists actually and it seems to me what we're effectively doing here is creating largely a cycle path actually and over time there'll be more and more discouragement of pedestrians to walk in this part this shared scheme thing so we're actually putting cyclists effectively above pedestrians effectively in what we're doing and particularly as the thing grows in the use of cycling and as officers have said it is a compromise scheme it seems to me we shouldn't be actually producing a compromise scheme in order to solve the problem we should be looking at other ways of satisfying the problem of being unsatisfactory for cyclists so I actually personally don't feel there's adequate reasons to call this in back to the cabinet the way the cabinet members always spoke and they're all speaking seriously they're not going to change their mind they actually made the points that they believed and that it would be the same again so I don't see the value in actually referring it back to the cabinet but I would like an answer specifically to the concern that the leader Tim Oliver made about what would happen if this scheme is really successful because it seems to me what we'd be doing is creating essentially a cycling path off the road which might be a good thing in its own way but what about the disabled people what about the concern from the coalition of disabled people and so on so I I've formed the view not that I'm here to be in any way the decider but I've formed the view that if I had been on the cabinet I would have been against this and I don't see any reason to refer it back to the cabinet thank you chairman councillor fairness thank you chair as you said it's not the decision that was made it's the process was it followed correctly is the key point your point on what if it was a successful scheme I would say I would love that it would be a successful scheme the point about the 300 cyclists that is an hour that's not a day or over a period if we were getting up to 300 cyclists an hour using that route I would say yes that would be successful but if you were getting that level you would probably then look to say what else do you do with that road and is it still suitable to potentially be a road of that magnitude in that sense I mean for cars and stable 15-20 years ago I used to go to school I actually took a route three times as long to avoid that road so we went around the top instead so I mean if we could get some successful schemes in I think that would be good because we we are trying we are trying to get people out of their cars we are trying to get them walking cycling taking public transport putting a lot of investment into those areas not only for health and well-being but also just to try and provide other alternatives to the car in Surrey which as we know is a significant factor but you're quite right you're looking at the process today not whether you would or wouldn't have supported the decision which there we go I'll leave it to that Chairman if I could just come back I don't think I've actually got an answer to the point if this scheme is really successful you won't just get 300 cyclists there you'll get several hundreds you might get a thousand there's sort of 3 or 4 thousand children actually at the nearby schools and the two pupils from the school who spoke very sincerely and I totally sympathised with their concern about the safety of the road they were projecting a situation where loads and loads of children we want to use this cycle path and as I say in the hierarchy of travel modes we're supposed to put walkers above cyclists and cyclists above cars etc etc and there's no quote there's no there's plenty of acts of cycle campaigns and I must make it clear I'm not in any way against cycling I want to encourage cycling as much as everybody else does but there's no act of walking campaign the same so I think it's up to the councillors to actually speak in favour of the walkers in fact I think this scheme would discourage walkers on this and what currently is a pavement would essentially become a cycle path and that is not right in my opinion and what happens when we get over 300 cyclists what would do we do then if there's five or 600 or 1,000 cyclists using this at peak periods what do we do sorry chair through you as I said if it exceeded all expectations and we were getting to that level we would have to revisit the site and see what else we would do on that section road as it currently stands the decision has been not to proceed so we talk to semantics here a little bit and sort of what if but if and it is stated I believe in the report in a couple of ways if it does exceed those levels we would have to come in and do another form of intervention as we would do on any other road where we deemed there was an issue thank you Andy I would like to clarify one point that Councillor McLeod made at the beginning with his comments that this committee had not been consulted before now on this scheme it is not the role of this committee to be consulted on every traffic scheme that is proposed everywhere in Surrey our role is to look at policy matters overall not individual schemes this is a different case because this one has been called in and we're looking at process as to whether it should be referred back to the cabinet as has been said other speakers who have indicated Councillor O'Reilly thank you chairman and you know first of all I endorse the comment you made ten minutes ago that officers propose but it's elected members who resolve and that's exactly the right way of a democratic process to be continued or pursued having said that bearing in mind what Andy has just said that were this committee minded to refer it back to the cabinet one would hope that rather than just saying we were right the first time 6-3 that sensible members of the cabinet would look at if this committee were to go down that route and say maybe we need to think again so that's the obverse or the inverted comment of the other side of the coin but either way it is a democratic process I have to say just out front that I was asked to be a substitute quite late such as civic duty so I haven't been as diligent in looking at all the broadcast and staying up all night and being an insomniac like Andy is listening to endless cabinet meetings grief what a thought but I have read the papers and my question will be based to Ms Turner Stewart on some of the issues I say up front that I entered this meeting thinking on the balance of what I read that Andy MacLeod was broadly speaking that I was not in favour of it returned to the cabinet I'm not so sure now I really am not so sure I think it probably on balance subject to other colleagues interventions later that it should go back to cabinet and the reason is or one of the reasons why I'm beginning to change my mind is that the report from officers supplemented and complemented by Arab makes it abundantly clear to me as a non-expert that this scheme represents an enhancement of safety now question one to Mr. Furness which is what Andy has just said and that is is it the view of he and officers that this scheme if implemented would put pedestrians at a disadvantage make them more unsafe as opposed to cyclists being made safe if the answer that is yes then maybe I switch back to say the scheme is flawed if the answer that is and with reasons no pedestrian safety will be enhanced by this scheme then the argument that Andy has just put forward I think has less salience so that is a first and actually rather important question I would ask the second and it goes back to what Denise was saying some time ago about the report itself the officers report and other reports from quote experts as it were were ambiguous in part on one hand on the other on balance as we know those who stand ever set on a plan comes no to we blew in the face the caveats that are put forward and rightly so but reading the report I don't see much of the caveat that Denise was referring to to be quite honest and when I think to quote her and again this may be Denise to answer the question as opposed to Matt and it does talk about in paragraph 19 and before there may be elements of discomfort in giving way when users are passing albeit on an infrequent occurrence so yes that point is made but then there are six mitigating measures that are out there to reduce the level of discomfort so the question then back to those who are saying the discomfort element that officers themselves have raised is a reason for the cabinet decision to be upheld again I am uncertain and again an answer will be helpful in that respect so taking it all together the first question just to reiterate is this role and the status of pedestrians as a consequence of this scheme will their position be enhanced remain the same or as Andy was saying disadvantaged and the second is a question of the credibility in terms of fact as to whether the report was ambiguous in its findings and its recommendations or whether a reasonable person and I think we all are reasonable people and the residents who are both for and against have put reasonable cases that a reasonable person would say that really it's not 50-50 or 51-49 the evidence is something like shall we say 75-25 that this scheme should go ahead so on that basis it still remain undecided the vote will be taken no other colleagues will want to speak but I have to say quite openly quite candidly that as a consequence of this meeting my own views have shifted quite markedly Thank you John Councillor Furness do you want to respond to that Thank you I think the first question was clearly for me by Councillor O'Reilly I'm not saying this just purely because I am the portfolio holder but yes I do think it would be enhanced there are significant talking about the entirety of the scheme rather than just section one there was significant amount of increased number of crossings continuous pavements reductions in speed for vehicles as well and I do honestly think that whilst there was a furore and I accept it probably wasn't best to go in and immediately announce we're going to close the road for six months to build it didn't go down well understandably nothing ever does when we say we're going to close a road on the network but through the two years worth of engagement consultation bearing in mind we didn't need to consult under our powers on this project we did anyway and with the engagement going through I think we actually came out with a far better design which actually suited far more people than what purely was a corridor route to start with it is a shame it is a shame it will not be implemented in full but pedestrians were always at the forefront I am not a cyclist I do not cycle do not enjoy it at all I do walk everywhere so it is making sure that the pedestrian is there very much at the top of that period with cyclists bus travel and so forth and that's why we put all that investment in so I do but it is a democratic system that we operate in and I was in a minority on this particular case Councillor Lewis Thank you Chairman just to respond to Councillor O'Reilly I mean I think the focus of the debate so far has been largely around the shared space the usage of shared space and the comments within the ARAC report Councillor O'Reilly refers to the paragraph about pedestrians and having to give way but there's also comments in the report which I mentioned at the cabinet meeting about wheelchair users and it also says that for two cyclists to pass each other one would be required to yield so we have focused on that element of the report but for me the other important part of the process in reaching a decision was around the width of the road and we haven't really spent much time talking about that but we learnt that although technically the report says that two HGVs can pass safely we learnt that the two HGVs with the wing mirrors out would require six metres of road and I think I'm right in saying at this point the road is only six and a half metres wide Councillor Barth said well couldn't we put something up to prevent or to give greater protection to the pedestrians if the HGVs sort of strayed across the shared space but my concern was partly that but it was also about the proximity of two HGVs just passing each other where I think I'm right in saying there would be something like only a 250 mil 25 centimetres between the two vehicles so the decision was partly influenced by this whole area about the shared space but it was also heavily influenced by the thought of two HGVs having to pass each other on such a narrow piece of road and then when I then considered both Sight for Surrey and the Surrey Coalition for Disabled People both came out against the proposals you know for me that was really powerful that they opposed it so you know I did say and I thank Councillor McLeod for his comments but I did say right at the beginning when I spoke at Cabinet that I thought the arguments for and against were evenly, pretty evenly matched but on balance you know I came out against the scheme and it was for these reasons it wasn't just about the shared space albeit that that's important it was about the width of the road it was about the proximity of HGVs passing each other risk to the pavement users but particularly risk to the vehicles themselves and recognising that you know two very important bodies that represent disabled and disadvantaged people within the county both came out against the scheme and so I think you know when you make your decision about whether or not to refer this back to Cabinet I would ask you just to recognise the fact that there were a number of issues that were considered when the decision was taken not just the issue about the shared space Councillor Turner-Stewart Thank you just to respond to the point around pedestrian safety whether it's compromised or enhanced and to John O'Reilly's point about caveats that are cited within the report so it's not just the reference to the discomfort when giving way there are also references to site constraints the lack of parallel alternatives accepting a compromise and as David has outlined Councillor Lewis has outlined with regard to the impact on the shared path from the very constrained HGV passing scenario on that reduced lane that these vehicles have to be centred in their lane in order for that clearance to be available and the probability of that being the case with every single movement is extremely low Thank you I have Councillor Beckett next before he speaks could I just ask if there are any other members of the select committee who would like to speak Jeremy Webster yes indeed bear with me one moment I would also mention that I have had a request from another Councillor who is not a member of this committee before the meeting the local divisional councillors were told on the advice of the monitoring officer that they would not be invited to speak at this meeting they were able to ask member questions but this is not a rerun of the entire debate and discussion of the last two or three years and so I am not calling any members who are not members of this select committee on that Councillor Beckett is next Thank you Chair yes like Councillor McLeod I did not know a lot about this scheme until obviously we received the call in a lot of the comments that Councillor McLeod has made actually resonate with myself we have had organisations and groups of residents who have both written in to us those in favour and those against you can see clearly that this is a passionate subject there are benefits but there are also pitfalls to the scheme as it stands I understand from the situation we have two divisional members that cover the road in question one's for one's against I think this really boils down to the fact is did the cabinet make the right decision based on the evidence that they had at the time like Councillor McLeod I sat there and watched the cabinet meeting and I've read all the papers I don't see at any point the cabinet actually falling foul of any you know I'm not going to say you know a process a failure in the process at all the key here is that all road users whether and footway users need to be safe and it's been made perfectly clear that this is not wide enough to allow that would I accept this in my division no there you go there's a straightforward answer I would not allow something that would put pedestrians disabled and whatever in direct conflict with road users I think I suppose the question at the end would be and I think it's already been answered could officers go away and find another solution and bring it back from what I've heard from the cabinet members and also from the highways engineers is this is as good as they're going to get it in which case then I would not be able to support this thank you and I think our final speaker is Councillor Jeremy Webster thank you I attended or sneaked into the meeting that took place in January 2023 on this and heard what the residents had to say about that then I'm interested that the scheme has gone through a number of iterations since then I'm in complete agreement with Councillor McLeod and Councillor Beckett I'm looking at what the cabinet did and I likewise watched the cabinet meeting and found it thoughtful and well considered so I'm not minded to send this back to cabinet on the basis that there's been some kind of wrong process involved I would just simply ask councillors Lewis and Serna Stewart whether they've heard anything today here that would make them feel they have not considered properly the safety and technical issues in making the decision and whether they in any way have changed their views since then so that's my simple question Councillor Lewis first In terms of process I think I've listened to all the comments and I haven't heard anything as a number of you have said that makes me think that we didn't follow the correct process and we didn't consider the key issues I am encouraged by what Councillor Furness has said about sort of going back and seeing whether there are small projects let's put it like that that could be implemented that would improve the safety of the existing stretch of road and I think that's something that we should strongly support and recommend so from that point of view I've learnt something today and you know that gives me encouragement but it doesn't make me want to change my decision Councillor Turner-Stewart same question Thank you chairman so I mean the leader asked for this further consideration to be taken and the review and the report to be commissioned and I'm pleased that the committee have recognised the qualifications and the calibre of those producing those reports but this exercise I think has tested the decision making process and it's been a very rounded discussion I certainly wouldn't change my decision based on this discussion but I think it's been a very important transparent process to demonstrate that that due process was followed Thank you Thank you much Are there any other comments or questions from any other members of the Select Committee? Councillor Followers? Mr Chairman I would like to propose some grounds for referral but I will obviously take a cue from you as to when an appropriate time is to do that We'll come on to that process in a few moments Are there any other comments? Councillor Bart? I think a comment was made that we have to make decisions that mean that all road users must be perfectly safe and I can't resist saying that at the moment that's not going to happen anywhere in Surrey unless we all stay at home and this scheme is safer than what is going on at the moment and I think we should and it's not perfect but it is going to be safer for cyclists and pedestrians and I think that that should be taken into account Thank you Thank you Catherine Right at that point I will simply summarise the process and what we are being asked to consider The recommendation in front of the select committee which is set out in the calling report is quote that the select committee reviews the cabinet decision taken on the 29th of October 2024 and concludes whether it wishes to refer this back to cabinet for consideration If the select committee decides to refer back to cabinet it must provide its reasons for doing so Should the select committee decide to support the decision of cabinet the decision will be implemented meaning that the scheme will not proceed Should the select committee refer the decision back it will need to be reconsidered by the cabinet where a final decision will be adopted and I understand that if that were the case the cabinet has to then meet within seven days of now to reconsider the matters So we come to a vote What I will put to you is does this committee wish to refer the decision not to proceed with the scheme back to the cabinet for reconsideration Is that clear to everybody? Now we can take that by a show of hands or if anybody wishes for it to be a recorded vote I'm equally happy Not a problem Very happy to have a recorded vote So we'll take that in member alphabetical order and I'll hand over to Claire for that Mr Chairman are we able to speak to the recommendation at all anything further or is that the lot? There's no reason why you shouldn't speak to the recommendation Sorry I thought we'd come to that point Mr Chairman I'll just make one final comment then just to make sure I've made these points clear before this concludes I will be supporting a referral on the following grounds The conclusions of the report support the scheme which is page 23 of the PAC Technical evidence equivalent in professional competence to the Arup report has yet to be assessed regarding the main reason for refusal Alternative options to alleviate the established safety risk have yet to be assessed or presented to the cabinet including for example a cyclist dismount sign on the proposed scheme and active travel contributes to the improved health and well-being cleaner air and council's ambitions to hit net zero by 2050 all of which I think are reasons to ask the cabinet to reconsider their decision and are elements that I think would add to the democratic and decision-making process of this council Thank you Mr Chairman Thank you So I'll hand over to Claire to call the role of the members present so the question is does the committee wish to refer the decision not to proceed with the scheme back to the cabinet for reconsideration you're either for that you are against referring it back or abstain okay thank you chairman Bartz Catherine and for referring it back Beckett John Cooksey Stephen Stephen in favour referring it back I'm sorry we didn't hear that Stephen Stephen can you repeat Stephen we didn't hear that sorry I'm in favour of referring it back thank you follows Paul for referral Hogg Trevor for referral McLeod Andy against McCormick Stephen against O'Reilly John O'Reilly four Richard tier four Webster Jeremy against Rusingi buddy four with him Keith chairman I will abstain on the vote I make that seven votes for in favour referring it back and four against can you confirm okay so the committee has agreed to refer back to cabinet now I believe the councillor follows did have councillor follows in your comments a few moments ago would you like to just reiterate those so that we can set out the reasons for the recommendation yes of course mr chairman so the four recommendations i made including the report in support of the scheme which is page 23 of our agenda pack technical evidence equivalent in professional competence to the report has yet to be assessed regarding the main reason for refusal alternative options to alleviate the established safety risk have yet to be assessed or presented to the cabinet including a cyclist dismount sign on the proposed scheme and finally active travel contributes to the improved health and well-being of the county cleaner air and the council's ambition to hit net zero by 2050 i can send those comments over to democratic services if that would make any help as claire wasn't able to type quite that quickly if you can send them over to her in essence our members happy with the reasons that councillor follows has set out so it's not a public meeting are members happy with the reasons that poor fellows has set out as the reasons for referring this back to cabinet okay which will then be incorporated into what we send back to cabinet okay question sorry did the list include support for our policy of LTP 4 2 well if it meant to include LTP 4 can you add that in members content for me to amend my original recommendations to include an explicit reference to LTP 4 thank you okay so that everybody brings us to the end of the business for this meeting thank you all very very much engage dr everybody I'm here you go ahead let's都 improve everything you let's do in
Summary
The Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee voted by 7 to 4 to refer the decision not to proceed with the A3100 Burpham to Boxgrove Roundabout Active Travel Scheme back to the Cabinet for reconsideration. The Select Committee felt that the decision should be reconsidered because the original decision was not fully supported by the evidence presented and because it did not take into account alternative options, active travel's contribution to health and well-being, and the council's commitment to achieving net zero by 2050.
A3100 Burpham to Boxgrove Roundabout Active Travel Scheme
Surrey County Council's Cabinet recently voted not to proceed with the A3100 Burpham to Boxgrove Roundabout Active Travel Scheme, despite a recommendation by council officers that it should proceed. The scheme was called in for review by Councillor Lance Spencer. Councillor Spencer was unable to attend the meeting and Councillor Paul Follows acted as his substitute.
Councillor Follows argued that the Cabinet had failed to properly consider the evidence presented to it by Council officers and by Arup, who were commissioned to produce an independent report.
The basic thrust of this call-in is a defence of that essential concept [of robust, evidence-based decision-making], and I do not intend to advocate for or against the scheme on its merits or demerits, and I will confine my arguments to the decision-making process and evidence as a result.
Councillor Follows also argued that the scheme should be seen in the context of Surrey County Council's wider Local Transport Plan 4 (LTP4), which sets out the council's ambition to promote sustainable transport. 1
Several members of the Select Committee expressed concern that the Cabinet was setting a dangerous precedent by overturning the recommendations of its own officers, especially on technical matters such as highway safety.
And it's unusual for a report such as the Arup report to be, the recommendations of that report should be rejected.
The key concern raised during the meeting was that a section of the scheme between Burpham and Boxgrove Road Roundabout would involve a shared-use path for pedestrians and cyclists, which several members of the Cabinet felt was unsafe.
Councillor Matt Furness, the Cabinet Member for Highways, defended the Cabinet's decision, arguing that it was based on genuine concerns about the safety of the shared-use path. He argued that the narrow width of the road at that location meant that HGVs would have very little clearance when passing each other, posing a risk to users of the shared-use path:
...the two HGVs with the wing mirrors out would require six metres of road and I think I'm right in saying at this point the road is only six and a half metres wide.
Councillor Furness also cited concerns raised by Sight for Surrey and the Surrey Coalition for Disabled People, both of whom opposed the scheme.
Several members of the Select Committee, including the Chair, expressed surprise that they were being asked to scrutinise the scheme, given that they had not been consulted on it prior to the Cabinet meeting.
I knew nothing much about this scheme before this call-in occurred. I don't think it came to this committee before.
The Select Committee ultimately voted to refer the decision back to the Cabinet for reconsideration. The Select Committee provided the Cabinet with four reasons for doing so:
- The conclusions of the Arup report were supportive of the scheme.
- The concerns raised by the Cabinet had not been supported by equivalent technical evidence.
- Alternative options to address safety concerns had not been assessed by the Cabinet.
- Active travel contributes to improved health and wellbeing and will help the council achieve its aim of net zero by 2050.
-
LTP4 is Surrey County Council's fourth Local Transport Plan. It sets out a range of policies relating to transport in the county. ↩
Attendees
Documents
- First Supplementary Agenda Tuesday 19-Nov-2024 14.00 Communities Environment and Highways Select agenda
- Agenda frontsheet Tuesday 19-Nov-2024 14.00 Communities Environment and Highways Select Committe agenda
- Committee Briefing Note
- Annex 1 Report considered by Cabinet on 29 October 2024 other
- Annex 2 ARUP A3100 Burpham to Boxgrove Roundabout Technical Review other
- Annex 3 Stakeholder Group Comments
- Annex 4 Call-in notice received by Democratic Services on 5 November 2024 other
- Printed Draft Minutes of the Cabinet Meeting Held on 29 October 2024 other
- Second Supplementary Agenda Tuesday 19-Nov-2024 14.00 Communities Environment and Highways Selec other
- 1. Public Question Sheet for Committee 20241119 other