Minutes of the @SurreyCouncil 24th January 2013 meeting

Here is the draft of the public minutes of the meeting of the LOCAL COMMITTEE (WAVERLEY) held at 3.00 pm on 24 January 2013 at Haslemere Hall, Bridge Road, Haslemere GU27 2AS.

4 comments for “Minutes of the @SurreyCouncil 24th January 2013 meeting

  1. Victorialeake
    13/02/2013 at 19:48

    RE: YOUR REQUEST 08742 UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

    We have considered your request which was for the information set out below

    Mr Curl has provided the following responses to your FOI questions sent on the 27th January.

    1. Your estimates of car displacement arising from all of the parking proposals that Mr Bolton included in his report to the Waverley Local Committee (WLC) on 24 January. I asked for that information in a written question to the WLC but it was not answered in the “Committee Response”. The information did appear to be available, however, because at the meeting you were able to answer Councillors questions on estimated car displacement for particular roads. For example, from the meeting I thought I heard you give displacement estimates for three roads: 10 cars for Bunch Lane, 1-2 cars for St Christophers Green and 10 cars for Kings Road.

    The displacement figures I quoted at the meeting were based on this table. We produced this in response to a question during the consultation period and I sent you this information on the 01 November last year.

    Bunch Lane was not on this list because it is not a residents parking scheme. There are between 10 and 20 commuter vehicles parked in Bunch Lane on a week day although this number depends on many factors. Our proposals will retain 11 spaces so as a worst case, approximately 10 vehicles could be displaced. There is also information in the report regarding displacement.

    2. Your estimates for car displacement of the schemes actually agreed by WLC members on 24 January, since some changes were proposed and agreed at meeting. For example, if I heard correctly, I believe that ROPs would be introduced in Courts Hill Road (West), which was not proposed by in the report to members.

    I have not estimated displacement that may occur as a result of the decisions made at the committee meeting.

    3. One “Committee Response” to a written question states that: “The proposals may displace a small number of vehicles in a number of locations across the town; however there is adequate capacity in the existing car parks and on street in nearby roads.” This confident statement of low impact indicates that you must have done some careful analysis. Could you let me know which nearby roads have on-road parking capacity and your estimates of how many spare parking spaces there in each? (I shall happily direct residents to those nearby roads)

    We do not hold this level of information, however based on my experience in Haslemere I am confident there is sufficient on street or car park space for the limited amount of displacement that may occur as a result of these proposals. There are many variables involved when individuals decide when and where to park. It is not always possible to accurately predict this.

    4. Any questions from Councillors prior to the 24 January WLC meeting on the parking proposals, and answers to those questions.

    There were no written questions from Councillors.

    5. Whether or not WLC members signed off (or commented) on the “Committee Responses” that were provided as answers to written questions from the public .

    Written responses to formal public questions are presented by the Chairman on behalf of the Committee. The text is prepared by officers and agreed by the Chairman after Committee members have had an opportunity to comment prior to the meeting.

    In response to you further question about a 1 hour ‘curfew’. This would provide little benefit to residents in a town centre area. Most shops are open Mon-Sat between 9.00 and 5.30 so shoppers visit them and park during these times. A 1 hour restriction somewhere in this period would therefore leave spaces available to shoppers for most of the time, to the detriment of residents. There are car parks and free limited waiting bays in the High Street for shoppers. This is why we have proposed 0830-1730, Mon-Sat times for residents schemes near retail area.

    We supply this information based on your original request. Please do not hesitate to contact me at the above address if you have any queries regarding the information supplied. Remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

    If you are unhappy with the handling of your request for information and wish to make a complaint or request a review of our decision, in the first instance you should contact the County Council, quoting your request number given above, at:

    Freedom of Information Officer
    Surrey County Council
    Legal & Democratic Services
    County Hall
    Penhryn Road
    Kingston Upon Thames
    Surrey
    KT1 2DN
    foi@surreycc.gov.uk

    If you are not satisfied by the County Council’s response to your complaint, you have the right to apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner will normally expect you to have exhausted our complaints procedure. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

  2. Victorialeake
    14/02/2013 at 09:32

    Dear Surrey County Council,

    Thank you for your response. I had three questions relating to these responses to my FOI request, underlined for clarity, below.

    I’m afraid Mr Curle has again not answered my straightforward question regarding the total car displacement estimate of all of the parking proposals that went to WLC in January. Is he saying that the total estimated car displacement of the proposals that went to WLC in January was 45 cars please? (ie 35 cars, as per your attachment, plus 10 cars in Bunch Lane).

    I’d also like to correct the statement you make below that Mr Curle estimated the impact of car displacement as a result of a question during the consultation period. That is because, as you know, he provided a displacement impact of 35 cars in the “Committee Response” in the September WLC papers to a written question from a member of the public. So Mr Curle did this analysis prior to the September WLC meeting, well before the statutory consultation period.

    Has there been a formal change in procedure by the WLC, since it last met in December 2012, for the Committee and its Chair to now review “Committee Responses” written by Officers before they are published? I was previously told in an answer to a previous FOI request that committee members were not consulted because it might cause a debate and slow down Committee Responses. I would be delighted if the WLC has indeed formally changed this practice and has decided to now take full responsibility for these responses.

    I’m afraid I don’t understand your response to the 1-hour curfew parking idea, which was: “This would provide little benefit to residents in a town centre area. Most shops are open Mon-Sat between 9.00 and 5.30 so shoppers visit them and park during these times. A 1 hour restriction somewhere in this period would therefore leave spaces available to shoppers for most of the time, to the detriment of residents.”

    I refer you to SCC’s analysis for Hillbury Road, Whyteleafe in the district of Tandbridge, where SCC’s Leader Mr Hodge is a councillor: (TANDRIDGE PARKING REVIEW 2009 – PART II LOCATIONS, ANNEX A, 2 JUNE 2010), my bold.

    “There is evidence that commuters are affecting amenity for residents on Hillbury Road between the railway bridge and Tithepit Shaw Lane. Parked vehicles in places have also been causing obstruction to the flow of traffic and affecting sight lines. It is recommended that a residents permit holders only parking bay
    is introduced Monday to Friday 10.00am to 12noon, and no waiting at anytime restriction is introduced, as outlined on drawing number TAN/0610/02. It is also recommended that letters outlining the proposals are distributed to all properties in the immediate area of the bays in Hillbury Road at the time that the proposals are advertised.”

    Hillbury road is very close to two train stations (hence the commuter problems) and also next to the shopping centre in Whyteleafe. If SCC saw fit to consider and implement a curfew-style parking scheme in its Leader’s own district which has very similar circumstances to Haslemere, why could it not consider and consult on this in Haslemere?

    I have copied in the councillors I included on my original FOI request.

    Regards, Jeremy & Victoria Leake

  3. Paul M
    19/02/2013 at 18:20

    I don’t know where the figure of 10 displaced cars in Bunch Lane comes from. I come down Bunch Lane as far as Bunch Way every weekday and I have never seen 20 cars there, ever, in all my years of using this road. The most I have ever seen is six to the north of Bunch Way, plus possibly six, more likely five, to the south outside the church.

    What the proposals in effect do is force the cars which park there to spread a little further along Bunch Lane. At present up to six cars will park outside Bywood and the house next door, under the new proposals up to nine can park along that stretch but the furthest four will be opposite Hawthorn Cottage. Plenty of people have further to walk from the further reaches of parking on Weydown Road – where you reach the end of the line long before you reach the end of the road.

  4. Editor
    19/02/2013 at 18:38

    The figure of 10 cars in Bunch Lane came from an SCC officer when Cllr Keith Webster asked how many cars would be displaced, 24th January 2013 meeting.

Comments are closed.