This Tuesday’s meeting of the Local Committee was held especially to approve the plan and Programme for Woking that Surrey County Council has to submit to Cycling England to get hold of the £1.8M awarded to Woking, as one of ten towns emerging successful from bidding for the title ‘Cycling Town’.

Money

We don’t just get handed the money - it has to be matched by an equal amount raised from other sources. Given the general state of Surrey’s roads, the huge sums of money needed to repair them, and the cuts we are actually seeing Surrey County Council making in planned spending on Woking, it would be unwise to rely on County Hall handing over that sort of sum of money simply because this is a good, ecologically sound idea.

Contributions to matched funding will come from ’section 106 and section 27B’ money paid by developers and negotiated when planning permission is given; plus money squeezed from Woking’s ‘local allocation’, used for local road schemes - improvements such a controlled pedestrian crossings.

The paper to the committee says the ‘programme will need to be reviewed on an annual basis and the Local Committee for Woking decide on the priority given to the elements of work included within the Woking Cycling Town against other Integrated Transport schemes which are funded using the Local Transport Plan devolved budget.’

I think this message from the Local Highways Manager roughly translates as: ’Look, there’s a great two-for-one offer here but you guys on the Local Committee are going to have to fight out between you what gets dropped while we grab it.’ With the unspoken extra thought: ‘Unless you can get your Dad (ie County Hall) to stump up some more.’

(If you see the Developers as rich uncles, they’re less rich than they used to be … )   

But for the moment Surrey, in partnership with Woking, is going forward with a ’we’ll make it happen’ approach, which I find I have to applaud - this really is going to be a great improvement, and a practical contribution to reducing traffic congestion and sparing the environment.

The six essentials    

• Improving existing routes
• Making the Basingstoke Canal path a great route through the Borough with good links off it, including ways to and through the town centre, with a way of riding from the Canal to the station through the centre of the town.
• A better North / South route that will join up with National Cycle routes at Chertsey and Guildford.
• More bike parking, especially at stations. 
• Encouragement for people to cycle more.
• Links with schools

The Fancy Bits

There’ll be better signing. The trails will be named after planets and their moons. (Other towns have been looked at to see how they do things, and themes are common.) Lighting is currently not on the plans, but is recognised as being highly desirable, at least for the heavier use parts of the canal path near the centre of Woking.

I asked whether we mightn’t have some sculpture, as I’ve seen on some trails? This hasn’t been thought of yet, but the bridges will all be clearly named, so that they can be used as landmarks.

What it means for Knaphill and Goldsworth West

Although strictly only the stretch of towpath from Hermitage Bridge to Brookwood is in Knaphill, this is a significant route, as I saw when I bicycled it at the end of the school day last Monday. A number of children from the Winston Churchill school walk down along the Hermitage Road, cross fast-moving traffic, and then walk along the muddy and difficult path to the north of the canal, through the Country Park. Some primary school children also go in the opposite direction, from Brookwood school back towards Knaphill.

This route, on the same side as the Brookwood Hospital Estate, is broader than the towpath on the South side, but anyone using the Canal as a through route would have to cross the canal to change sides at the Hermitage Bridge, which has a very narrow path.  So the current intention is to provide an extra footbridge over the canal, so that pedestrians can avoid the crossing on the Hermitage Bridge, and then use the North side up to the bridge at Brookwood Crossroads.

Unfortunately that will make the rather splendid wheelchair-friendly ramp down to the southern path (itself currently impassable to wheelchairs) redundant. But I think it’s probably the right decision, given the number of people who will be able to access the northern path relatively easily.

As I understand it, the surface should be as good as the currently existing stretch from Woking Town Centre to Kiln Bridge. (The next section, to Hermitage Bridge, isn’t quite finished but should also come up to that standard.)

A good, safe pedestrian and cycling  route into St. Johns  or indeed all the way to Woking, will be a real benefit, for all ages.  One of the big problems for young or less well off people on the Hospital Estate is how to get off it - buses are expensive, parents not always available to drive.  And the more people who use the path, the safer even nervous people should feel it is to use.

(Which is not to guarantee there will be no problems - for example, motor cycles are going to have to be deterred from using the track, for everybody’s sake.)

So eventually, if we can get this section properly sorted out for Knaphill (including the new Hermitage Bridge) plus improvements and even some extensions to existing bike routes through Knaphill, I think we’ll be doing quite well. 

The improved routes into and out of Woking and will be good for Goldsworth West too, and its likely the whole of Goldsworth park will be targetted quite early on for ‘personalised travel planning’. What this’ll be I don’t know; I trust it will be a benefit and not a nuisance.

The launch will be this coming Monday, 22nd September, from 10.00am to 4.00pm at The Lightbox. I hope it doesn’t rain, so that I can get there comfortably by bike!

A: I asked questions about them at the special meeting of Surrey’s Woking Local Committee on Tuesday, since the meeting format allowed the usual quota of member and public written questions. 

The main meeting was about Woking’s ‘Cycling Town’ plan and programme. which I’ll put in a separate posting.

Alexandra Gardens

For years there has been a certain level of aggravation for residents from use of the Vyne car-park in Knaphill by youngsters to gather and socialise. This summer, for a variety of possible reasons, has seen this become more of a nuisance for residents. The local police held a meeting for residents, which was also attended by representatives from Woking Borough Council, but not from Surrey County Council, so I asked the following:

Is the Youth Development Service aware of the concerns residents and the local police tema have about the gatherings of young people that have taken place in the car park by Alexandra Gardens in Knaphill? Will the Youth Development Service provide support or outreach to these young people?  

Answer from Surrey County Council’s Youth Development Officer:

The Youth Development Service (YDS) are aware of the issues of young people gathering in the car park of Alexandra Gardens in Knaphill, this issue has been raised with community safety partners on the Joint Action Group.

Surrey Police colleagues are aware that a small number of individuals are to blame for incidents of anti-social behaviour and continue to work with this small group. The Police and YDS are confident that the majority of young people “hanging around” adjacent to Alexandra Gardens are not engaged in any anti-social and/or criminal activity. And as a result of consultation with young people, are working with partners to negotiate the possible lighting of the local MUGA during the evening for the benefit of the majority of young people in the area.

Currently our resources for Knaphill are devoted to the Youth Arts Centre which is running to full capacity at present, with the projects on offer being fully attended by over 100 young people each week. Nevertheless the YDS continue to look to ways to reach more young people, and are working with the voluntary organisation, “Outside Light”, to offer their volunteers basic youth work training to support engagement with young people in this area.

It would be a wholly positive step to see more local residents get involved with their community, something the YDS have successfully been doing with the youth for a number of years now. And to this end the YDS continues to offer help in training groups of volunteers, such as identified in Knaphill, to provide further opportunities to young people.

Real-time information

The last few times I’ve taken the ‘bus I’ve been disappointed by the lack of helpful ‘real-time’ information on the displays - they tend to show the timetable, with ‘real’ buses not showing up on the listings.  The new computer systems should have been working by now, so I asked the following:

Why is the ‘real-time’ information about bus arrivals still not working effectively? When will it reach its previous levels of usefulness? 

Answer from Surrey County Council’s Passenger Transport service:

 The present situation with the Real Time Passenger Information is: –    All Arriva/Safeguard & relevant Stagecoach/Countryliner buses are equipped and working on the system. There are a few ticket-machine issues that are in the process of being resolved, by either sourcing other ticket machines (Safeguard), or by development work being undertaken with regard to the interface configuration (Countryliner). –        On-street displays: high level of predictions shown, although a few problems still to be rectified. A few power issues to be resolved. (185 out of 207 displays operational)–        Training on Trapeze RTPI system still being given to some bus control room staff and Surrey staff to enable full monitoring of the system.–        SCC staff in regular communication with bus operators to encourage their drivers to log on correctly & for staff to report equipment faults.–        Forthcoming roadworks, particularly in the Guildford area, leading to diversions from the regular bus routes, are likely to cause some minor problems to the effectiveness of the RTPI system.

–        A few issues still to be “ironed out”, e.g. finding a total interchange solution at Guildford Bus Station.

Rather than be simply negative, since it looks as if at least part of the issue lies with the drivers, I asked in follow up whether they could please be told how much passengers appreciate it when the information is there on the boards.

Finally, road closures in the town centre, which also tend to play havoc with the buses, which in its turn can seriously affect the disabled and elderly:

Does the Local Highways Manager anticipate that there will be any need for road closures in the centre of Woking during the next three years that would necessitate the re-routing of buses, as happened with the building and repair to the station approach canopy?

Answer from Surrey County Council’s Local Highways Manager:

I am aware that the A320 Victoria Way will be closed to through traffic for highway resurfacing works. For eastbound vehicles from Century Court to the Roundabout (at junction with Chertsey Road) on 29/30 September between 2000 to 0600hr and for westbound vehicles between A3046 Chobham Road to A324 Lockfield Drive from 1 to 5 October, again between 2000 and 0600hr The bus companies have been informed of this closure.

At the time of responding, I am not aware of any other closures within the town centre area, however in the future the County Council may receive funding to carry out highway works that necessitate a road closure, the utilities may serve a Notice on the County Council indicating that they wish to carry out works to their apparatus or install apparatus that would need a road closure to carry out the works safely.
Development related works might also require sections of road to be closed. In an emergency the highway network within the town centre could be closed for a number of reasons, including utilities such as gas or water leaks, major highway defect, or a police incident.

This seemed to me a little cautious, but I could get no further reassurance, and only a fairly general undertaking to take into account the difficulties of the disabled and elderly, with a reminder that Surrey had not expected the long delays over the Canopy outside the station.

A lot of different threads came together at the Local Committee on Monday - I’ll try to pull out some of those of particular interest to Knaphill and Goldsworth West, along with a few bits that affect everyone in Woking. I’ve missed out very local uncontroversial stuff about eg exactly where yellow lines are going, and picked out just a few phrases that struck me particularly forcefully on some of the other items.

EDF and the Knaphill Crossings

The story so far: By Monday the Broadway Crossing was open and the trees obscuring the beacon had been cut back, I understand thanks to one of Surrey’s Transport Officers literally taking the job into his own hands. The Redding Way crossing was not ready. The history of how the long delay had come about was obscure - various people at various times had attributed the problems to Surrey, Ringway, and EDF. We got three goes at the issue in this Local Committee meeting:

i) In the half hour of informal public question-and-answer a determined resident who I won’t name (unless he tells me he would prefer me to credit him) told Paul Fishwick, the Local Highways Manager, that the whole thing had been a ‘farce’, and asked for an explanation of how the delay had gone on so long. Paul acknowledged that the scheme had taken ‘considerably longer than anticipated’. He said that following monthly meetings looking at how Ringway (the Contractor) was doing he had ’alerted Ringway to where their failures were … Ringway could have placed the orders [with EDF] much, much sooner … the whole of the process was delayed way beyond what we wanted.’ There was further reassurance that EDF was now on the case, and the Redding Way crossing will be working ‘later this week or early next week’.  On costs, Paul explained that Surrey paid on a ‘cost plus’ basis, which meant he wouldn’t know how much the crossings had been until they were finished.

ii) My written question, submitted last week. In it I asked what the obstacles were to bringing the crossings into full use; about the placing of the beacons at the Broadway; and about keeping the greenery back from them.  This was the answer:

“a. Redding Way is awaiting a new electric power supply from EDF. EDF are the regional electricity board and they are the only company that is authorised to work on their apparatus. Broadway has now been completed and the crossing is in use.

 ”b. The obstruction to the beacon will be removed in the near future. The poles are set at the back of the footway to improve footway clearance and placed on an arm to improve the sight line.

“c. Once the trees have been cut back, there will be an annual maintenance system in place. “  Supplementary questions brought out that the land the trees stand on is privately-owned. Surrey is doing a land registry search to find out who it belongs to, since the owner can be required to maintain it, or be presented with the bill.

iii Later in the meeting, looking at what had remained in Woking’s very constrained Local Transport Plan road schemes, two of the items that have had to stay in place for this year are £3,000 each as ‘outstanding work from 2007/8′ for the Redding Way and Broadway crossings.

When I asked Paul Fishwick he said yes, this is for electrical work, and goes to EDF. It is not extra to the planned costs. It is a pity that this £6,000 did not get into last year’s budget, to be part of Woking’s written-off overspend.

But congratulations to Paul and his team on bringing forward a number of schemes that were ready to go, including Knaphill’s new crossings, to 2007 /8.  If they’d been left to compete with everything else on the very cut-back programme for this year, we’d almost certainly be looking at a long wait.

Community Safety Report

As John Doran (Liberal Democrat County Councillor for Horsell) pointed out, Surrey has to be one of the safest places on this planet to live, and this year’s figures reflect that. Unfortunately ‘The 2007 Community Survey found that just over one quarter of respondents stated that fear of crime affected their lifestyle in some way.’ Where there are problems, they are often fuelled by alcohol. There’s a survey at www.surreybigdrinkdebate.nhs.uk which will report back in the autumn. Some of the questions made me ponder a bit, for instance: ”Do you think that information on the number of calories contained in an alcoholic drink would influence the amount you drink?”

Annual report on the Fire and Rescue Service

“It’s twenty times more likely you’ll be cut out from a car than rescued from a fire … ”

 ”I would like to raise the fear of anybody behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.”

“Our challenge for fire remains the very hard to reach.” - eg people who often combine several risk factors such as smoking, drinking, being elderly, or mentally impaired.

 LTS Lite (This Year’s Local Transport Programme ) 

We  heard formally that the Local Transport Plan budget for road schemes in the Borough has been cut from the expected budget of £450,000, which was the basis for planning at last February’s meeting, to only £160,000.

£50,000  of that is needed to put right the almost new pedestrian crossing at the junction of White Rose Lane and Heathside Crescent, following petitions to the  Committee about the dangers to pedestrians last February, which were confirmed by a ’stage 4′ safety audit’.

This means some of the top schemes that otherwise would have had the go-ahead for this year will go on hold waiting for funding once the design stage is finished. This includes the crossing of Westfield Road by the Cricketers, which had reached the top of the list for priority last year. Derek McCrum, Liberal Democrat Borough Councillor for Kingsfield and Westfield, said: ‘I do not understand why you are putting parents lives and childrens lives at risk,’ when the revisions to the White Rose Lane crossing were the result of  ‘A cock-up on the part of Surrey County Council.’

It’s not just this crossing being knocked back. Unfortunately two other schemes in Goldsworth Park, which also involve pedestrian safety, won’t go ahead this year. Instead they’ll sit as completed designs until money can be found.

One of these is some remodelling of the kerbs at the roundabout with Amstel Way and Lockfield Drive, where I’ve been hoping for the last four years to make it safer for children from Goldsworth Park to cross and walk up to the Winston Churchill School.

The second is the Denton Way Pedestrian Crossing near Waitrose. This is a particularly sore spot for me, since some good news yesterday was that Surrey County Council have managed to get Waitrose’s agreement to transfer the £10,000 ‘planning gain’ money to this, instead of using it to take away the bus lay-by on Bampton Way, near Waitrose. (This was threatened some time ago and opposed by all your local Councillors on Goldsworth Park as a costly ‘dis-improvement’)  

I’m also unhappy that the Beechwood Road Speed Reduction design, fought for so determinedly by residents last year, has been put on hold, as has the preparatory work for a lot of other much-wanted work across the Borough.

But having seen where children and parents cross Westfield Road, and the speed of traffic there, I had to agree that if any scheme could get special treatment this year it had to be that one.

‘I would love to do the Westfield Road crossing,’ Paul Fishwick said, but then put it to us that we must chose between Westfield Road and the ‘remedial’ work at Heathside Crescent.

John Doran, who described himself as ‘almost as angry as Mr. McCrum’, recommended that the committee refuse to approve the programme of work for 2008/9, and ask the Executive at County Hall to look for additional funding for the remedial work from one of Surrey County Council’s ‘contingency funds’. The Committee turned this proposal down, instead deciding to ask the Executive for extra money for the priority Westfield Road crossing.

Member Allocations

- went through very fast, the arguing over whether proposals met the criteria having been thrashed out beforehand. I was happy to sponsor a contribution towards the ‘Jigsaw’ group for parents of young children on very low income, operating from the YPOD in Woking; and a new kitchen at the Surrey Care Trust’s Alternative Education Centre at Weyside in Goldsworth Park.

Farnborough Airport Pre-Consultation  

By the time we got to this, it was a long time past supper and no-one wanted to talk more than necessary. My motion, seconded by John Doran, was passed nem. con.. It read:

‘The Woking Local Committee considers that proposals for the increas of traffic at Farnborough Airport will be harmful for the people of Knaphill, Brookwood, Goldsworth Park and Horsell living under the flight path, and that the economic advantages do not outweigh the environmental disadvantages. It asks the Surrey County Council to reflect this opinion in its response to the current pre-consultation.’

Surrey was already likely to take this stance based on existing policy. Woking Local Committee’s view will add a bit more weight to their objection to any increase in traffic beyond what is presently allowed, so I feel this was well worth saying.

And then, since it was only two days past the longest day, I couldn’t resist returning by bicycle along the canal in the twilight, enjoying the new width and looking forward to an even better surface than the present rather skid-provoking chips when the upgrade is completed … 

For most people ‘Local Politics’ equals ‘boring’.  For me, natural history programmes and football are nearly as tedious. But last night’s SCC Woking Local Committee meeting would have deserved careful elucidation by David Attenborough, while there were points I wanted to shout ‘Yeah! Goal!’  Before I get too carried away, I have to add the serious warning that much is liable to be undermined by underfunding.   A reminder in case you’re new to this game: Surrey’s Local Committee consists of the seven County Councillors for Woking matched by an equal number of Woking Borough Councillors. Its main remit is local transport, handled by the whole committee, but there are some just-Surrey bits for the County Councillors.

A lot happened last night, so I’m splitting this report into this introduction and three more postings, so that you can skip the bits you’re not interested in.

I won’t pretend to cover everything. Good stuff for Knaphill and Good stuff Goldsworth West are here in detail, and before them a piece on Transport for Woking.  

The rest: 

Councillor Philip Goldenberg got the committee to ask Surrey’s Executive not to reduce the level of funding for local transport, and to change the balance between maintenance and new road schemes so that it disadvantaged Woking less. The rest of the Committee went along with this, so long as we rubbished the Government at the same time.  

There was a paper by Trading Standards on their genuinely good work (I’ve written a column ‘in Praise of Trading Standards’ before now) which also stood as good PR for them, while arguing gently that new responsibilities olaced on them by central government meant they needed more money for additional staff.  

There was much else about Woking transport, and roads specifically, both discussed and mentioned in the reports to the Committee. But if you want full detail about other areas than Knaphill and Goldsworth West, tackle your own County Councillor or look at the Surrey web site.  (But don’t try asking Shamas Tabrez or Geoff Marlowe about new road schemes for Woking Central or The Byfleets they put forward for inclusion in the Local Transport Plan. None were submitted.)

Transport for Woking 

This will be the little brother (or sister) of the proposed ‘Transport for Surrey’. Both will be advisory bodies drawing in a range of interests: local authorities, bus and train companies, transport users and community organisations. Despite the name, neither of them will have quite the clout or cash of ‘Transport for London’.

Nevertheless it is a very good idea, because Woking is a transport and planning hub and in great need of better co-ordination and improved transport, including not just a proper bus station but an ‘all modes interchange – the development of bus station, taxi, pedestrian and cycling facilities serving the railway station.’

By far the most entertaining part of the discussion at yesterday’s Local Committee meeting was the double-act between Ray Morgan, Woking’s Chief Executive, and Iain Reeve, Head of Transport for Surrey. Ray Morgan was particularly forthcoming.  

County Councillor Andrew Crisp noted that Transport for Woking would be Officer led and not include Councillors. Ray Morgan replied ‘we want some hard-nosed, sometimes quite challenging discussion about what is possible’. After this they would give ‘information to Members to let Members make the decisions’, but ‘people behave differently when there are politicians in the room.’ Perhaps sensing that the politicians in the Council chamber would appreciate a little more involvement, Ray Morgan agreed it was ‘perfectly reasonable for this to be a standing item [on the Local Committee agenda, but] … don’t expect this to be a quick fix … I’ve yet to see Arriva arrive at a meeting, progress is sometimes a little slower than you’d like.’  

Ric Sharp, Borough Councillor for Knaphill,  picked this up by asking about the attitudes of other partners. Ray Morgan said that when he spoke to ‘representatives from SW trains and Network Rail’ and pointed out ‘opportunities to release capital’ there was a ‘considerable change of attitude’ so that ‘it’s fair to say … I’m encouraged there’s a chance of getting them there …’  And if potential partners continue unhelpful?  ‘If the County and the Borough will act as one we will be more powerful in persuading…’ 

Amen to that.

Littlewick Road

Last June Bronwyn Vine and Sue Lewis brought a petition asking for improvements to the crossing at Littlewick Road from Goldsworth Park to the group of houses which includes the Peter Pan Nursery. Although there is an official footpath, it doesn’t look like one, and drivers go down that straight stretch of road at considerable speed.

Unfortunately there’s no room for a pedestrian refuge, but it does need much clearer marking. Some signs went up, but I have been pressing for more to be done. At the Local Committee meeting I asked what the current position was, and got the following answer:

‘Although signs were installed to warn drivers of the crossing point, from a recent survey it has been noted that they are not in the most suitable location. It has also been noted that as the crossing point it not up to standard on the ‘Goldsworth Park’ side and the crossing as such is not particularly visible from a drivers perspective, dropped kerbs and reflective posts will be installed by the end of March 2008 together with the repositioning of the warning signs to better highlight this crossing facility.’

Yes! By the end of March! Three cheers for the end of the financial year! I checked with a supplementary question that the Engineer concerned had talked to Sue Lewis and sorted out the placing problem, and I hope all will now be at least much improved, even if not perfect.

Local Allocation Money 

I sponsored a bid for money to get a cooker, projector screen, and notice boards for the new Church Hall at St. Andrews.

I was also instrumental in realising that Beaufort School’s problem in having two demountable buildings that are no longer wanted might provide at least a temporary solution to Woking and Maybury Sports Club’s need for facilities. I didn’t speak on this, because I have an interest as Vice Chair of Governors at Beaufort School, but I was glad to see the necessary £39,340 allocated. The sports club might still decide to try to go for a £250,000 permanent solution straight away, but if not, this is good news for Beaufort.

Less good – Lockfield Drive 

A few months ago Country Councillors were asked to name road surfaces in their Division that especially needed attention. Lockfield Drive was one of mine. In answer to a question, I was told by the Local Highways Manager that he didn’t know yet which schemes would make it onto the list for special funding: ‘I don’t know where Lockfield drive will come – if it makes it, great, if not then [it will have to be] through regular funding.’

 (Diana Smith and Olly Wells in Beechwood Road. Olly lives on the border of St Johns and Knaphill, and is a Governor at St. Johns school, just up the road. See ‘34/35 assurance’ below)

 Lower Guildford Road

We approved the initial study for a Puffin crossing over Lower Guildford Road just below Northwood Avenue. It could not be placed any further up, because of problems with the road. A lot of people cross this road, including school children, and children going to the playground. 

Along with the crossing we’ll get a 30mph speed limit, and a number of Vehicle Activated Signs on the roads around the Hermitage Roundabout. 

One objection was a potential increase in the misuse of a small service road running past the entry to the Lansbury Estate. After this scheme was published, I went with the Local Transport Officer concerned to listen to some of the residents’ worries. Standing there for about half an hour, it was clear cars used it avoided coming out onto the lower Guildford Road before turning right into Northwood Avenue; and similarly in the other direction. Since this is part of the highway, this is ‘rat-running’ it wouldn’t usually come high in any list of priorities for road works. But the crossing may put residents in a much worse position if it means drivers can easily see they can avoid the crossing by nipping down parallel to the main road.  

So the Local Transport Office will be looking into possibilities for closing one end of the road and consulting with local residents. The report will come back to the Local Committee in June. 

Beechwood Road 

Beechwood Road is a steep and winding residential road which takes a lot of through traffic. The picture does here gives an idea, but does not show the whole picture because it was taken in the daytime and at half term, with not many parked cars and relatively low traffic. Residents have been concerned for years by the difficulty of negotiating it safely, and a worrying record of near-misses, minor incidents and damage.  This year each County

The good news is that ‘Knaphill Scheme A, Beechwood Road– Speed Reduction and accessibility improvements’ has come in with a ranking order of 25 out of 91 for cost effectiveness. It now has funding planned for an Initial Design in 2008/9. The bad news that is that construction wouldn’t be until 2010/2011, at best. But this was the highest ranked scheme of any put forward, and the only not entirely on the back burner with no dates for work. So I feel pleased. 

Scheme 2 – Barrs Lane I suggested a change of the speed limit to 30 mph by the houses and the construction of a footpath because of the clear ‘desire line’ where people actually walk down towards Mizens Railway. It was accepted as a scheme, but only came out ranked 74, which is not hopeful.  However I also suggested that such a scheme would have a pre-requisite better drainage, and also might need a controlled crossing of Anchor Hill to allow pedestrians from Goldsworth Park to reach it, not to mention that many residents would like to be able to cross lower down than the traffic lights to get to Waterer’s Park with their children, and … 

Anchor Hill – Pedestrian Crossing Facility … 

… is now at number 30 in the rankings, albeit without any proposals for when the funding would be made available for construction. We’ll need to keep gathering evidence and argument for this one.  Barrs Lane/ Anchor Hill Flooding About a year ago I put a motion to Council suggesting that flooding should be tackled much more systematically because with changes in weather patterns it is a problem affecting the whole of Surrey. At that time I was told by a senior Officer that moves to create a database of problem places for flooding in

34/35 Assurance

Olly Wells asked a formal public question about the 34 /35 bus service, which is losing its Section 106 money (popularly known locally as ‘The Sainsbury Money’ in April. We knew that there was money being assigned to section 106 replacement money in Surrey’s budget, but not that it would definitely go to maintain this service, particularly in the evenings and at weekends. Olly pretty well got this assurance in a written answer from Laurie James, Service Planning Team Manager, Transport for Surrey:

‘The supplementary funding announced in the Leader’s Budget Statement, to replace monies for bus services previously obntained through Section 106, is welcomed. Services 34 /35 are recognised as being important routes in the Woking area and have seen significant patrnage grownth since they were enhanced in 2002.’

‘At present there are no plans to fundamentally vary the level of service on routes 34/35. However, like all supported bus services, they are periodically reviewed to ensure that they continue to provide good value for money in terms of the investment being made as there will be an ongoing need to provide support to services across the county which is sustainable and within the funding allocated by the Executive.’

Olly asked a supplementary to try to get further reassurance. Laurie James (bus guru par excellence at SCC) was not present. My notes become a little unclear here, but I believe it was Iain Reeve, in charge of Transport for Surrey, who replied : ‘Supplementary funding will continue with that particular bus route for the time being’ and ‘I don’t see any particular reduction with that particular route.’

I feel this is genuinely good news, and that we have to continue to demonstrate our support for good local bus services by being very aware of any threat to them.  ‘  

 Less good bit – Raglan, Victoria, Inkerman crossroads  

Although improving this junction had a high ranking initially, the traffic engineers cannot see any effective and generally acceptable way to improve it beyond the traffic refuges and traffic calming measures already in place. So it’s now been dropped from the list. Please let me know if you feel strongly about this.