Fringe Box

Socialize

Twitter

Letter: Why Won’t the County Council Publicise the London Road Public Meeting?

Published on: 30 Dec, 2022
Updated on: 30 Dec, 2022

Image of London Road taken in August 2022. Google Street View.

From: Andrea Wright

Committee member, Abbotswood Residents Association

See also: Proposals for London Road, Burpham – Public Meeting

I have been informed that Surrey County Council is refusing to publicise the public meeting on the Proposals for the London Road Active Travel Scheme (to be held on January 5 at Raynham Hall, George Abbot School) on their website because it is not an event that SCC has organised.

The meeting was requested by County Cllr Fiona Davidson [R4GV, Guildford East] after the public outcry when local residents became aware of the scheme.

Cllr Tim Oliver [leader SCC] and Katie Stewart [executive director for Environment, Transport & Infrastructure] have agreed to attend.

County Cllr Matt Furniss [Con, Shalford, Cabinet member or Transport Strategy] has been invited but so far has not responded.

Why does SCC not wish to publicise this event? It is certainly not consistent with their obligation to keep the public fully informed.

If you use the London Road in Burpham to go to school, to work, shopping, visit Spectrum or Stoke Park I urge you to come along to the meeting to have your say and find out what is actually going to happen and how it will affect you.

It is almost impossible for the general public to find out what the current plans are. Five months of chaos are scheduled after which we may be left with a main arterial road into Guildford unfit for purpose. Is that what you want?  

Share This Post

test 9 Responses to Letter: Why Won’t the County Council Publicise the London Road Public Meeting?

  1. Anthony Mallard Reply

    December 30, 2022 at 12:58 pm

    The unspoken reason why the proposed meeting remains poorly or, as highlighted by Ms Wright, officially unpublicised, is sadly obvious. SCC does not want the opposition to this badly thought-through proposal to gain traction, thus requiring it to be discarded or modified in a way that meets the needs of all users of London Road.

    The waste of money, doubtless so far spent, will also highlight the appalling way the partial consultation was conducted. I have no doubt that those with a political interest in the next county council and general elections in 2025 would not wish this scandal to be remembered when they put themselves forward for re-election. They will feel it best keep the whole thing as low-key as possible.

  2. Jim Allen Reply

    December 30, 2022 at 3:34 pm

    Added to the mix are 144 additional HGV movements a day on Clay Lane for three months from February, in connection with the new sewage treatment works in Slyfield. The Clay Lane diversion route, to be used during work on London Road in Burpham, has seen the 7.5 ton weight limit removed. This was only discovered this morning although actioned on September 22. No one in the community had been informed.

    • Roger Carnegie Reply

      January 2, 2023 at 1:20 pm

      That sounds like a made up number from Mr Allen. Is there a credible source for this claim?

      Mr Allen has a history of stating speculative and incorrect numbers on traffic volumes and should credit a source for his “facts”.

      The actual number of HGV movements is an average of 55 per day, as stated in the planning application review by GBC (see below).

      Mr Allen has been a vocal critic of the sewage treatment scheme and has studied the application in detail, and published numerous letters to you on the matter, he should know the facts.

      See the planning application:

      Planning decision:

      Title: Minerals/Waste GU22/CON/00006

      Paragraph 357.

      “The AQA states that the construction phase is anticipated to last 32 months, with the intensity of construction activity varying. The applicant states that out of the total construction period of 32 months, there are only four months where total HGV trips per day range between 60 and 180 (30-90 deliveries), seven months where the total HGV traffic ranges 40 and 60 trips per day, ten months where the total HGV traffic ranges 20 and 40 trips per day, and 11 months when the total HGV traffic is less than 20 trips per day. This indicates that the average number of trips is 55 per day. This is below the threshold of 100 as outlined in the IAQM guidance.”

      • Jim Allen Reply

        January 2, 2023 at 1:54 pm

        If people want to doubt me they should read all the documents.

        Depending which document you read dictates what answer you get.

        From the published Construction Traffic Management Plan: “Some activities however will require a regular and continuous turnover of deliveries throughout the working day. Key activities for this would be: Importing granular capping and fill material. Total 8 loads per hour… Delivery of precast piles (approx 1 per hour), Large concrete pours (approx 4 HGV deliveries per hour)”

    • Surrey County Council spokesperson Reply

      January 3, 2023 at 5:30 pm

      Two notices were advertised in The Surrey Advertiser, on 23.09.22 and 7.10.22.

      It is not part of our process to contact residents about a temporary lifting of an environmental weight limit.

      The weight limit is not [in place] due to any structural concerns, but an environmental one, so there is no issue with the bank supporting the road [on the Jacobs Well side of the Clay Lane bridge over the A3].

      • Martin Elliott Reply

        January 4, 2023 at 1:05 pm

        A department of Surrey County Council demonstrates yet again how out of touch some of them are in communication/consultation.
        I’m surprised they didn’t mention posting a notice on a lamp post as also required in most statutory notice regulations.

        Other SCC departments advertise on Twitter or Facebook, and several councillors repost in community groups and Nextdoor.

        It’s the same with the paucity of information on the SCC website. They claim via George Potter that general arrangement drawing (GA drawings) meet their usual standard. It is strange that there is less than half page of detail in last year’s Bus Stop Projects.

        For example, what is the dimensional detail of the ‘kerb line’ between cycle lane and highway. Is it level or raised to both sides? Just one of many details which there has been no opportunity to question.

  3. Sally Werry Reply

    December 30, 2022 at 4:12 pm

    I have also read that the London Road/Boxgrove Road roundabout is to become a “Dutch Roundabout” which really worries me.
    https://guildford-dragon.com/letter-those-considering-the-london-road-scheme-should-be-aware-of-dutch-roundabout-proposal/
    I feel few residents/road users/cyclists would be in favour of this.

  4. Martin Elliott Reply

    December 30, 2022 at 5:23 pm

    Matters like this used to be tabled and discussed at the Guildford Joint Committee. However, after SCC tried to impose decisions on parking enforcements and charges to the boroughs and districts without committee consultation, the 11 joint committees has been shutdown.

    Strangely there hasn’t been much of any discussion by county or borough councillors, or the announcement of Community Liaison Officers to replace the joint committees and financial responsibility hasn’t been mentioned.

    Whilst having so many committees seemed excessive, it leaves even less understanding on county/borough shared authority.

  5. Jane Hepburn Reply

    January 1, 2023 at 7:54 pm

    The meeting starts at 6.30pm for those wanting to go.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *