Only Cabinet Members Will Speak at SCC’s Meeting to Decide on London Road Scheme

Published on: 24 Nov, 2024
Updated on: 24 Nov, 2024

London Road (Google)

By Martin Giles

No non-Cabinet member speakers or new evidence will be allowed at Surrey County Council’s Cabinet meeting on Tuesday (November 26) when it reconsiders the London Road Active Travel Scheme.

The issue was referred back to the SCC Cabinet by seven votes to four by the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee last Tuesday.

See: Select Committee Votes to Refer London Road Decision Back to SCC Cabinet

But it has emerged that the chair of the Surrey County Council Cabinet, Tim Oliver (Con, Weybridge), the council leader, has decided the Cabinet will decide the issue on evidence already presented and no non-Cabinet members nor members of the public will be allowed to speak.

Cllr George Potter

Cllr George Potter (Lib Dem), a county and borough councillor representing Burpham, and one of the most vociferous supporters of the scheme, told The Dragon that he was very pleased that the Select Committee agreed, “on a cross-party basis”, that the decision not to proceed with the scheme should be referred back to the SCC cabinet, adding: “… other councillors and members of the public had been keen to speak at the Cabinet meeting to correct the Cabinet’s misunderstanding of the technical evidence”.

He continued: “It has therefore been incredibly disappointing to learn that the leader of SCC has decided not to allow any speakers at next week’s Cabinet meeting where the final decision on the London Road scheme will be made.

“Regardless of whether you are for or against the scheme, the Select Committee identified key issues where there was strong disagreement, particular around whether the scheme would make things safer, or less safe, for disabled pedestrians. The voices of people who know the local area and these issues in detail should have been welcomed by the Cabinet to help inform their reconsideration of the issue.”

Cllr Fiona Davidson

But Cllr Fiona Davidson (R4GV), who represents Guildford South East including part of the London Road adjoining the Boxgrove (or AA) Roundabout, has consistently been against the scheme as proposed in several iterations. She said: “I’ve also been told officially that no speakers or new evidence will be allowed at Cabinet on Tuesday.

“I’m not surprised given the procedural nature of a call-in. As I understand it, the Select Committee’s referral back to Cabinet asks them to reconsider their decision. They have a simple decision to make, to either affirm their original decision or overturn it.

“It’s a pity that the referral perpetuates an incorrect and misleading statement that the Arup Report [Arup is a company that provides design, engineering, architecture, planning, and advisory services] says the scheme constitutes a significant safety improvement for all road users. It did not say that.”

Regular cyclist Cllr Howard Smith

Guildford borough councillor Howard Smith (Lab, Westborough), a regular cyclist who lives near the London Road, has supported the scheme throughout. He said: “It’s disappointing. Aside from the fact that expert opinion fully supports the route, making it safer for all, it would be nice to hear from the active travel opposers what plans they have to make it safer, as well as reduce congestion and improve air quality in Burpham, especially if the Gosden Hill development comes forward.

“It’s not good enough to just say you’re against something. Nothing has been heard from them yet, but we live in hope.”

Terry Newman speaking at the sub-committee meeting

And Terry Newman, chair of the London Road Action Group (LRAG), who spoke at the Select Committee meeting, while contributions from non-sub-committee councillors were disallowed, said: “I have looked at the supplementary agenda for the review of the Cabinet decision and it does not appear to rule out speakers or public questions, although I am aware of the suggestion that this will not occur.

“Unless there is new evidence for the Cabinet to re-consider, or that the Select Committee may have been misled in deciding to ask for a reconsideration, I see little point in rehearsing the same debate yet again.”