- Stay Connected
Socialize
Abraham Lincoln
If given the truth, the people can be depended upon to meet any national crisis...
Guildford news...
for Guildford people, brought to you by Guildford reporters - Guildford's own news service
SCC Cabinet’s Decision to Scrap London Road Scheme ‘Called-in’ by Select Committee
Published on: 9 Nov, 2024
Updated on: 11 Nov, 2024
By Martin Giles
The decision by Surrey County Council’s Cabinet to scrap the planned changes to London Road in Burpham has been “called-in” by SCC’s Communities, Environment and Highways (CEH) Select Committee.
A meeting has been arranged for November 19 at 2pm.
See: County Council Rejects £6 Million Active Travel Scheme for London Road
Rumours had been circulating about the call-in for at least 24 hours and the chair of the London Road Action Group (LRAG) announced on their website today: “The decision not to proceed with Section 1 of the London Road Active Travel Scheme has apparently raised dissatisfaction in some quarters and, as a result, the decision has been ‘called-in’.”
Announcement of call-in on SCC website.
The “news flash” announcement continued: “Originally, it was published that the decision was not subject to call-in but this has now been amended to read: ‘(The decisions on this item can be called-in by the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee).’
“It can only be assumed that this change has been as a result of a legal challenge.”
The Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committe (CEH) Select Committee has 13 members: 7 Conservatives, 3 Independents, 2 Lib Dems and 1 Green.
According to the Centre for Public Scrutiny, “call-in provides a mechanism for councillors to intervene when they feel that a decision being made by an Executive or Cabinet needs to be revisited (or possibly changed). It provides a key check and balance in the leader/cabinet system of governance – a long-stop that, in theory, prevents the overweening exercise of power by an Executive or Cabinet.”
It is believed that in SCC a chair or vice chair of a select committee or two members of the relevant committee, comprising more than one political group, can call a decision in.
The committee exercising a call-in can’t overturn the decision, only recommend that the Cabinet reconsiders. If the Cabinet sticks to its decision, and the challengers are still not satisfied, a judicial review may be the next step.
This type of call-in within local authorities should not be confused with a call-in by a Secretary of State, who may have powers to overturn local authority decisions, typically in planning.
Share This Post
Responses to SCC Cabinet’s Decision to Scrap London Road Scheme ‘Called-in’ by Select Committee
Leave a Comment Please see our comments policy. All comments are moderated and may take time to appear. Full names, or at least initial and surname, must be given.
See: Tumbling Bay Footbridge: National Trust Says It Is ‘Committed to Finding a Resolution’
>
Jim Allen
November 10, 2024 at 11:19 am
No matter the politicking it won’t change the actual width of the road, the actual high level of usage by commuters nor the overall safety factors for all road users!
Ben Paton
November 10, 2024 at 2:06 pm
They failed to get through the front door. So they’ve gone around the back. No doubt they’ll ultimately try the chimney.
Claudio Svaluto
November 12, 2024 at 9:35 pm
Who is Ben Paton referring to when he says “they”?
S Callanan
November 10, 2024 at 9:01 pm
It is reported that we might have a situation where the challengers seek a judicial review of a decision seemingly properly made by a committee of Surrey County Council. So much for democratic process.
And while we’re mulling that over, can we know exactly who the challengers are? Surely that can’t be confidential if there’s a chance it might end up in court?
Editor’s response: We will be making further enquiries.
Bethan Moore
November 11, 2024 at 8:36 am
Over a thousand people just signed a petition in favour of the scheme. Seems a good idea to review it in the face of so much support.
Link to the petition https://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?id=583&fbclid=IwY2xjawGd75RleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHWBcRMc8J7gn4UwVfxBhWGVjNGnHIx2zsp-UaenYznDHBjpnTrz7xVwp9w_aem_ROzqRzQqz5JAX1_Eh07dPQ
Malcolm Stanier
November 11, 2024 at 9:57 pm
There is no verification of where the signatories to this petition live or whether they have any connection with Burpham at all.
George Potter
November 12, 2024 at 1:06 pm
I suppose Mr Stanier means it’s just like the “survey” organised by the opponents of the scheme then which was delivered as far afield as Boxgrove Gardens and contained questions that they’d been advised by a polling expert were actively leading and designed to illicit a negative reaction to the scheme?
George Potter is a Lib Dem borough and county councillor.
Roger Carnegie
November 12, 2024 at 1:27 pm
I must correct Mr Stanier as he is wrong.
ePetition require name and address to register an account.
The physical petition requires a name and address.
I know Surrey Council then validate all submissions.
Fiona Davidson
November 12, 2024 at 9:11 pm
To clarify, 1,072 of the signatures on this petition are on paper (uploaded to the e-petition site in a pdf document) so have not had to register their name and address with SCC, and SCC has no means of validating the entry.
Fiona Davidson is the R4GV county councillor for Guildford South East
Bethan Moore
November 15, 2024 at 6:45 pm
Cllr Davidson brings up an important point. It is really important that we can trust the sources of these opinions and that they truly represent people who live in the area. And we should ensure that any figures we quote come from properly verified sources.
You will see that paper signatures also give addresses. I believe these are then checked.
I can also confirm that most of the paper signatures were collected outside schools in the Burpham area. Most signatures are local parents, many of whom currently contribute to high traffic levels during the school run and would like some other ways to get their children to school.
Anthony Mallard
November 11, 2024 at 10:13 am
Those who opposed the London Road Active Travel Scheme did so, not because they were anti-cyclist nor because they did not want to change the status quo. They did so because it was inherently unsafe for all road users and by the inevitable congestion would have increased pollution for everyone, including cyclists. The democratic decision of the County Council was correct.
Calum Shaw
November 11, 2024 at 8:51 pm
The professionals advising on the scheme indicate that it is safer than the current road layout. SCC has a Vision Zero strategy (for road safety), it seems that the decision was not aligned with that strategy.
Cameron Allan
November 11, 2024 at 9:09 pm
We all know that the road is narrow. No scheme is going to be perfect when we have to stay within the boundaries of the existing road. However the new design as proposed is significantly safer than the current design for pedestrians.
The number of pedestrian crossings will increase from two to seven. Junctions will be tightened to slow vehicles turning into side roads and pavements will be widened in many locations.
The design has been proven to be safe and recommended for approval by Arup (engineering consultants) and Active Travel England (experts in designing safe roads).
Guildford has a traffic problem and Surrey has a road death problem (highest local authority for cycling deaths and serious injuries in the UK in 2022). Surrey County Council has a voted on and approved Vision Zero policy to reduce this to number to zero by 2050.
This one scheme is not going to solve the problems above. But we will at least be moving in the right direction.
It needs to be approved.
Sam Neatrour
November 13, 2024 at 5:28 pm
All these signatories were collected around Burpham, Merrow and the Town Centre. Petitions are a great way for everyone to have a say on an issue and are an important part of the democratic process. However, it was not considered as part of the cabinet’s decision making process in any case.
Derek Payne
November 20, 2024 at 11:31 am
The survey that Cllr George Potter refers to was submitted to SCC several months ago for verification. If Cllr Potter chooses not to verify it, then that is his decision.