Surrey County Council ‘Backed Down’ Over London Road Scheme Call-in

Published on: 12 Nov, 2024
Updated on: 13 Nov, 2024

By Martin Giles

Local Lib Dems are saying that Surrey County Council backed down after it attempted to block a review of its decision to turn down the £6 million walking and cycling scheme for London Road.

The county council had originally told members of the public and councillors that the decision not to proceed with the scheme did not count as a formal decision and therefore could not be called in for scrutiny by backbench councillors.

The Dragon asked for responses from Cllr Matt Furniss, as cabinet member for Transport, and from the SCC monitoring officer.

Tim Oliver – Leader of Surrey County Council

But the only response came this afternoon from the SCC council leader Tim Oliver, SCC’s “key spokesperson on this project” who conceded that a review can go ahead.

He said: “Having considered the safety concerns raised by the Surrey Coalition of Disabled People around shared spaces at bus stops and on the pavement, alongside both the strength of feeling from the local community and the findings of an independent technical review about the London Road scheme, Cabinet Members decided not to proceed with this part of the proposal at their meeting on 29th October.

“This was a decision taken at a Cabinet meeting and as such is open to the council’s call-in process as set out in the Council Constitution.

“All Cabinet decisions that are subject to be called in are done by select committee chair or vice-chair, or any two or more other select committee members from more than one political group.”

Following the U-turn, the decision, as reported in The Dragon yesterday, will now be reviewed by the council’s Community, Environment and Highways Select Committee at 2pm on Tuesday, November 19.

Supporters of the scheme, disappointed at the Cabinet decision to turn it down, had asked councillors to “call-in” the decision for review by a backbench scrutiny committee, only to be told by the Conservative committee chairman that “the Cabinet voted AGAINST a proposal to implement a decision. Therefore, technically, the Cabinet did not take a decision. As no decision was taken by the Cabinet there is consequently no decision for the Committee to call in.”

This interpretation of the rules was challenged by Liberal Democrat councillors, who pointed out to the Council’s Constitution.

Cllr George Potter

Liberal Democrat Cllr George Potter, who represents Burpham as a borough and county councillor, said: “Thankfully, the law gives scrutiny committees the right to ‘call-in’ such decisions to review the decision-making process and to potentially ask the Cabinet to think again.

“I was therefore absolutely appalled when members of the public were told that a decision not to go ahead with the scheme, and to hand back £6 million of government funding as a result, did not technically count as a decision and therefore could not be called in.

“It was only after considerable debate with county officers, including a meeting between myself and the monitoring officer, that they conceded that we were legally within our rights to call-in this decision for scrutiny.

“I’m pleased this decision will now be scrutinised properly, with councillors having the opportunity to review the evidence in detail and to ask the Cabinet to make the decision again, but it is hard to see the past week’s events as anything other than a deliberate attempt to thwart democratic scrutiny of a contentious decision where the Conservative Cabinet were on the wrong side of both public opinion and their own officers’ evidence.”

Liberal Democrat Cllr Lance Spencer, who as Vice-Chairman of the Community, Environment and Highways Select Committee exercised his right to call-in the decision, said: “Given the time and money already spent on the planning and public consultation on this scheme… I felt it was incredibly important that the decision on this scheme received the most thorough scrutiny and consideration possible, and that is what call-in can achieve.

“No scheme will ever be perfect, but this was a scheme which was recommended for approval by officers with a weight of evidence behind it and would have been a major improvement on the status quo.

“I look forward to the committee scrutinising this decision and know that members will take their role seriously in deciding what the next steps should be”.

Cllr Fiona Davidson

But Fiona Davidson (R4GV), the county councillor for Guildford South East, whose constituents are also affected and who spoke against the scheme at the Cabinet meeting, said today: “Have the supporters of this scheme actually reviewed the road plans in detail, and read the Arup report? The detail is important.

“The report states that the clearance between a cyclist or pedestrian on the shared path and an HGV’s wing mirrors will be 4.9 inches (yes, 4.9 inches). Is that safe?

“Do they know the report did not use the actual up-to-date accident statistics on London Road? The 30% cyclist casualties quoted by Arup relates to 5 slight car/cyclist accidents in the last 5 years. Then there’s the farce of the SCC consultation survey. Respondents did not have to provide their address. Anyone in the whole country could respond.

“The survey system even helpfully sent emails to people in Farnham interested in cycling inviting them to respond. A cycling group in Oxfordshire are amongst the SCC survey supporters. In contrast a survey of 1,200 local Guildford residents produced 87 per cent against the scheme.”

Terry Newman, chair of the London Road Action Group, sai: “The select committee needs to be able to answer the following question: should the scheme go ahead, at great cost, and not achieve its aim of significantly increasing active travellers, of reducing traffic congestion and associated pollution, and of avoiding minor and major incidents and accidents, will Surrey County Council be in a position to justify its decision to the Public Accounts Select Committee and to excuse its accountability for the change of risk they have created?”

Cllr Howard Smith

But Howard Smith, a Labour borough councillor for Westborough, speaking on behalf of Guildford labour said his party “welcomes the call-in decision. Cancelling the scheme was clearly flawed in that it not only goes against SCC’s own survey showing a majority of residents of Burpham in favour (including crucially the schools there), but it also cuts across so many of the Council’s commitments – on reducing congestion, encouraging healthier lifestyles, improving air quality, on net zero, and many more.

“It is irresponsible to turn down the £6m in infrastructure funding offered to fix these things. We hope the committee’s recommendation is for the cabinet to reconsider and they in turn give the scheme the go ahead.”

And a spokesperson for the Guildford Bike User Group “G Bug” said: “The London Road scheme has been designed to improve safety for walking and cycling and has been proven to be safer than the existing layout by Arup engineering consultants, Active Travel England, as well as being recommended for approval by Surrey County Council’s own officers.

“Surrey County Council’s Cabinet have adopted a Vision Zero strategy meaning that they are aiming to achieve zero deaths and zero serious injuries on Surrey’s roads by 2050. Whilst the Guildford Bike User Group were extremely disappointed with the council’s currently standing decision to block the scheme, which seems to go against all professional advice, we are glad the council have decided that their previous position of blocking a ‘calling-in’ of the decision has been overturned.

“This decision seemed legally dubious and completely undemocratic and undermined what is supposed to allow democratic scrutiny of council decisions. We hope councillors see sense come November 19 when the cabinet will vote on whether their previous decision to block the scheme was the correct one. Blocking the scheme is completely against Surrey County Council’s Net Zero Strategy, Vision Zero Strategy and Local Transport Plan and will lead to more people being killed and seriously injured on Surrey’s roads.