CONSULTATION - UPDATEd on 5 november 2023
The start of the 8-week public engagement period (now extended by 4 weeks to 15 December) has indicated that there are many issues of interest and concern that are not mentioned by Surrey CC on either their website or at the first drop-in event. LRAG cannot detail every single oversight, but on the "QUESTIONS WITHOUT ANSWERS" page are some suggestions that ought to be considered before submitting answers to the rather biased survey.
Clearly SCC monitors our output and website as many of the "key questions" were lifted verbatim and posted on the FAQs
Text in blue has clickable links to more information.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The public feeling of disenfranchisement that emanated before, and at, the public meeting is understandable. The opening words of the final paragraph of the first chapter of the Cycle Infrastructure Design LTN 1/20 says: "Making the case for change to get schemes delivered, a clear stakeholder engagement plan to articulate the case for change can take time but will increase political and public acceptance of a scheme at an early stage". Originally taken from the Traffic Management Act 2004: network management to support active travel (now superseded by The Plan for Drivers) is a self-briefing guide to explain what Surrey CC should be attempting to achieve with the new engagement process.
Surrey CC committed to a “reset” from the position they were in, following the postponement of the scheme, and formed a Sustainable Travel Reference Group (STRG) from stakeholders representing those who may be affected. The full Terms of Reference can be viewed by clicking on the highlighted link.
In a message covering the start of the STRG it was declared that: “Its role will be to co-produce the community engagement about the scheme to ensure all those who wish to have a say can do so”, and reports of its progress may be found via this link. This was never achieved to the satisfaction of several stakeholders.
Although LRAG were allocated one seat in the group, several of its network were involved as representatives of other organisations. Four meetings were held, but the pace of progress was determined solely by the rate of plan development at SCC. Stakeholder involvement was mainly limited to verbal input at meetings, and SCC reactions to them have been far from comprehensive.
Quoting from the LTN 1/20 section above, authorities' processes should be to - "work out every technical aspect of a proposal thoroughly and in detail before you present it, to anticipate and pre-empt likely objections". The entirety of the proposals (Traffic Modelling and FAQs) were not ready in advance of drop-in events and survey release, despite a commitment made in the Working Arrangements for the STRG. The Traffic Modelling report was contradicted just 3 days after publication and an additional paper needed to be supplied, albeit not accessible on 5 November to other than Mac/Apple users - Windows OS users were blocked!
Clearly SCC monitors our output and website as many of the "key questions" were lifted verbatim and posted on the FAQs
Text in blue has clickable links to more information.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The public feeling of disenfranchisement that emanated before, and at, the public meeting is understandable. The opening words of the final paragraph of the first chapter of the Cycle Infrastructure Design LTN 1/20 says: "Making the case for change to get schemes delivered, a clear stakeholder engagement plan to articulate the case for change can take time but will increase political and public acceptance of a scheme at an early stage". Originally taken from the Traffic Management Act 2004: network management to support active travel (now superseded by The Plan for Drivers) is a self-briefing guide to explain what Surrey CC should be attempting to achieve with the new engagement process.
Surrey CC committed to a “reset” from the position they were in, following the postponement of the scheme, and formed a Sustainable Travel Reference Group (STRG) from stakeholders representing those who may be affected. The full Terms of Reference can be viewed by clicking on the highlighted link.
In a message covering the start of the STRG it was declared that: “Its role will be to co-produce the community engagement about the scheme to ensure all those who wish to have a say can do so”, and reports of its progress may be found via this link. This was never achieved to the satisfaction of several stakeholders.
Although LRAG were allocated one seat in the group, several of its network were involved as representatives of other organisations. Four meetings were held, but the pace of progress was determined solely by the rate of plan development at SCC. Stakeholder involvement was mainly limited to verbal input at meetings, and SCC reactions to them have been far from comprehensive.
Quoting from the LTN 1/20 section above, authorities' processes should be to - "work out every technical aspect of a proposal thoroughly and in detail before you present it, to anticipate and pre-empt likely objections". The entirety of the proposals (Traffic Modelling and FAQs) were not ready in advance of drop-in events and survey release, despite a commitment made in the Working Arrangements for the STRG. The Traffic Modelling report was contradicted just 3 days after publication and an additional paper needed to be supplied, albeit not accessible on 5 November to other than Mac/Apple users - Windows OS users were blocked!