Agenda and minutes
PDF 182 KBVenue: Ashcombe, County Hall, Penrhyn Road, Kingston upon Thames, KT1 2DN
Contact: Huma Younis or Sharmina Ullah
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Minutes: Apologies were received from Steve Cosser and Nikki Barton. Michael Sydney substituted for Steve Cosser.
|
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: 21 APRIL 2016
To agree the minutes of the previous meeting as an accurate record of the discussion. Minutes: The minutes of the last meeting held on 21 April 2016 were agreed as accurate record of the meeting. |
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.
Notes:
· In line with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, declarations may relate to the interest of the member, or the member’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom the member is living as if they were civil partners and the member is aware they have the interest.
· Members need only disclose interests not currently listed on the Register of disclosable Pecuniary Interest.
· Members must notify the Monitoring Officer of any interests disclosed at the meeting so they may be added to the Register.
· Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest. Minutes: There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests. |
|
|
QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
To receive any questions or petitions.
Notes:
· The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (3 June 2016).
· The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (2 June 2016).
· The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received. Minutes: There were no questions or petitions. |
|
|
RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME
The board is asked to monitor progress on the implementation of recommendations from previous meetings and to review its forward work programme. Additional documents: Minutes: Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Chairman advised the Board that all of the existing recommendations and actions on the tracker had been completed.
2. Furthermore the Chairman informed the Board that the update report on the Basingstoke Canal has been removed from the agenda for the 14 July meeting.
3. Ian Beardsmore stated that he would replace David Goodwin on the Local Transport Review Member Reference Group and the Winter Maintenance Task Group.
|
|
|
UPDATES FROM MEMBER REFERENCE GROUPS AND TASK GROUPS
To receive a verbal update from the Boards Task and Member reference groups. Minutes: Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Chairman of the Basingstoke Canal Task Group reported that it was premature to take an update to a public meeting in July until the position with external bodies was confirmed. It was clear that it would be appropriate to delay this till the autumn period.
2. The Chairman for the Countryside Management Member Reference Group explained that there were no further meetings following the last report.
3. The Customer Service Excellence Member Reference group would meet next in July and the group would be undertaking a mystery shopper exercise with Project Horizon to explore how they interface with businesses.
4. The Chairman of the Finance Sub-Group informed the Board the next meeting of the group would l be held in July to review quarter one financial results and understand how the service has performed since the budget was set.
5. In the absence of the Highways for the Future Member Reference Group Chairman, it was reported that the Asset Management Strategy was reviewed and it was suggested, following on from Project Horizon that individual meetings with Member’s would be valuable and helpful going forward. The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding expressed agreement on this suggestion and advised the Board such requirement will be arranged at an appropriate time.
6. The Chairman for the Local Transport Review Member Reference Group was not present; any updates are to be requested. The Winter Maintenance Task Group plan to meet next on 28 July to review any critical concerns and the reduction of £300,000 from the winter maintenance budget.
|
|
|
ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ON BRIDGE STREET, GUILDFORD
Purpose of the report: Performance Management
Following a road traffic collision on 20 February 2016 that led to the deaths of two pedestrians on Bridge Street in Guildford, a petition was submitted to the council on 17 May 2016 to improve road safety on Bridge Street. It was resolved by the council that this issue and proposals should be scrutinised by the Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways Board.
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Duncan Knox, Road Safety Team Manager George Bowen, Petitioner Cllr Keith Taylor, Guildford Local Committee Chairman Cllr Matt Furniss, Vice Chair of Guildford Local Committee and Deputy Leader of Guildford Borough Council Cllr Mark Brett- Warburton, Guildford Local Member Paul Millin, Travel and Transport Group Manager Jason Russell, Assistant Director for Highways
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Chairman informed the Board the item on Bridge Street, Guildford was referred from the Full County Council after a petition with more than 11,000 signatures was received. The Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways Board were chosen as the most appropriate Board to discuss matters of road safety. Further to this the Chairman advised the Board that discussions should stay within the remit of road safety, other issues that did not relate to road safety were the concern of the Local Committee.
2. The Road Safety Team Manager provided an introduction to the report outlining that in the event of a collision/accident; this would be recorded on collision maps which would help identify hot spots, showing how some locations have greater collision/accident rates than others. As a result, a clear pattern was recognised that Onslow Street was an area of concern that required investigation.
3. Before commenting on the report, the petitioner George Bowen explained to the Board that his purpose was to represent the views of those who signed the petition, the families of the victims and the general public. In representing these views the petitioner commented on the report outlining that a number of issues had not been addressed to the fullest extent and certain recommendations had not been considered. The Petitioner stated that he was excited about the pedestrianisation of Bridge Street but did not think the idea that accidents will only occur at the crossing between Bridge Street and Onslow Street was correct.
4. The Guildford Local Committee Chairman offered his condolences to the families of the victims. The Local Committee Chairman showed extended support to the Road Safety Team Manager’s report, giving assurance that work around Bridge Street will be given priority by the local committee. The Board was also informed of seven LEP (Local Enterprise Partnership) schemes in place with a budget of around £9 million to make Bridge Street safer.
5. In light of the report the Vice Chair of Guildford Local Committee shared support and referred to the £2.6 million LEP money in place to make improvements to Walnut Tree Bridge which would reconfigure traffic around Bridge Street and improve pedestrian safety. It was stated that a phasing approach would be undertaken when work started, focusing on the impacts to traffic movements around the town centre.
6. Members of the Board were encouraged by the report, expressing positive feedback, in particular to the conversion of the one way system to a two way traffic flow. Several Members commented on the junction with Bridge Street stating that it was confusing working out the correct lane to merge into when approaching Bridge Street.
|
|
|
REVISED ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORT
Purpose of the report: Policy Development and Review
We have revised the Asset Management Strategy (Annex 1) for the service in accordance with best practice and are asking that the Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways Board endorse the strategy and commend to Cabinet for approval.
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Amanda Richards, Network & Asset Management Group Manager Jason Russell, Assistant Director Environment and Infrastructure
Key points raised during the discussions:
1. Prior to introducing the report the Assistant Director of Environment and Infrastructure updated the Board on the changes to the highways management team. It was agreed for a note explaining the changes in further detail to be emailed to the board.
2. Officers explained to the Board the purpose of the Asset Management Strategy (AMS) was to ensure that assets are managed in the most cost effective way and to maximise the level of grant funding the service received from the Department of Transport (DfT). Surrey is currently rated as Band 2, if Surrey remained at Band 2 we could lose funding however officers are confident we will advance to Band 3 by 2017.
3. Members queried assumptions in the report around potential funding and in particular the ‘pothole action fund’. The Network & Asset Management Group Manager stated that historically the service performed well in competition funds and was confident that the maximum contribution could be achieved. The Assistant Director Environment and Infrastructure further explained that the service had to plan with assumptions in mind.
4. Members requested further clarification regarding the table on page 50 of the AMS, in particular to what the percentages represented and from what period. The Chairman proposed a revision to the table to ensure readers can differentiate the percentage difference between 2009 and 2015. Following this, the Board was informed that dashboard data can be provided in relation to customer satisfaction.
5. The Chairman congratulated officers on the development of the strategy.
6. A Member of the Board referred to the modelling tools on page 53, paragraph 2.3 and asked whether the modelling tools took into account things that can happen as a result of phenomena such as flash flooding. The Network & Asset Management Group Manager explained that the same modelling theories were used and in particular modelling on wet spots was undertaken.
7. Members questioned the methodology for defining roads and queried why certain roads were classified as they were even if they were classified incorrectly. Officers informed the Board that the service prioritises roads for treatment based on the Surrey Priority Network which looked at the priorities surrounding the road, including traffic levels, proximity to school, hospitals etc and ranking them accordingly from SPN1 to 4b regardless of their ABCD classifications.
8. There was a discussion around what kind of roads would fall in the ‘aesthetically impaired’ category and whether this type of road condition affected cyclists as well as road users. Officers explained that although ‘aesthetically impaired’ roads were grouped together they all had the different issues and varied from one another.
9. Members queried what criterion was required for a traffic system to be classified as obsolete. Officers described traffic systems to have the shortest lifespan and issues such as technological issue with the system could classify it as obsolete. Officers gave the Board encouragement that when funding ... view the full minutes text for item 8/16 |
|
|
COMMUNITY RECYCLING CENTRES - RECYCLING PERFORMANCE
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Performance Management
To update the Board on Recycling Performance at the Community Recycling Centres.
Minutes: Witnesses:
Steve Strickland, Waste Contract Team Manager
Key points raised during the discussion:
Peter Hickman left the meeting at 12:30pm
1. The Chairman reminded Members that the purpose of the report was to be briefed on what kind of items were accepted at Community Recycling Centres (CRCs) and what happened to them once recycled.
2. The Waste Contract Team Manager introduced the report, outlining that the material collected at CRCs was not typical kerbside material. Currently, more waste was being pulled out of skips and investigated to check if there was any value in the materials being found. A trial in Leatherhead was proving successful results in collecting items from skips. A trial for expansion to other CRCs was being considered.
3. There was a discussion around black bin bags and the board were informed that these were collected in skips and then spilt open to check if they contained any valuable items. However due to staff restrictions this process cannot operate effectively on a bigger scale. Members suggested in order to improve the process the transition from black bags to transparent bags would be more advantageous.
4. A Member of the Board referred to the site at Charlton Lane and raised concerns with traffic queues when entering the site and the reduction in skips available. The Waste Contract Team Manager advised that the concerns raised have already been identified and officers were working towards finding a solution. It was further explained that there was no intention to downgrade the site.
5. Officers were asked about the financial nature surrounding compost and whether opening a Surrey facility for green waste would be more productive and beneficial in the long term. Officers explained that the primary focus at the moment was residual waste, however opening our own facility would be taken on board and considered. Currently composted waste is taken to a number of compost plants around Surrey where as part of the ‘gate fee’ and contract the compost is kept by the plant.
6. In relation to rubble and soil, Board Members stated that they had received complaints from residents about being turned away from CRCs when dropping off garden waste. The Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning stated that he was aware of this concern and assured the Board that this practice was not county wide and the matter will be looked into. The Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning also informed the Board that Surrey Wide Fly Tipping would be launching on 4 July.
7. Board Members sought clarification over the low figures for textiles received at CRCs. Officers explained that although the rate per tonne was resourceful (£250 per tonne); charities offered a competing service with kerbside collection which affected CRC collection rates. The Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning stated that a business model for re-use shops in Surrey was in the pipeline and could potentially bring about savings.
Recommendations:
Actions:
|
|
|
REVIEW OF THE SURREY WASTE PLAN: CONSULTATION ON PREFERRED OPTIONS
Purpose of the report: Policy Development and Review
Surrey County Council is the Waste Planning Authority. The current Surrey Waste Plan was adopted in 2008 and now needs to be reviewed. A new Surrey Waste Local Plan 2018 – 2033 will need to go through several stages of public consultation. The first stage of formal consultation is ‘Preferred Options’.
The Board is asked to review the Preferred Options Consultation Report (Annexe 1) prior to the report being taken to Cabinet seeking approval to progress with a public consultation between August and October 2016.
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Kate Symington, Principal Planning Policy Officer Paul Sanderson, Minerals & Waste Policy Team Manager
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Principal Planning Policy Officer referred to a series of PowerPoint slides to present key points of the Surrey Waste Plan (attached as Annex 1). The Chairman stated that the approval of this item would allow for the preliminary working regarding the Surrey local waste plan to commence
2. A Member of the Board expressed concern with launching the consultation on 4 August 2016 seeing as this was the holiday period. The Principal Planning Policy Officer assured the Board that there was plenty of time for people to respond over the 12 week consultation period. The consultation would also be publicised on Surrey Says and Surrey Matters. The Principal Planning Policy Officer would check if the deadline for the consultation closing date could be extended.
3. The Board made reference to the title of the document being considered, ‘The Surrey Waste Local Plan’. It was suggested whether alternative terminology could be used such as ‘resource plan’. The Cabinet Member agreed that there seemed to be too much focus on waste and not resources. The change of the document title would be considered and a brief description of this change would be included in the executive summary.
4. There was discussion around whether a member reference group should be set up to support the work of the directorate.
Recommendations:
The Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways board,
b. supported the approach taken for the proposed Preferred Options Consultation.
Actions:
None
|
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING: 14 JULY 2016
The next meeting of the Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways Board will be held on Thursday 14July 2016 at 10:30am in Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston Upon Thames. Minutes: The next meeting of the Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways Board will be held on Thursday 14 July 2016 at 10.30am in the Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames.
|