Agenda and minutes
PDF 253 KBVenue: Remote
Contact: Amelia Christopher Email: amelia.christopher@surreycc.gov.uk
Note: Re-scheduled from the postponed meeting of the Council on 14 December 2021.
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
The Leader to make a statement.
There will be an opportunity for Members to ask questions and/or make comments.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Leader made a detailed statement. A copy of the statement is attached as Appendix A.
Members raised the following topics:
· Looked forward to the upcoming Member Development Session on the Final Budget Proposals; noting the intended 4.99% increase in Council tax. · Welcomed the announcement of the reinspection of Children’s Services next week following the inadequate rating in 2018 and noted that progress had been made; welcomed the £2 million spend on eight children’s homes. · Welcomed the reassessment of the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS), following the inadequate rating in 2018; progress had been made. · Highlighted the Greater London Boundary Charge which the Council had opposed in a previous original motion, the charge had been shelved and the new proposal by the Mayor of London was for a charge per mile. · That the Council must put pressure on the Government to enact primary legislation to hold remote meetings, highlighted the costs involved of holding socially distanced in-person meetings despite the Covid-19 pandemic. · That remote meetings align with the Council’s green agenda by reducing carbon emissions through minimising travel. · Noting the move to agile offices, Members must be agile and remote meetings would help to diversify the demographics. · That despite lobbying the Government for legislation to allow remote meetings, local government and its decision-making was taken for granted. · Noted concern in the proposed 4.99% increase in Council Tax, the Council must consider those on modest incomes and support vulnerable residents. · Urged the Leader to heed a recommendation by the Resources and Performance Select Committee concerning those in Surrey on very low incomes who receive benefits but not Council Tax reduction. · Questioned how the Council can have £100 million to spare to make communities better, yet money was not being spent on Surrey Highways maintenance as requested by residents. · Questioned when the Council would work up a joint plan to retrofit Surrey’s homes working with the Borough and District Councils, when the Council would help residents to respond to the imminent gas price rises and when the Council would stop drilling for gas. · Emphasised the need to reflect on what politics with integrity means for the Council, to respect one another rather than political point score through original motions and questions. · That the Leader highlighted the Council’s ambitious agenda yet recognised that Surrey has critical funding needs. · That according to the Resolution Foundation families would face an average hit of £1,200 annually to their incomes due to rising energy bills, tax increases and high inflation. · Highlighted that the Leader also spoke of improved bus services and the need to tackle climate change through real investment, asked how many issues highlighted in his statement the Leader can deliver by next year and whether he could provide examples of how he would deliver those. · Asked whether there had been any unforeseen financial implications of the move to Woodhatch Place and the sale of County Hall brought about by the pandemic.
Michaela Martin left the meeting at 10.30 am
|
|
|
MEMBERS' QUESTION TIME
1. The Leader of the Council or the appropriate Member of the Cabinet or the Chairman of a Committee to answer any questions on any matter relating to the powers and duties of the County Council, or which affects the county.
(Note: Notice of questions in respect of the above item on the agenda must be given in writing, preferably by e-mail, to Democratic Services by 12 noon on 12 January 2022).
2. Cabinet Member Briefings on their portfolios
These will be circulated by email to all Members prior to the County Council meeting, together with the Members’ questions and responses.
There will be an opportunity for Members to ask questions.
Additional documents: Minutes: Questions:
Notice of sixteen questions had been received.
The questions and replies were published in the supplementary agenda on 17 January 2022 (Items 2 and 4). A number of supplementary questions were asked and a summary of the main points is set out below.
(Q1) Robert Evans noted that currently in Surrey there were 451 full time equivalent (FTE) firefighters and asked whether the Cabinet Member for Community Protection was aware that in 2011 there were 641 FTE firefighters and every year since then the number of FTE firefighters has decreased annually. During that ten-year period Surrey’s population has increased and roads have got busier, he asked how residents can feel safe when there has been a 30% in firefighters and crewing levels on fire engines have been cut from five to four.
In response, the Cabinet Member for Community Protection restated that Fire and Rescue Services have been transformed through an emphasis on prevention, protection and changing work practices leading to a reduction in the number of fires by 45% nationally and 30% in Surrey. He was happy to respond to the Member in writing on any specific points.
(Q2) John O’Reilly welcomed the £1 million generated by the scheme. He asked the Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure for clarification on whether prior to the new Lane Rental Scheme the Council was not getting any money apart from covering its costs from the former scheme.
He further asked the Cabinet Member what sort of projects would be funded using the surplus generated from the Lane Rental Scheme.
In response, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure confirmed that the permit scheme did not generate a surplus as it was cost neutral, he was pleased that the surplus money from the Lane Rental charges could be used for anything that reduced congestion on the network such as ducting by utility companies as suggested by the Department for Transport (DfT). He noted that whilst he was in office Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP changed the criteria so that money generated from the scheme could be used to repair utility pothole defects, to improve lighting and signalling to reduce congestion. Those options were being considered and the Council would be working with the utility operators.
(Q3) Jonathan Hulley was pleased to hear the steps taken by the Council to promote the carbon literacy agenda and reaching out to the Carbon Literacy Trust. He asked the Cabinet Member for Environment about what steps the Council has taken to promote the carbon literacy agenda amongst community groups and Residents’ Associations, or in partnership with others.
In response, the Cabinet Member for Environment corrected her written answer noting that Members currently did not have access to the Carbon Literacy training on Olive so the Climate Change team was seeking to address that as the training would aid Members in their scrutiny and when talking to residents. She noted that officers have been speaking to key environment and community groups about how they can ... view the full minutes text for item 2. |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Any Member may make a statement at the meeting on a local issue of current or future concern.
(Note: Notice of statements must be given in writing, preferably by e-mail, to Democratic Services by 12 noon on Monday 17 January 2022).
Additional documents: Minutes: Clare Curranmade a statement on Bookham Blue Hearts wildflower verges, a community project to encourage wildflowers to grow on road verges. She thanked the community volunteers and officers involved. Following last year’s success, she looked forward to more wildflower verges in 2022.
Eber Kington made a statement on a local highways matter having been contacted last November by residents concerned about the potential for future accidents on a four-way junction. He stated that the Council must do better to devolve decision-making to the lowest level and it should not be for a Cabinet Member to decide on the spend of a Member’s highways allocation costing around £300.
The Chair agreed to add the following informative note as noted at the Council meeting on 22 March 2022:
The Chair of Council at the request of Eber Kington agreed that the above record should be corrected with reference to the Cabinet Member's position. The statement had been made in good faith, however, the Cabinet Member had not made the decision to decide on the spend of a members highways allocation and Eber Kington had apologised to the Cabinet Member for the inaccuracy.
|
|
Item 4 (i) Lance Spencer(Goldsworth East and Horsell Village) to move under standing order 11 as follows:
This Council notes that:
That speeds of 20 mph are less likely to lead to death or serious injury and have support from disability groups. That schemes for signed 20 mph zones are more affordable, quicker and easier to implement at pace and a growing number of authorities are implementing them across the country.
This Council further notes:
That Surrey County Council supports the implementation of 20 mph limits, but the current piecemeal approach and inadequate level of funding will not deliver on the step change required to affect residents’ travel choices to the extent needed to meet the ambition of the draft Local Transport Plan and Greener Futures’ delivery plan. That as the highway authority Surrey County Council has the legal power to set speed limits in Surrey, however its current policy is unfit for purpose. That 20 mph zones marked solely by signs accompanied by minimal enforcement have already been piloted elsewhere. This Council can decide to join the growing number of local authorities and regions who are already trialling this model or risk becoming an outlier in this space. That over time, implementation of such schemes will likely lead to future cohorts of drivers coming to regard 20 mph as the new 30 mph.
This Council resolves to:
Request the Leader and Cabinet to:
I. Agree in principle the implementation of signage only 20 mph zones in residential roads, outside schools and on high streets that currently have a 30 mph limit and where there is member and community support for the change.
II. Agree to an amendment of the current speed policy to allow for implementation of schemes in appropriate areas even where mean speeds exceed 24 mph.
III. Agree to establish a dedicated funding pot to provide adequate resources for the scheme to be implemented equitably across the county. Item 4 (ii) Catherine Baart (Earlswood and Reigate South) to move under standing order 11 as follows:
This Council notes that:
Additional documents: Minutes: Eber Kington raised a point of order under Standing Order 2 highlighting that it was not a formal meeting so neither resolutions nor decisions could be made by the Council. He noted that the suggested process of taking a report on the original motions to February’s Council meeting appeared to be designed to circumvent the current law that does not allow for formal decision-making at remote meetings, and that absent Members who had not heard the debate could not legitimately be entitled to vote on the outcome at the ensuing formal Council meeting.
In response the Chair explained that the meeting was informal due to the current health risk of meeting in person and confirmed that whilst the Council cannot make formal resolutions, Members have an opportunity to discuss the original motions and those absent can view the webcast and minutes. She explained that Members would receive a report at the next Council meeting in February asking the Council to formally adopt the outcome of the original motions and could comment and vote.
Item 4 (i)
Under Standing Order 12.3 the Council agreed to debate this motion.
Under Standing Order 12.1 Lance Spencer moved:
That communities are increasingly recognising the benefits of slower traffic in residential and busy pedestrian streets and outside schools. These include improved road safety; calmer, steadier traffic flows leading to increased confidence amongst residents in being able to walk and cycle more safely; the resulting reduction in traffic volumes that improves air quality. Ultimately 20 miles per hour (mph) zones lead to better physical and mental health outcomes for residents who live and travel in those areas.
That speeds of 20 mph are less likely to lead to death or serious injury and have support from disability groups.
That schemes for signed 20 mph zones are more affordable, quicker and easier to implement at pace and a growing number of authorities are implementing them across the country.
This Council further notes:
That Surrey County Council supports the implementation of 20 mph limits, but the current piecemeal approach and inadequate level of funding will not deliver on the step change required to affect residents’ travel choices to the extent needed to meet the ambition of the draft Local Transport Plan and Greener Futures’ delivery plan.
That as the highway authority Surrey County Council has the legal power to set speed limits in Surrey, however its current policy is unfit for purpose.
That 20 mph zones marked solely by signs accompanied by minimal enforcement have already been piloted elsewhere. This Council can decide to join the growing number of local authorities and regions who are already trialling this model or risk becoming an outlier in this space.
That over time, implementation of such schemes will likely lead to future cohorts of drivers coming to regard 20 mph as the new 30 mph.
This Council resolves to:
Request the Leader and Cabinet to:
I. Agree in principle the implementation of signage only 20 mph zones ... view the full minutes text for item 4. |