Agenda and minutes
PDF 60 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN. View directions
Contact: Tom Pooley or Andrew Spragg
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Minutes: 1. The Chairman made the following announcement to the Committee: “It is with great sadness I report that a former Member of the Select Committee, Frances King, passed away on 31 December, following a long illness.
On behalf of the Select Committee I would like to extend our sincere condolences and deepest sympathy to Frances’ friends and family during this difficult time. She made a valuable contribution to the work of the Council and will very much be missed.“
2. Apologies had been received from Geoff Marlow and Chris Norman. Tim Hall and Dr Zully Grant-Duff substituted respectively. |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS: 8 November 2012 & 10 December 2012
To agree the minutes as a true record of the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes were agreed as an 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 husband or wife, 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 Interests. · 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 interests. |
|
|
QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
To receive any questions or petitions.
Notes: 1. The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (Friday 4 January 2013). 2. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (Thursday 3 January 2013). 3. The deadline for petitions is 14 days before the meeting (Thursday 27 December 2012) Minutes: There were no questions or petitions. |
|
|
RESPONSES FROM THE CABINET TO ISSUES REFERRED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE
There are no responses to report. Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. One response was received following the call-in of 10 December to consider the Cabinet Member’s decision in relation to the speed limit on Stoke Road, Stoke D’Abernon, taken on 21 November 2012. This was noted by the Select Committee.
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATION TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME
The Committee is asked to monitor progress on the implementation of recommendations from previous meetings, and to review its Forward Work Programme. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses: None.
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. A question was raised about whether a greater number of environmental issues should be considered in the next year. The Committee was informed that it was necessary to find an appropriate balance in relation to the items within its remit and that its resources were being applied to scrutinise and develop on a strategic level. It was highlighted that the Committee had addressed the water management strategy, recycling units, the cycling strategy, the Community Infrastructure Levy, Surrey Wildlife Trust and was currently awaiting the report of the Countryside Task Group. The Committee was advised that it would now be able to consider matters around waste management, now that planning permission had been given for the Eco Park.
2. Members requested that consideration be given to the Council developing a draft aviation strategy, given the geographic proximity of Gatwick and Heathrow to Surrey. The Cabinet Member informed the Committee that this strategy would be developed following the publication of the findings of the national public consultation currently being undertaken.
3. The Committee was asked to note the progress of its Task Groups. The Countryside Management Task Group would be presenting a report at the Committee meeting on 6 March 2013. The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Task Group would present a verbal update on 6 March 2013. Following the development of the Highways Maintenance Five Year Programme there would be no further meetings of the Prioritisation of Highways and Highways Structures Maintenance Task Group. The Improving the Quality and Coordination of the work of Utilities Companies Task Group was presenting its findings to Committee as an agenda item at today’s meeting. The Chairman of the Task Group stated that following further discussion with officers a decision would be made regarding how and when the Task Group would reconvene to follow up on its work.
Recommendations:
None
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
Select Committee Next Steps:
None.
|
|
|
SURREY HIGHWAYS - NEW CARRIAGEWAY INVESTMENT PLAN
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses:
Jason Russell (Assistant Director, Highways) Keith Scott (Planned Maintenance Team Manager) Jim Harker (General Manager, May Gurney)
John Furey (Cabinet Member for Transport & Environment)
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Chairman of the Select Committee introduced the report and outlined that it was a progress update following the feedback provided by the Environment & Transport Select Committee on 8 November 2012. The report did not cover details of the budget settlement for Highways as these decisions would be taken at the meeting of Cabinet on 5 February 2013. It was proposed that following approval of the budget, the Select Committee hold an extraordinary meeting to consider an updated report.
2. The Assistant Director, Highways outlined the intentions behind the development of the Five Year Investment Plan. It was recognised that Surrey had to take action to address the poor condition of its highways network whilst also meeting its requirements to make greater efficiency savings. The Five Year Investment would set out new internal and contractual arrangements, and ensure that savings could be made without impacting on the work being undertaken to address the condition of the network.
3. The Committee was informed that the Five Year Investment Plan set out a range of changes that ensure that savings could be achieved. The majority of savings would come from the implementation of longer term planning. This would ensure better resource utilisation and allow May Gurney and Highways to co-ordinate their work in a more effective manner. It was emphasised that this would require a more “hands-off” approach from the County Council, as making late changes to the plan would reduce the savings benefits.
4. The Committee had a discussion around the implementation of longer term planning, and raised an issue that the definitions outlined by the Road Condition Index (RCi) might not align with public perception of the condition of a road. Officers confirmed that the RCi definitions were based on technical assessments from both machine and visual inspections, and were also based on evidence of structural failure. It was stated that the public road-shows undertaken in 2012 had been intended to address these issues. Officers stated that they were confident that the roads identified in the five year programme were appropriate and would also improve public perception.
5. Members expressed doubt over the assurances of officers and considered that the roadshows had raised unrealistic levels of expectation which would not be met. It was raised that the roadshows had not been discussed with Members prior to their launch. Members sought the assurances of officers that they would be better consulted prior to any similar initiatives taking place.
6. The Committee discussed the role of the Local Committees in relation to the roads identified by the five year works programme, and emphasised to officers that the programme would need to be set out with the full consultation and agreement of Local Committees. Officers outlined that it was important for any changes to the ... view the full minutes text for item 7/13 |
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses:
Pat Frost (Chairman of the Task Group)
Lucy Monie (Operations Group Manager) Matthew Jezzard (Traffic and Street Works Manager) Kevin Orledge (Street Works Manager)
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Chairman of the Improving the Quality and Coordination of the work of Utilities Companies Task Group introduced the report and its findings. It was emphasised that many of the difficulties around addressing the issues with utilities companies were related to legislation. The proposal to create a permit scheme, as outlined in Item 8a, had been a direct outcome of the Task Group’s recommendations.
2. The Chairman of the Task Group praised the Scrutiny Officer, Tom Pooley, who had co-ordinated the Task Group’s work and prepared the final report. The Committee was also asked to note the Task Group’s thanks for the Surrey Highways officers that had worked with them.
3. The Select Committee fully endorsed the recommendations and actions proposed by the Task Group and welcomed its findings, expressing the view that they offered a number of viable options to improve the co-ordination of works on Surrey’s Highways.
4. The Chairman of the Task Group suggested it would be important for the Select Committee to monitor implementation of the report’s recommendations, and that the method and timescales for this would be determined following further discussions with officers.
Recommendations:
1. That a clear and accessible internal and external communications policy with regards to the publicising of street works be developed.
2. That the process for monitoring and reporting the quality of street works be made more cost effective and efficient for the County Council, and have greater incentive for utilities companies to complete their works on time and to a high standard.
3. That proposals to introduce a ‘common’ permitting scheme with East Sussex County Council, to co-ordinate all works on the Surrey County Council Highway, be endorsed.
4. That the processes around the planning, monitoring and execution of street works, particularly including areas with special conditions such as Conservation Areas, be made more effective and robust.
Actions/Further Information to be Provided:
None.
Select Committee Next Steps:
Pending discussions with officers, the Task Group will decide how to monitor implementation of its recommendations and will present its findings at a future meeting of the Select Committee. |
|
|
SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL PERMIT SCHEME
To consider whether Surrey County Council should proceed with a permit scheme in collaboration with East Sussex County Council, prior to submission of the proposed scheme to the Department for Transport for approval.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses: Pat Frost (Chairman of the Task Group)
Lucy Monie (Operations Group Manager) Matthew Jezzard (Traffic and Street Works Manager) Kevin Orledge (Street Works Manager)
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Committee was presented with the proposal for the introduction of a Permit Scheme. Officers informed the Committee that the Task Group’s work had been a useful exercise in identifying how Surrey Highways could ensure it was able to implement improvements within current legislation. It was felt that the Permit Scheme would offer practical improvements in how street works were communicated with residents and how work was coordinated on a regional level.
2. The Committee raised a question as to why the proposal was for a new scheme when two were already in effect in London and Kent. Officers outlined that the Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA) specified three different kinds of scheme: a common scheme, a joint scheme and an independent scheme. Kent operated under an independent scheme that prevented any other local authority from joining it, whilst the wording of the ‘Common’ London scheme prevented Surrey from joining this scheme. The Committee was informed that the common permit scheme under development for Surrey (with East Sussex) would give other South East local authorities the opportunity to join it at a later stage. It was suggested that this information be included in the final Cabinet report.
3. The Committee asked officers what further work could be done to provide greater accountability to utilities companies, and what efforts were in place to ensure they were financially incentivised. Officers stated that monitoring was being undertaken and improvement plans could be taken out against companies; however there was not considerable scope to alter the financial incentives in place as these were outlined in current legislation. Fines for over-running work could be pursued by the local authority, but there were no means by which to directly fine utility companies for poor quality reinstatements.
4. The Committee discussed the possibility of encouraging local groups to monitor the progress and quality of street works being undertaken by utilities companies. A question was raised as to whether a percentage of any fines accrued could be paid to the groups who had taken responsibility for monitoring works. This was noted by officers as an area for possible future development.
5. It was raised that the permit scheme would provide a greater level of detail about what kinds of works were being undertaken, and the Committee asked whether this would ensure that Surrey Highways would be able to ensure their post-works inspections were appropriate to the specific types of work.
6. The Committee was asked to note that a permit scheme would be applicable not only to private contractors, but to works undertaken on behalf of or by Surrey Highways as well. This would ensure that local residents would be able to receive notice of major works 3 months in advance of the work being undertaken. Members welcomed this and stated that ... view the full minutes text for item 8/13a |
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Committee will be held at 10am on 6 March 2013. Minutes: The next meeting of the Select Committee will be held on 7 February 2013.</AI10>
|