Agenda and minutes
PDF 67 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN. View directions
Contact: Tom Pooley or Victoria Lower
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Minutes: Apologies were received from Mark Brett-Warburton. Lynne Hack acted as a substitute. |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: 10 JANUARY 2013 & 7 FEBRUARY 2013
To agree the minutes as a true record of the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes were agreed as an accurate reflection of the meetings. |
|
|
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 interest. |
|
|
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 (28 February 2013). 2. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (27 February 2013). 3. The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received. Minutes: There were no questions or petitions. |
|
|
RESPONSES FROM THE CABINET TO ISSUES REFERRED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE
A response is included following recommendations made to Cabinet on 5 February 2013. Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses: None.
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Committee was asked to note the Cabinet response to the recommendations of the Utilities Task Group. This response had been discussed at the Cabinet meeting on 5 February 2013.
2. Members commented that there was anecdotal evidence that indicated the work of the Utilities Task Group had made a positive impact, and notification of major works was showing improvement.
Recommendations:
None.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
Committee Next Steps:
None.
|
|
|
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. The Committee was presented with a list of proposed items for the next municipal year and asked to provide comment.
2. It was highlighted that the proposed item on Surrey’s Aviation Strategy should take into account the ongoing government review on aviation. The Chairman also commented that it was recognised by the current portfolio holder for Environment & Transport that the retention of aviation at both Gatwick and Heathrow was vital for Surrey’s economy. It was confirmed that the item on aviation strategy would also take helicopters under consideration.
Recommendations:
None.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
Committee Next Steps:
None.
|
|
To consider updates on the follows items:
Item 7a – Highways Strategic Peer Review and Service Improvement Priorities 2013/2014.
Item 7b – Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Additional documents: |
|
|
HIGHWAYS STRATEGIC PEER REVIEW AND SERVICE IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES 2013/14 - BRIEFING NOTE
Minutes: Witnesses: Jason Russell, Assistant Director, Highways
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Assistant Director for Highways provided a briefing on the strategic peer review recently undertaken by Highways & Infrastructure. This review had been undertaken in collaboration with the Local Government Association. In November 2012 the peer review had scrutinised the service’s improvement plans alongside a range of evidence. Following this a number of recommendations and observations were provided for consideration. The Committee was informed that there had been a delay in scheduling an action planning workshop following the review, but it was anticipated that this action plan would be shared with the Committee at its July 2013 meeting.
2. The Committee was told that the feedback from the strategic peer review had identified that the direction of travel regarding service improvements was positive. There had been a recommendation concerning the clarity of vision regarding the service improvements and whether these had been adequately communicated on every level. It had been also recognised that while the proposed changes were innovative, there were questions regarding whether due consideration had been given to the potential risks involved.
3. The Assistant Director for Highways outlined that a challenge had been presented regarding local communications, and the organisational capability regarding this. The view was expressed that the service would be looking to explore better collective working with both District & Boroughs and Parish Councils. There was work being undertaken with the area teams to address how communication processes worked. The Committee was adamant that in order not to repeat previous mistakes, any direct contact between the service and any lower tier of local government, should have the agreement of both the local member and the Local Area Committee.
4. The Committee was informed that the strategic peer review had identified key performance areas which required improvement, including tree maintenance and gully maintenance. The Committee proposed that an item on gully maintenance and replacement be brought to a future meeting. Members raised concerns that little consideration was given to the long term impacts of poor gully management, and highlighted the need to move to a more preventative form of maintenance.
5. The Assistant Director for Highways informed the Committee that there had been discussions around the use of the South East 7 (SE7) as performance peers. This would include looking at how satisfaction, costs and network condition, compared across the South East. There would also be work to collaborate on staff development programmes through the SE7.
6. Members raised a query regarding the proposed changes to the Surrey Priority Network (SPN) and when these would be completed. The Assistant Director for Highways confirmed that these changes were being undertaken in a phased manner, as it was recognised that it would be too great a risk to implement them all in April 2013. It was anticipated that these changes would be completed by September 2014.
7. Members asked whether Highways would be making changes to the reporting systems for road defects. It was confirmed that the ... view the full minutes text for item 21/13a |
|
|
COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY (CIL)
Minutes: Witnesses: Paul Sanderson, Minerals and Waste Team Manager (And CIL project manager)
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Committee was provided with an update regarding the progress of the introduction of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). It was confirmed that Elmbridge Borough Council would be introducing its CIL charges from April 2013. It was anticipated that when fully in effect this would generate approximately £2.4 million CIL funding per annum. It was anticipated that there would be CIL charging schedules in place across all Surrey district and boroughs by 2014.
2. The Minerals and Waste Team Manager outlined the key focus was around agreeing infrastructure spending priorities with boroughs and districts to inform the allocation of CIL monies. Surrey Future had been identified as being a key partnership initiative in identifying where infrastructure funding should be spent. The Committee was informed that the County Council would work with each of the District & Boroughs to seek to agree a five year infrastructure delivery programme, that could then form the focus for potential funding including CIL.
3. The Chairman raised a question regarding the impact of Suitable Alternative Natural Green Spaces (SANGS) on CIL funding. It was confirmed that SANGS were legally recognised as having priority with regards to the funding, and that discussions were taking place with the Districts & Borough Councils where this was likely to be a concern.
4. Members queried who held the responsibility for the CIL funding. The Minerals and Waste Team Manager confirmed that the District & Borough Council would be the collecting authority and so would carry the responsibility of assigning the funding. However, it was also recognised that the County Council was a key partner, and officers expected that any decisions would be made with the County Council’s views taken into consideration. The Committee commented that making decisions regarding CIL through the Local Committees would help facilitate this partnership working.
5. Members questioned whether the CIL Task Group could explore how the local transport strategies, local committees and CIL funding interacted. It was suggested that the views of Local Committees would be very important when decisions were made regarding infrastructure spending priorities, particularly through the development of transport strategies. Progress on the preparation of local transport strategies could be collated and presented to the Select Committee.
6. Members asked for clarification on what constituted a neighbourhood development plan. It was confirmed that the definition of a neighbourhood development plan was identified in the national regulations (The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012). It had to be developed by a Town or Parish Council or legally constituted neighbourhood forum, and then accepted by the relevant District & Borough Council before being put forward for independent examination. A neighbourhood plan could only be adopted if it was supported by over 50% of those voting, determined through a neighbourhood referendum.
7. Members raised concerns that the CIL charging sheets would be different across District & Boroughs, and that there were not set processes about joint working. A question was raised ... view the full minutes text for item 21/13b |
|
|
STREET LIGHTING PFI CONTRACT - PROGRESS REPORT
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services
This report provides an overview on the progress of the Surrey Lighting Services (a consortium of Skanska Infrastructure Services and John Laing Investments) contract after the first 3 years of operation both in terms of the day-to-day maintenance/fault identification and repair and the 5-year column replacement programme.
Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses: Paul Wheadon, Commercial and Performance Team Manager Simon Woodford, Skanska
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Committee was provided with a progress report of the Street Lighting PFI Contract. Officers informed the Committee that the Street Light replacement programme was anticipated to finish 8-10 months earlier than originally scheduled, with 60,000 columns having been replaced. Officers highlighted a few key areas: the replacement of cast iron lights had not been covered in the contract, and there were occasions when privately owned roads had identified inventory errors. It was also highlighted that the majority of residential roads had now had the street lights replaced.
2. Officers commented that the performance of this contract was considered good when compared to similar local authorities. The Committee was informed that the processes in identifying faults had made significant improvements, with regular light scouting being undertaken. It was the case that when the fault lay with the electrical network it could prove difficult to manage, as ownership lay with the Designated Network Operator (DNO), who had a 30 day target to carry out repairs. However, the view was expressed that Skanska had put in place a process whereby they communicated on a weekly basis with DNOs about outstanding repairs, as well as a post work inspection being undertaken. As a consequence, this had improved performance and shortened the time in which the repairs were being undertaken.
3. The Chairman asked the Commercial and Performance Team Manager to comment on what key elements of learning from the contract and its management would be taken forward. Officers commented that being co-located in the same office had facilitated better joint-working. Highlighted in this instance was the management of conservation areas. It was commented that, despite the contractual risk lying with the Council, a joint approach had been taken to finding an appropriate solution to issues raised by conservation areas. Officers also identified that they were regularly monitoring performance, but doing so in a transparent and positive manner.
4. Members raised concerns that communication with residents had sometimes been misleading. The view was expressed that although communication was good in general, it often failed to identify exemptions within the street lighting replacement program to residents. Officers commented that they had reviewed communications recently, as an issue had arisen regarding confusion over the lights being tested after installation. The letter sent to residents now included a more detailed explanation of what happens to test the lights post installation. Officers also confirmed that a different letter was being used to offer additional design options to private residential roads.
5. The Committee raised a question regarding the willingness of District & Borough councils to pay additional costs where specific designs had been requested. Officers commented that the designs had been identified in advance and this had helped in such cases. In most instances it had been the case that lights were able to be replaced on a like-for-like basis, but there had been a few ... view the full minutes text for item 22/13 |
|
|
HIGHWAY TREE MAINTENANCE
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services and Budgets
To update the Select Committee on tree maintenance following the recommendations given at the November 2012 Environment & Transport Select Committee.
Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses: Lucy Monie, Operations Group Manager
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Committee was informed that 90% of the current Tree Maintenance work undertaken was focused on risk management. It was reported that current budget pressures meant the priority was managing risk rather than eradicating defects. The Committee heard that the current demand exceeded capacity and that Highways & Infrastructure had responded by increasing the resources assigned to tree maintenance. The intention was to resolve the outstanding backlog by April 2013.
2. Officers confirmed that conversations were still being undertaken with District & Borough Councils, regarding tree maintenance being undertaken on a more localised level. There was work being undertaken to explore how this option could be made more attractive as it is not sensible that such decisions are made at county level.
3. Members expressed disappointment at the progress made in devolving tree maintenance to a District & Borough level. It was highlighted that Surrey Priority Network (SPN) surveys would assist in this, and allow the District & Borough Councils to identify areas where additional work could be funded. It was confirmed that some areas had been identified where this was being considered and offers were currently being constructed. where only around 1,600 trees across the county are affected, from more routine tree maintenance, in discussions with the Districts and Boroughs.
4. One Member raised a question regarding the management of small scale pruning and the means by which these issues could be identified. it was confirmed by Officers that such matters could be raised through the relevant County Highways Officer, but also noted that such work was on an ad hoc basis and outside the work programme. It was noted that there was potential to do such work in the current contractual arrangements, but there was currently no funding in place with which to do so.
5. The Chairman commented that Highway Tree Maintenance needed to be devolved to a local level, and that it would be beneficial for Highways & Infrastructure to begin working with a small number of Local Committees with some funding allocated to a local level. It should also be possible to separate entirely the cosmetic work of pollarding, where only around 1,600 trees across the county are affected, from routine maintenance, in discussions with the Districts and Boroughs. It was also suggested that once individual, successful examples could be provided, then more District & Boroughs Councils would consider taking on the responsibility for Highway Tree Maintenance.
Recommendations:
That the Committee receive a further progress report on Highway Tree Maintenance in autumn 2013, where they would expect to see examples of the progress made in devolving the work and funding to a local level.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
Committee Next Steps:
None.
|
|
|
SURREY LOCAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY & SUSTAINABLE DRAINAGE APPROVING BODY
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services and Budgets/ Policy Development and Review
To provide an update on the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) regarding the local strategy and the Sustainable Drainage Approving Body (SAB).
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses: Deborah Fox, Strategy and Commissioning Team Manager BavaSathan, Strategy and Commissioning Manager, Sustainable Drainage Approval Body (SAB)
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Committee was informed that the report outlined the results of the consultation, and details on the proposed Sustainable Drainage Approval Body (SAB). It was noted that there had been a positive public response with regards to the consultation. Officers also highlighted that there had been a number of positive conversations with key risk management partners such as the Highways Agency The Committee was informed there had been a low response from local businesses.
2. Officers outlined that residents had expressed a number of concerns around heavy rainfall and flash floods. A significant number of comments had also been received regarding road drainage and Surrey County Council’s need to address this.
3. The Committee was informed that the Surrey Flood Risk Partnership Board was making efforts to ensure that it was engaging with all District & Borough Councils. The intention would be to work together with all partners in setting up the SAB; the main function of which would be to approve drainage systems for planning. Officers outlined work being undertaken with the South East 7 (SE7) to develop guidance on Sustainable Urban Drainage (SuDS). The Committee was informed that the current timescales for implementation was for the SAB to be fully operational by April 2014, with a six month lead-in time in advance of this.
4. Members highlighted the role of the Environment Agency as a statutory consultee in planning, and suggested that the SAB could fulfil some of this statutory function in providing its views in relation to planning decisions. The view was expressed that little consideration was being given to the impact of building works on drainage and flooding. It was felt by some Members that the Environment Agency failed to take into account historical local issues around flooding when providing advice to planning authorities. It was suggested that Parish Council flood forums would also be useful in providing input, and this could be managed in part through Local Committees.
5. It was suggested by the Committee that that the District & Borough Councils should be required to seek comment and approval from Surrey County Council in its capacity as lead flood risk authority. Officers clarified that current legislation did not require this to be the case. It was also confirmed that the lead flood risk authority were only required to look at planning with reference to surface drainage and not specific issues around rivers or other waterways. Members pointed out that ‘not required’ did not mean that it could not be done and as SCC is the Lead Authority; they should therefore lead.
6. The Chairman raised concerns that there was a greater need to take the initiative in defining the role of the SAB, particularly in relation to its position as a statutory body in the planning authority process. Members commented that this could ... view the full minutes text for item 24/13 |
|
|
DRAFT SURREY RAIL STRATEGY
Purpose of the report: Policy Development and Review
To receive a presentation on the key areas of consideration with regards to Surrey’s proposed Rail Strategy.
Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses: Paul Millin, Travel and Transport Group Manager Stephen Bennett, Arup
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Committee was given a presentation on the work being undertaken to develop a rail strategy for Surrey County Council. A copy of this presentation is included as an additional supplement to these minutes. Officers informed the Committee that an opportunity to take a more proactive approach to developing a rail strategy than in previous years. It was recognised that Surrey had a comparatively small amount of influence, but that there would be long-term benefits for Surrey’s economy and residents. These considerations would inform a key part of the work related to Surrey Future.
2. The Committee was informed that Network Rail’s control periods worked in five year cycles. The current period 2014-2019 was largely committed and agreed in the main part, but there was an opportunity to have strategic input in the 2019-2024 control period. It was highlighted that the franchise renewal of South West Trains was due in 2017.
3. The Committee was told that four objectives had been idenifited in developing the rail strategy – these were global competiveness, economic growth, the environment and population growth. Officers informed the Committee that the first part of the study had investigated key issues and presented its findings in December 2012. Amongst these was overcrowding on the South West mainline into Waterloo, and access to stations within local employment area.
4. An options paper was presented in February 2013, outlining 30-40 options. Each was provided with a rationale, the changes that would be required, the costs, benefits and timescale in which this option would take place.
5. The view was expressed by officers that rail was not always the best option for resolving transport and infrastructure pressures, and that any strategy would need to take a number of other solutions into consideration.
6. The Committee was then given a detailed overview of a number of the possible options Surrey could choose to explore as part of its rail strategy. Included in these were an orbital service link between Gatwick and Guildford, an increase in services to and from Waterloo, improved access to airports and station improvements. The Committee was informed that there were ongoing discussions with Network Rail about an increase in services going into Waterloo, and there had been the suggestion that there was the possibility of this as a medium term upgrade. The draft Rail Strategy would be finalised upon clarification of this point in the following weeks.
7. Officers outlined to the Committee that the public consultation period would take place following Surrey County Council guidance, with a 3 month public consultation period on the draft Rail Strategy. The Council would also seek to work closely with partners such as the District & Borough Councils, Transport for London and other rail providers.
8. Members raised a question regarding cross-border working and development. Officers confirmed that there had been efforts made to engage other local ... view the full minutes text for item 25/13 |
|
|
TASK GROUP REPORT: COUNTRYSIDE MANAGEMENT
Purpose of the report: Policy Development and Review
The Select Committee is asked to endorse the recommendations of the Task Group, which seek to ensure that the management of Surrey’s countryside can be conducted in a financially sustainable manner.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses: Simon Gimson, Task Group Chairman Lisa Creaye-Griffin, Countryside Group Manager
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Committee was asked to note that were two factual errors in the report: · In appendix 4, (p. 100) the SCC contribution to the Surrey Biodiversity Partnership should be £5,000 and not £18,000. The £18,000 is a combined figure for contributions to both the Surrey Biodiversity Records Centre and the Surrey Biodiversity Partnership. · In appendix 2, (p. 95) Janet Barton should read as Jill Barton.
2. The Task Group Chairman introduced the report on Countryside Management, and thanked the working group and external witnesses, as well as the officers who had supported the group. The Chairman of the Task Group outlined that the intention of the report was to highlight the key areas for review with reference to countryside management. The Committee was informed that there had not been an opportunity to consult with every stakeholder in the time available, but the first two recommendations had been formulated that would implement a closer and detailed review of countryside management in the near future.
3. The Committee was told that there was a further recommendation that a parallel review be undertaken regarding the County Council’s policy in relation to land-holding and identifying how to get the best value out of this area. The report had identified a number of areas where partnership working could be improved. A key element of the review was proposals to encourage joint working between smaller landowners. At present there are a number of ‘small’ operations taking place in the Surrey countryside and it was felt that this did not encourage efficiency. The Select Committee expressed the view that the encouragement of joint working between these parties would improve biodiversity and create new job opportunities.
4. It was suggested that a review of the Countryside Estate take into account the issue of damage to bridleways. It was noted that the recommendations of the report sought to manage access to the countryside on a broad basis.
5. Concern was expressed that the Member Asset Group had already considered a review of the contract between Surrey Wildlife Trust and Surrey County Council (recommendation 1). It was clarified that the proposals of the Task Group aimed to review a strategic vision as opposed to adopting a more piecemeal approach.
6. It was noted by the Committee that an asset management plan was still outstanding following a review of the existing Surrey Wildlife Trust contract in July 2011. It was requested that the current asset management plan be considered by the Committee following the 2013 elections.
7. Members were keen to stress that ensuring the retention of ‘value’ from the Council’s Small Holdings and Farm Estate (recommendation 2) did not just refer to financial aspects.
8. The Committee felt that proposals to review and refresh the Council’s approach to rural and countryside partnership working should clearly emphasise the fact that the County was not seeking to ‘take ... view the full minutes text for item 26/13 |
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Minutes: The Committee noted that this would be the last Committee meeting before the Local Elections in May 2013. Members expressed thanks to the Chairman for his contribution to the Select Committee.
It was noted that the next meeting of the Environment & Transport Select Committee would be a private induction meeting on 19 June 2013 at 10am. There would be a public meeting of the Committee on 19 July 2013 at 10am. |