Agenda and minutes
PDF 61 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 John Beckett, Victoria Young and Pat Frost.
Nikki Barton acted as a substitute for John Beckett. |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: 6 MARCH 2013
To agree the minutes as a true record of the meeting. Minutes: The minutes were agreed as an accurate reflection 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 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 (15 July 2013). 2. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (12 July 2013). 3. The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and one petition has been received from the supporters of the Fortyfoot Road Safety Campaign:
We, the undersigned, hereby petition Surrey County Council to effect two actions on a major pressing health & safety issue. It is also an urgent matter of moral responsibility with a clear duty of care for the Council to:
1. To make sound repair to the craters in Fortyfoot Road, Leatherhead without delay. 2. To adopt the road permanently at the next County Council Cabinet meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: No public or Member questions had been received. One petition was received by the Committee:
“We, the undersigned, hereby petition Surrey County Council to effect two actions on a major, pressing health and safety issue. It is also an urgent matter of moral responsibility with a clear duty of care for the Council to:
1. Make sound repairs to the craters in Fortyfoot Road, Leatherhead without delay; and 2. Adopt the road permanently at the next County Council Cabinet meeting.”
Declarations of interest:
None.
Witnesses:
Mark Francis, Chairman, Fortyfoot Road Safety Campaign Tom Francis, Local Resident Susan Szepietowski, Parent, Woodlands School Victoria Szepietowski, Pupil, Woodlands School
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. A response to the petition was provided to the Fortyfoot Road Safety Campaign Group, which can be found attached to the minutes of this meeting.
2. The witnesses wished to make the Committee fully aware of the issues and history of the road. They explained that 50 years ago the Highways Authority had agreed to adopt Fortyfoot Road, however this had not been completed and the road had since fallen into disrepair causing injury to residents. The Fortyfoot Road Safety Campaign Group explained the layout of the road with three visual aids, showing where different organisations including Woodlands School and the Beeches Care Home were positioned.
3. Witnesses stressed the impact the current condition of the road had on students at Woodlands School. The school is for children with severe learning difficulties, with a majority of students using wheelchairs. It was explained that three students had injured spines and their movement needed to be carefully managed, however the current state of the road meant the children were being moved around significantly in the school buses and were afraid of travelling to school.
4. The Chair of the Fortyfoot Road Safety Campaign summarised that the Group would like a long-term permanent solution to the issues highlighted by the petition, which would be for the County Council to adopt the road so it could be repaired. He presented the Chairman of the Committee with the petition signed by 2275 people requesting that the road be adopted by Surrey County Council.
5. The Chairman of the Select Committee explained the Committee had no power to make a decision, however they did have three options – to note the petition, refer the matter to the Mole Valley Local Committee, or refer the matter to the Cabinet Member for Transport, Highways and Environment and request an update on options for further action.
6. The Chairman provided the Committee with an overview of the rules for adopting roads. He explained that all people with a property frontage on the road would need to agree to the adoption and each would be required to pay their share of the repair costs required to bring it up to the standard for adoption, and that this cost would be relative to the frontage of the property. If the road was deemed dangerous then the County Council ... view the full minutes text for item 31/13 |
|
|
RESPONSES FROM THE CABINET TO ISSUES REFERRED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE
A response has been received from the Cabinet Member in relation to the recommendations of the Select Committees Countryside Management Task Group. 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 Countryside Management Task Group. This response had been discussed at the Cabinet meeting on 26 March 2013.
2. The response was noted and it was agreed to be considered as part of agenda item 8.
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 meetings until January 2014 and were asked to provide comment.
2. The Chairman explained that after the Committee Induction on 19 June 2013 Members’ priorities were ranked with Highways Maintenance and Project Horizon being the Committee’s first priority, followed by waste and recycling, flooding and congestion. The Scrutiny Officer confirmed many of the priorities were already scheduled on the Forward Work Programme for the coming year and that he was in discussion with officers regarding when to schedule flooding, customer services and aviation on the Forward Work Programme.
3. The Chairman explained that he hoped to use the Forward Work Programme to ensure discussions at future meetings were focused and Members questions were answered by the right officers. The Chairman asked Members to discuss their questions for the items programmed for the September meeting.
4. Members requested information on what concessionary fares were mandatory for the County Council to provide, the start and finish times for concessionary fares, and the use of Oyster cards in Surrey. In addition, they requested information on concessionary fares for students. Specifically, whether there was any scope for these to be extended for use on trains.
5. For the item on the Surrey Rail Strategy Members requested the document consider rail in Tandridge and the effect that the electrification of rails in Reigate & Banstead would have on the local road network due to level crossings in the area. Members requested the strategy consider the issue of buses to train stations as many did not run after 6pm and this increased parking problems at stations. The Committee additionally requested clarification on which stations and services were part of the London Zone 6.
6. It was raised by Members that a meeting with all public transport providers in Surrey would encourage a unified approach, and this may be something that should be considered in the future. The Committee furthermore suggested that rail subsidies be reviewed in the near future.
7. For the item on Water Quality scheduled for the September meeting Members suggested they would like to scrutinise officer process. They queried whether a breakdown of the water quality from each water company in Surrey could be produced, which could be scrutinised by the Committee at a future meeting. The Cabinet Member confirmed the aim was to have all the water companies aligned to the County Councils five year programme, and at the time it was hoped Thames Water would be by October 2013.
8. The Winter Maintenance Task Group was confirmed to be meeting the following week with Councillors David Harmer, David Goodwin and Stephen Cooksey as Members.
Recommendations:
None.
Actions/further information to be provided:
Members were requested to consider items scheduled for future meetings and what they would like to discuss during the meeting. This would ensure appropriate officers were present at the meetings and the reports considered Members concerns.
Committee ... view the full minutes text for item 33/13 |
|
|
PROJECT HORIZON BRIEFING
Minutes: Witnesses:
Mark Borland, Projects and Contracts Group Manager, Highways
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Projects and Contracts Group Manager provided the Committee with an overview of progress to date in relation to Project Horizon’s key objectives. The Project was a £120 million investment plan which had been receiving a lot of national recognition to date. It was a forward looking scheme being reviewed every six months to allow for proper coordination with utilities and drainage companies to ensure roads were not being dug up several times in a year.
2. The aim was to have roads resurfaced within five to six days, with eight gangs working at one time across Surrey. Each road was being looked at individually to ensure a proper solution was being implemented which would provide the best long term solution. The Projects and Contracts Group Manager stated that the increase in major maintenance funding from £10m in 2010 to £20m in 2013, to rebuild the worst roads in the County, would enable 60 miles per year be rebuilt instead of only 20 miles per year.
3. The Project Team were in the process of developing a carriageway programme which would be delivered once Project Horizon had been completed. The programme would consider solutions to 7% of poor condition roads which were not being resurfaced as part of Project Horizon.
4. Members questioned the 10 year design life guarantee as there were roads in Surrey which were having to be resurfaced after three and half years. The officer confirmed that the 10 year guarantee was for roads which had had major works completed on it and all other road would received a warranty for the workmanship which lasted for two years.
5. The Committee queried whether the Project was achieving its aims, and how enforceable the five year embargo for utilities companies to dig up the roads, except in emergency situations, was. The officer confirmed the Project had achieved 12% savings to date, with the aim of it increasing to 15% by the end of the year, and 20% savings in 2014. The Project Team were working with utilities companies to ensure the roads were not being dug up after being resurfaced. The County Council had powers to tow away parked cars in areas where works were planned, and in addition, the County Council had received permission from the Department for Transport to implement a permit scheme to better control utility works in Surrey.
6. The Projects and Contracts Group Manager confirmed the Project Team would be happy to consider roads Local Committees would like to fund, but would be looking for a like-for-like replacement of roads on the project list. The overall plan for Project Horizon would be scheduled in the winter of 2013 and in January 2014 the team will work with local members to form local plans.
7. Members raised concerns that Year 1 schemes were starting in November 2013 during winter weather conditions. The Projects and Contracts Group Manager confirmed ... view the full minutes text for item 34/13 |
|
|
COUNTRYSIDE MANAGEMENT TASK GROUP: REPORT ON PROGRESS
Purpose of Item: Performance Management/Policy development and review.
To consider progress towards implementation of the Task Group’s recommendations, which were agreed by the Select Committee on 6 March 2013. Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Lisa Creaye-Griffin, Countryside Group Manager
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Countryside Group Manager explained that a transformation programme was underway which sought to deliver and enhance the countryside service. There were five main areas of work covered by this programme; reviewing the partnership contract with Surrey Wildlife Trust, reviewing the smallholding and farm estate, refreshing the rural and countryside partnership working, assessing the rural economy, and enhancing countryside tourism in Surrey.
2. Members expressed concerns that requesting a peer review from another Local Authority was not the best approach for assessing Surrey’s the smallholdings and farm estate. It was the general view among the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Board that Local Authorities should not manage these estates. Members suggested the best approach would be to do an internal review and recruit relevant consultants, or to conduct a 360° review with all the tenants and relevant organisations. The Countryside Group Manager stated that it was felt a peer review would be useful, especially by a Local Authority who managed their estate well, and that Property Services were assisting with setting this up.
3. The Committee queried the situation with Chesterton Humberts as the view was expressed that communication with tenants was at an all time low. The Countryside Group Manager confirmed the contract with the organisation was up for renewal and would be reviewed.
4. The AONB Board was discussed by the Committee and concerns were expressed that the County Council was perceived to fund most of the board’s budget. It was confirmed that it was a joint committee with all Borough and District councils in the area having a seat on the board, and that the local authority partners contributed 25% of the Board’s core budget, with Defra being responsible for the remaining 75%. Surrey County Council’s contribution was stated as being 13% of the overall core budget.
5. The Countryside Group Manager confirmed a meeting was being organised in September for all major stakeholders of the Surrey countryside to develop a shared vision for the countryside and shared. This would help in the establishment of the Surrey Nature Partnership, and assist with the partnership working aspect of the countryside plan. In addition, a registry was being drawn up of all partnership organisations involved in the Surrey countryside.
6. Members requested a thorough review of Surrey Wildlife Trust be completed as soon as possible as they were 11 years into a 50 year contract. The Cabinet Member confirmed a review would be completed however it had been delayed due to a number of issues which had now been resolved. Key to this was final approval of the Surrey Hills Trademark Licence Agreement, which was due to be signed off next week.
7. Members expressed their disappointment that the action plan was not as radical as was intended when the Task Group was first formed and that there had been delays in its implementation.
Recommendations:
None.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None
Committee ... view the full minutes text for item 35/13 |
|
|
PROGRESS TOWARDS IMPLEMENTING THE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY (CIL) IN SURREY
Purpose of Item: Policy development and review.
To update the Committee as to progress towards implementation of CIL in Surrey’s Borough and Districts. Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Paul Sanderson, Minerals & Waste Policy Team Manager
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Minerals & Waste Policy Team Manager confirmed that Elmbridge Borough Council had begun collecting CIL monies, and a further eight Borough and Districts were in the process of adopting CIL. To start collecting CIL councils were required to have an up-to-date local plan. Four councils were still to adopt up-to-date plans.
2. It was explained that from April 2014 there would be restrictions on how Section 106 could be used even if Boroughs and Districts had not introduced CIL. However, the government were proposing to delay this until April 2015 to give councils more time to introduce CIL. CIL spending would be more flexible than under Section 106, although it would take some time to introduce and full receipts would not start to be received until 2017/18.
3. The County Council was working was Boroughs and Districts to provide evidence of necessary infrastructure through the production of Local Transport Strategies. The Minerals & Waste Policy Team Manager confirmed the final decision of how CIL receipts were spent would be with the Boroughs and Districts, however the County Council saw CIL as an opportunity for further funding for important infrastructure projects.
4. Members queried whether the County Council should expect a change in the amount of funding it will receive through CIL compared to Section 106. The officer stated that Districts and Boroughs would need to be accountable and publish how they use CIL receipts. There was no reason to suggest funding would not still be received for infrastructure projects such as schools, and roads which are high priorities for the public.
5. The Committee queried whether large developments would provide Section 106 or CIL funding. It was confirmed that Section 106 could still be used after the adoption of CIL if the infrastructure required was directly related to a specific site. The relative use of Section 106 with CIL would depend on the circumstances of each development and whether or not major strategic sites were specifically mentioned in the CIL charging schedule.
6. Members queried what the implications of a Borough or District not having an up-to-date Core Strategy would be. It was stated that in this situation the adoption of a charging schedule and the collection of CIL could be legally challenged. The government recommends that either CIL follows the adoption of a local plan or that the local plan and CIL adoption processes run concurrently.
7. Members asked whether funding could be gained from developments beyond the boundaries of Surrey. It was stated that authorities could negotiate funding as long as they had a good case to do so, with the potential for money to be collected from one area and spent in another.
Recommendations:
1. That the Select Committee supports the ongoing work of developing and agreeing local transport strategies in order to:
a. Support the growth identified in Borough and District core strategies and; b. Help secure additional funding from the growing ... view the full minutes text for item 36/13 |
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Committee will be held at 10am on 11 September 2013. Minutes: It was noted that the next meeting of the Environment & Transport Select Committee would be held on 11 September 2013 at 10am. |