Agenda and minutes
PDF 64 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN
Contact: Tom Pooley or Huma Younis
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Minutes: No apologies had been received.
|
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: 24 APRIL 2014
To agree the minutes as a true record of the meeting. Minutes: The minutes were agreed. |
|
|
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 none. |
|
|
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 6 June 2014). 2. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (Thursday 5 June 2014). 3. The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received. Minutes: One question had been received from Cllr Ian Beardsmore. A response is attached.
|
|
|
RESPONSES FROM THE CABINET TO ISSUES REFERRED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE
There are no responses to report. Minutes: There were no responses to report. |
|
|
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: Key points raised during the discussion:
1. Officers explained that the Customer Service Excellence Member Reference Group would have another meeting following up on recommendations made by the Group.
2. It was confirmed that the Highways for the Future Member Reference Group had held its first meeting.
3. The Chairman explained that there was an error in the Membership list of the Flooding Task Group and that Cllr Pat Frost was not a Member of the Task Group.
4. An update sheet was tabled in relation to the second item on the recommendations tracker regarding damage to County property.
|
|
|
Overview of Sustainable Transport Activities
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services
This report provides members with an overview of three key areas of activity to support sustainable transport in the County as part of measures to improve travel choice, tackle congestion, improve journey time reliability, and to support economic growth and health and wellbeing.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None
Witnesses:
Jason Russell, Assistant Director for Highways Keith Taylor, Chairman, Planning and Regulatory Committee Dominic Forbes, Planning and Development Group Manager Lesley Harding, Sustainability Group Manager Mike Goodman, Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The report was introduced by the Sustainability Group Manager who gave an overview of the key areas of sustainable transport the service was working to support and develop. The report covered the work of the Travel SMART programme and the electric vehicle sector. It was explained that major projects were ongoing in both Guildford and Sheerwater; and funding from 2015 would be channelled through the Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs).
2. Concerns were raised around towns receiving funding to help support sustainable transport activities. The Sustainability Group Manager explained that the focus of bids was priority economic towns although work was being done to spread funding to rural areas. A key issue was that LEP funding focused primarily on centres for economic growth , which tended to be predominantly urban centres. Members wanted to ensure that rural areas were not forgotten when discussions around transport funding took place.
3. Some members recognised that high costs of local transport provision were a barrier for residents. The Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning explained that a Local Transport Review Member Reference Group had been set up to look at issues around travel fares, which would also include options for ‘joining up’ different methods of transport.
4. A member of the Committee queried whether work had been done to improve parking facilities for bike users at stations. The Sustainability Group Manager stated that work was being done with rail companies to produce a rail strategy which would focus on improving connectivity and cycle parking.
5. Some Members felt that the report had an urban bias which did not take proper account of rural communities and the impact the lack of transport connectivity had upon young people. The Sustainability Group Manager recognised that there seemed to be an inclination towards funding for economic towns but confirmed this funding was decided by the LEPs. Partnership work was already being carried out with Hampshire and East Sussex to identify new ways of working.
6. It was confirmed that a response with details around current partnership working with regard to bus service provision, including the potential for working with Transport for London, would be shared with the Committee.
7. There was concern amongst the Committee that the benefits of the Travel SMART Journey Planner had not been publicised to businesses in Surrey.
8. A Member of the Committee pointed out that funding from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) was granted for sustainable transport measures in towns rather than rural villages. However, Officers were also congratulated on the positive impact LSTF funding had made on cycling infrastructure in towns such as Woking.
9. The Sustainability Group Manager explained that the project evaluation for the LSTF programme which is being undertaken focuses on a ... view the full minutes text for item 41/13 |
|
|
Cabinet Member Priorities
For the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding and the Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning to provide the Select Committee with a verbal update on cabinet member priorities.
Minutes: Declarations of interest: None
Witnesses:
John Furey, Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding Recovery Mike Goodman, Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. Both Cabinet Members presented their Cabinet member priorities to the Committee. It was explained that these would need signing of from the Leader before they could be widely shared with Members.
2. It was clarified that the Rail Strategy would be taken forward by the Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning and work with the LEPs would be taken forward by the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding Recovery. Collaboration between both Cabinet members had become increasingly important as partnership bids for funding were being put together.
Recommendations:
None
Actions/further information to be provided:
For the Cabinet Member priorities presentation to be circulated to the Committee once sign off had been agreed by the Leader.
Committee Next Steps:
None.
|
|
|
Utilities Task Group Recommendations and South East Permit Scheme (SEPS): Update Report
Purpose of the report: Policy Development and Review
The Select Committee is asked to review the further progress made on the recommendations of the Task Group, and to also review the performance of the South East Permit Scheme, to improve the co-ordination and quality of work of utilities companies in Surrey.
Minutes: Declarations of interest: None
Witnesses:
Jason Russell, Assistant Director for Highways Kevin Orledge, Streetworks Team Manager
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The report was introduced by the Streetworks Team Manager who explained the progress that had been made on each of the recommendations from the Utilities Task Group and the performance of the South East Permit Scheme to date.
2. With regards to Recommendation 1a, it was explained that there had been progress since the report was published and there was now a link to information on street works in Surrey which had been developed by Elgin. The Streetworks Team Manager commented that utilities companies were now lobbying Central Government directly due to costs of permit schemes. There was a possibility that Central Government may impose restrictions on conditions the County Council placed on utility companies through the permit scheme.
3. It was stated that the permit scheme had proved very successful to date, with Bracknell Forest and Wokingham both close to joining the scheme.
4. A Member queried how the Streetworks team were made aware of work being carried out without a permit. The Streetworks Team Manager explained that there were more Streetworks officers on the streets than ever before to ensure work was being carried out under a permit. There was also a roadworks app which allowed officers and residents to check which utilities works were ongoing in Surrey.
5. Members raised concerns over the large number of permits granted as emergency activities. The Streetworks Team Manager explained that the figures were slightly misleading as a majority of the emergency activities were pothole repairs carried out by the County Council.
6. Concerns were raised around the amount of time it had taken to implement certain recommendations. Members wanted more clarity around where officers were with completing recommendations.
7. It was stated that a list of current live permit applications were available through highways area managers. Although there was a low level of site inspections in comparison to the number of utilities work undertaken, street works officers focused on major works rather than minor works. Resource availability also had an impact on the number of inspections carried out.
8. The Assistant Director for Highways stated that an intended result of the permit scheme was to create and encourage good behaviour for utilities companies to operate within. This would mean that inspections would not have to be carried out regularly and officer resource could be saved.
9. Some Members felt that recommendation 4f should be reinstated. The Assistant Director for Highways explained that the recommendation had been suspended as there were concerns around potential liability.
10. The effects of utilities work on Project Horizon were discussed. It was stated that a road under Project Horizon could be excavated under an emergency permit but highways would ask that the road be re- enhanced to the correct standard.
11. It was suggested that conservation areas be included on street works maps held by the County Council. Officers agreed that ... view the full minutes text for item 43/13 |
|
|
Surrey Residents' Survey - Satisfaction with the Quality of Vehicle Parking
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services
The Select Committee is asked to scrutinise parking issues in the four Boroughs and Districts which saw a reduction in parking satisfaction between quarters two and three in 2013/14.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None
Witnesses:
Jason Russell, Assistant Director for Highways Tim Vamplew, Research and Consultation Manager
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. Members of the Committee queried how satisfaction was defined in the survey. The Research and Consultation Manager explained that the survey was carried out over a 20 minute phone call.
2. The survey was done in partnership with the Police who had input on the questions asked in the survey and contributed half the total cost.
3. Concerns were raised around the purpose of the survey. Members felt that the Police should be consulted on their expectations and what they hoped to achieve from it. The Research and Consultation Manager explained that the origin of the questions asked in the survey came from the County Council and were topics the Council were interested in exploring further. The Assistant Director for Highways expressed his support for the satisfaction survey in respect of improvements to policy development but believed other environment and transport related questions should be used as part of the survey.
4. The Research and Consultation Manager asked the Committee for their input on ways to improve the satisfaction survey. It was agreed that officers in the service were best placed to put forward suggestions for possible questions that could be used. The Assistant Director for Highways suggested using the Highways of the Future Member Reference Group to help formulate questions for the survey.
Recommendations:
None
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
Committee Next Steps:
None.
|
|
|
Highway Maintenance and Flood Recovery Programme
Purpose of the presentation: Scrutiny of Services
A presentation to be given to the Select Committee on Surreys Highways Planned Maintenance Programme for 2014/15, including plans for spending on flood recovery. Minutes: Declarations of interest: None
Witnesses:
Mark Borland, Projects and Contracts Group Manager Zena Curry, Structures Team Leader Jane Young, Carriageway Team Leader
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. A presentation was given to the Committee. A copy of this is attached.
2. Members of the Committee thanked officers for resurfacing work which had been done in their respective areas.
3. The Projects and Contracts Group Manager explained that as a result of the flooding in the County a number of projects had been reprioritised. These in turn have had a knock on effect on finish dates. Members commented on the need to ensure project start and finish dates were not pushed too far back. Officers stated that a number of key elements were thoroughly considered before any changes to a project were made.
4. Concerns were raised around Members not being consulted on local changes being made as part of the highways planned maintenance programme. As the speed of the programme was increasing, officers were not always in a position to consult Local Committees.
Recommendations:
None
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
Committee Next Steps:
None.
|
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Committee will be held at 10.30am on 17 July 2014. Minutes: The next meeting of the Select Committee will be taking place at 10.30am on 17 July 2014.
|