Agenda and minutes
PDF 147 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN
Contact: Huma Younis
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Minutes: Apologies were received from Mike Bennison and Stephen Cooksey.
Will Forester substituted for Stephen Cooksey. |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: 27 October 2014
To agree the minutes as a true record of the meeting. Minutes: These were agreed as a true record of the previous 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 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 (9 December 2014). 2. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (8 December 2014). 3. The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received. Minutes: A member question was received from Cllr Jonathan Essex. The question and response are attached as annex 1 to the minutes.
Declarations of Interest: None
Witnesses: None
Key Points Raised During the Discussion:
1.
The Member began by asking if the current
Preventative Maintenance Strategy was verbally agreed or available
in a written format. Officers explained that all current strategies
and policies are published online via the SCC website and that a
link to these strategies would be sent to the Member in due
course. 2. Officers were asked if they could demonstrate assertions made within the response regarding the level of preventative maintenance currently being carried out. It was explained that current Department of Transport rankings place SCC above some neighbouring counties and in a good position overall nationally on this issue.
Actions/Further Information to be Provided: None
|
|
|
RESPONSES FROM THE CABINET TO ISSUES REFERRED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE
A response is included following recommendations made to Cabinet on 25 November 2014. Minutes: Key Points Raised During the Discussion:
1. It was re-iterated by the Committee that one of the chief concerns among Surrey residents was the quality of communication with groups involved during the flood recovery process and that this should continue to be addressed going forward.
2. The Committee welcomed efforts made by Cabinet Members to secure recovery funding for residents. It was established that the Cabinet Member is pursuing an extension of the current date of limitation on flood recovery funding (from central government) to allow residents having difficulty claiming financial support more time to do so. The Cabinet Member explained that both DEFRA and the Secretary of State had yet to offer a response to requests for an extension of this kind.
|
|
|
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: Witnesses: None
Key Points Raised During the Discussion:
1. Members discussed the need
for more specific information regarding the breakdown of injury and
non-injury accidents involving cyclists in Surrey for the period of
2013/14. 2. Members asked why they had not been shown the most recent report regarding the Canal Centre Redevelopment Proposals which was discussed at the previous Basingstoke Canal Joint Management Committee. It was made clear to the Committee by the Cabinet Member, and Officers, that the report had been commissioned as a means of establishing the implications of compiling a business case for the redevelopment of the Canal Centre Site rather then a business case in full.
Recommendations: None
· Members requested further data be provided delineating between injury and non-injury accidents involving cyclists for 2013/14.
Committee Next Steps: None
|
|
|
HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORT MEMBER REFERENCE GROUP REPORT ON THE KIER CONTRACT
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services
In January 2015 the authority will have to make a decision on extending the highways maintenance term contract with Kier. The initial term of the contract finishes in April 2017 and Surrey have a choice of either not extending beyond that or extending by up to four years. The Member Reference Group (MRG) was asked to review the contract with Kier and provide Select Committee with their insights on that decision.
Minutes: Witnesses: Jason Russell, Assistant Director for Highways and Transport Mark Borland, Works Delivery
Group Manager Key
Points Raised During the Discussion: 1. The report was introduced
by the Assistant Director for Highways and Transport (ADHT) who
provided a brief overview of the report, highlighting the good
level of contact between Surrey, Kier Officers and the Member
Reference Group (MRG) both before and during the formation of the
report. 2. The ADHT advised that, in
line with the MRG’s assessment, Kier be allowed to develop a
5 year business plan - in conjunction with Surrey Officers -
covering the 2016/21 period to be delivered to Cabinet by the end
of next year. As part of this process it was recommended by the
ADHT that a one-year extension be granted to the existing contract
to allow a business plan to be drawn up. It was also established
that the existing MRG should be closely involved in this
process. 3. Members were informed that
the MRG had also been instrumental in identifying areas requiring
improvement such as the current IT infrastructure employed by
Highways teams. It was stressed by the Committee that the
management of IT infrastructure of this kind would be essential to
the success of normal operations going forward and that it was
important for Officers to continue to identify areas where SCC and
Kier systems can align and to ensure software compatibility where
possible. This was noted as being critical to the long term success
of the contract; particularly in light of recent IT upgrades being
carried out by Kier internally. 4. Members expressed concern
over the issues raised in Paragraph 26 regarding the level of
communication SCC and Kier are reported to have had with residents
up to this point. The Committee stressed the importance of SCC and
Kier representatives having regular contact with Local Committees
and endorsed that officers find means of achieving this in the long
term. 5. The Committee expressed the
view that communication problems impacted local businesses during
periods where road maintenance was carried out. Members cited
issues with the quality of road signage and the inadequate level of
consultation prior to road closures as having adversely affected
businesses as a result. The Committee expressed a desire to see the
development of a clearer communication strategy in order to tackle
this more appropriately in future. 6. Members noted issues
concerning the efficiency of current gulley cleaning efforts being
administered by Conway and expressed a desire to see this addressed
more acutely in future. 7. The Committee raised
concerns with the points raised in Paragraph 30 regarding the
existing organisational structure of Surrey Highways. Members
maintained that further restructuring was unnecessary and stressed
that previous efforts had resulted in a worsening of communications
between stakeholders rather than an improvement. 8. The ADHT advised the Committee that both Kier and SCC are continuously making improvements to the service to make it as robust as possible. It was also acknowledged that improving the quality of communication with residents ... view the full minutes text for item 84/14 |
|
|
COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY OVERVIEW/ THE HORLEY MASTER PLAN
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services and Budgets/Policy Development and Review
The report updates Members on the current preparations for the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy across Surrey, the experience to date of those authorities who have already adopted the Levy and the governance arrangements that are currently in place and those that are proposed. The second part of this report is to update the Select Committee with regard to the funding and the delivery of Horley Master Plan infrastructure and service improvements and to explain the changes to the way in which developer contributions can be secured for infrastructure provision as a consequence of the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy. Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses: Paul Druce, Infrastructure Agreements Manager Peter Boarder, Horley Regeneration Project Manager, SCC / Reigate
and Banstead BC i) CIL Overview
Report Key
Points Raised During the Discussion: 1. The Chairman began by
inquiring with officers as to the potential for a regular update
with Members on the status of Surrey district and boroughs
readiness for CIL in line with the issues raised in Paragraph 24 of
the report. The Infrastructure Agreements Manager (IAM) raised the
potential for the distribution of a quarterly one page bulletin by
Boroughs on this going forward to members of the select committee
and local committee chairman. 2. Members raised concerns
regarding authorities yet to fully implement CIL and how this may
impact existing development. The IAM informed the Committee that
the failure to adopt CIL could allow certain development to avoid
paying developer contributions but the government's chief planner
has said, where the issue has been raised, that LPA's have had 5
years to adopt CIL and any shortfall in
contributions is
therefore a matter for them. 3. Members noted that local
committees should be scrutinising in detail how CIL funds are
distributed and spent as CIL is adopted across Surrey. i)
Recommendations: The
Select Committee endorsed the following recommendations: a) That there be continued collaboration with Borough and District colleagues in their preparation of Local Plans, Infrastructure Delivery Plans, CIL Charging Schedules and Regulation 123 Lists.
b) Officers continued collaboration with Borough and District colleagues on draft CIL documentation to ensure the County Council is able to support development in each of the areas by securing and providing infrastructure at the required time.
c) Officers continuing to seek agreement as to how the governance regime for CIL will operate in each of the areas by way of a memorandum of understanding or other suitable agreement, and
d) The further work required to secure a suitable governance regime in each of the areas, in the light of the possible different models for governance, given that the Woking model is one that appears to offer the most open and transparent collaborative process for deciding which schemes CIL monies should support.
ii)
CIL/Horley Master Plan Report 1. The Committee inquired as
to the impact of SANGS on CIL payments for Surrey Heath. It was
clarified to Members that up to 80% of CIL contributions are
diverted to SANGS currently. The Committee asked Officers if this
was something that could be determined by Surrey’s Districts
and Boroughs in future (due to SANGS impact on West Surrey
authorities) however it was explained that control of SANGS
framework is determined by the E.U. and as such can’t be
avoided in this instance. 2. The Horley Regeneration Project Manager (HRPM) informed
the Committee that authorities can set different CIL rates for
different areas of any one borough, in line with a geographical and
viability assessment. 3. It was recognised by Members that SCC and its District and Boroughs have a long relationship of working together ... view the full minutes text for item 85/14 |
|
|
SURREY HIGHWAYS- SAFETY DEFECT YEAR 1 REVIEW
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services and Review
To provide Committee Members with an overview of the implementation of the first year of the Safety Defect project, which is used to inspect and repair council potholes and wider defects.
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses: Mark Borland, Works Delivery Group Manager Paul Wheadon, Commercial and
Performance Team Manager Key Points Raised During the
Discussion: 1. The Works Delivery Group
Manager (WDGM) introduced the report by explaining that eighty five
thousand potholes were fixed in Surrey annually. The Committee was
also informed that a six step action plan was developed to provide
a framework for the project. Fundamental to this plan was the
introduction of a new IT system which went live in August 2014 to
replace the previous May Gurney system. 2. The WDGM clarified to the
Committee that the flooding event in the beginning of 2014 resulted
in an impact on the final Safety Defects Performance figures;
causing the performances in these periods to notably miss the
current 98% target. 3. Members queried the length
of guarantee for each maintained pothole. The WDGM clarified that
the time period guaranteed for each repaired pothole by Kier is
currently two years. 4. Officers informed Members
that the product Viafix was being
considered as a replacement for the current material used to repair
potholes. It was explained that Viafix
offers the same permanent repair option as current methods but
offers a guarantee of two years under both dry and wet conditions
and minimizes the need for follow up visits. 5. The WDGM explained that the
managerial hierarchy had been addressed to enable Surrey and Kier
managers to report to one another directly and fully integrate as a
result. 6. It was make clear that the
quality assurance team focussed on road defects throughout the
project. 7. Members inquired as to the
current technology used to track potholes within the Surrey area.
Officers explained that a new GPS device was being rolled out to
enable greater levels of mobile working and identification however
it was noted there was still a focus on public reporting. The
Chairman noted that Surrey Police had also recently adopted the
same hardware for in-the-field application and could be consulted
on the implications of such a rollout for Surrey. 8. The Committee agreed that
pothole targets should remain high, rather then be lowered, in
order to maintain and improve current practice and
standards. Recommendations:
The Select Committee noted and
commented on outcomes of the Surrey Defect project’s first
year. Actions/Further Information
to be Provided:
·
Scrutiny Officer to arrange site visit for
approximately 6-7 members of the Select Committee to the Incident
Response Centre at Merrow. Committee Next Steps: None. |
|
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services
Following the Recommendations of the Countryside Management Task Group, which reported to the Select Committee in March 2013, negotiations have taken place with Surrey Wildlife Trust. Attached is the report to Cabinet setting out terms of that agreement. The Committee is asked to comment on the terms before the report goes to Cabinet.
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses: Lisa Creaye-Griffin, Countryside Group Manager Key Points Raised During the
Discussion: 1. The Countryside Group
Manager introduced the report by stressing the services commitment
to reducing Surrey’s total contribution to the Surrey
Wildlife Trust (SWT) to 0% by 2021. It was emphasised that this
would be achieved through supporting the re-organisation of the
trust and the increased commercialization of its assets in the
following 18 months. 2. Members congratulated the
Countryside Group Manager on the current turnaround of SWT as it
stands in the report. The Committee was encouraged by SWT’s
move towards greater commercialisation and the efforts to find
partners in this regard. It was noted that Property will be looking
at how SWT deal with the County’s property and smallholdings.
SWT’s performance in dealing with the built property on the
Countryside Estate will be covered in the report that will come to
Committee in March 2015. 3. The Committee stressed that
it was important to encourage the development of a strong
management and oversight structure in the coming months. It was
recognised that this should be as robust as possible and was as
crucial to the long term success of SWT as any other future
agreements. 4. It was acknowledged by
Members that in light of the financial savings being sought across
SCC, it would prove difficult to find all the resources necessary
to oversee the restructuring of the SWT and SCC
agreement. 5. The Committee inquired as
to the potential sanctions at SCC’s disposal should SWT not
achieve its KPIs. Officers explained that should SWT breach an
agreement the County were in their rights to break the contract
however it might be in the county’s interest to avoid this.
It was noted that there will be an annual review of the SWT
agreement which would go to both the Select Committee and Cabinet
for comment. A review would be undertaken every five years to
understand whether KPIs were being met. Recommendations: The Select Committee agreed the principles of the revised Agreement with Surrey Wildlife Trust before the report goes to Cabinet.
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 22 January at Elmbridge Borough Council, Civic Centre, High Street, Esher. Minutes: The next meeting of the Select Committee will be on 22 January 2015. |