Agenda and minutes
PDF 66 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN. View directions
Contact: Jisa Prasannan or Huma Younis
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies were received from Chris Norman, Barbara Thomson and Christian Mahne.
Tim Evans substituted for Chris Norman and Richard Walsh substituted for Barbara Thomson. |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: 31 OCTOBER, 21 & 28 NOVEMBER 2013
To agree the minutes as a true record of the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meetings on 31 October, 21 November and 28 November 2013 were agreed as true records 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. Additional documents: Minutes: None were received.
The Chairman informed the Committee that she was a Spelthorne Borough Councillor and sat on the Planning Committee, though had not taken part in any discussions regarding Spelthorne fire stations.
Mr Alan Young arrived. |
|
|
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 January 2014). 2. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (8 January 2014). 3. The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received. Additional documents: Minutes: Items 5 and 6 were taken before Item 4, due to the subject matter of the questions and submission relating to Item 7.
Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses:
Helyn Clack, Cabinet Member for Community Services Kay Hammond, Cabinet Associate for Fire and Police Services Russell Pearson, SFRS Chief Fire Officer Eddie Roberts, SFRS Area Manager East Area Command Councillor Ian Harvey, Spelthorne Borough Council Alan Doyle, representing Spelthorne Resident Associations
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. Public questions had been received from Fire-fighter Tim Jones and Spelthorne Borough Councillor Ian Harvery, and a written submission was received from Spelthorne Residents Associations. Copies of the questions and responses can be found attached to the minutes of this meeting.
2. Fire-fighter Tim Jones was not present at the meeting to ask a supplementary question.
3. Councillor Ian Harvey has invited to ask two supplementary questions in response to the replies he had received. Councillor Harvey stated that he did not believe the responses provided answered his original questions and requested an answer. Regarding his second question he expressed surprise that the fire service that there did not appear to be consultation regarding the proposed Eco Park in Spelthorne.
4. The Fire Service explained that Commander Watts had begun the consultation process and then Commander Roberts took over, and it is thought that Councillor Ian Harvey’s original question had been misplaced during the transition. They apologised for not replying to his question in a timely manner. The Cabinet Associate stated that she believed they should have had the financial information available during the consultation meetings in September 2013, however they now had the information. She apologised that this information was not available during the consultation process. Councillor Harvey thanked the officers and Cabinet Associate for their apologies.
5. The Fire Service stated that potential developments, such as the Eco Park, were difficult when developing plans for sufficient fire cover in areas. There had been particular problems nationally with waste sites, and the Members were informed that discussions were taking place nationally regarding potential engineered solutions, such as sprinklers. The Chief Fire Officer stated that if there was a fire at the Eco Park then resources would be sourced from surrounding Fire Authorities. It was explained that the Fire Service would be involved in the consultation regarding an Eco Park, when it was appropriate.
6. Mr Alan Doyle, who was representing eleven Resident Associations within the borough of Spelthorne, was invited to make a submission to the Communities Select Committee. Mr Doyle explained that it was felt that the only way to ensure appropriate fire cover in Spelthorne was with two full time crews at two stations. It was felt that there were issues regarding the location of the new fire station would mean there would be issues in recruiting a retained crew as members would need to live within five minutes of the station, as area which is covered 50% by green belt or water. Furthermore, he stated that the proposed ... view the full minutes text for item 4/13 |
|
|
RESPONSES FROM THE CABINET TO ISSUES REFERRED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE
A response is included following recommendations made to Cabinet on 17 December 2013. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses:
Helyn Clack, Cabinet Member for Community Services
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. Members of the Committee queried when local businesses along the Prudential Ride London-Surrey route would be consulted. They were informed that engagement and consultation with residents and businesses had begun, with the next meeting arranged for 16 January 2014 and early March. The Cabinet Member was ensuring the event organisers were engaging with the local communities, and assured the Committee that she would continue to update all Members.
2. Members queried whether businesses would be indemnified against loses on the weekend of the Prudential Ride London-Surrey. The Chairman requested that this be discussed outside of the meeting due to volume of detail which would be required to answer the question.
3. The Committee requested an update on progress in lobbying central government for a change in regulations to ensure the police and highways authorities were notified of events taking place. The Cabinet Member informed the Committee that constructive discussion had begun with the relevant civil servants, and that officers were discussing the matter with residents and cycling clubs within the county.
Recommendations: None.
Actions/further information to be provided: None.
Committee next steps: None. |
|
|
RECOMMENDATION TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME 2014
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: The recommendations tracker and forward work programme were noted. |
|
|
CHANGES TO FIRE ENGINE DEPLOYMENT IN THE BOROUGH OF SPELTHORNE
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Policy Development and Review
Cabinet is due to make a decision about changes to the emergency response cover in the borough of Spelthorne on 4th February 2014.The Communities Select Committee is asked to note and review the proposal which is in support of Surrey Fire and Rescue Authority’s (SFRA) Public Safety Plan (PSP).
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses:
Helyn Clack, Cabinet Member for Community Services Kay Hammond, Cabinet Associate for Fire and Police Services Russell Pearson, SFRS Chief Fire Officer Eddie Roberts, SFRS Area Manager East Area Command
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Chief Fire Officer gave an overview of the item, explaining that the proposed changes within the Borough of Spelthorne was part of a long-term strategic review of the Fire Service in Surrey. In 2010 work was done to look at ensuring equitable cover in Surrey, and this review suggested one 24 hour crew and one day crew in Spelthorne.
2. The Chief Fire Officer stated that there had been a decrease in the number of incidents in Surrey, with 2013 being the first year when there had been fewer than 10,000 incidents.
3. The Chief Fire Officer acknowledged there had been a negative reaction to the proposals during the consultation period which is why they were suggesting option 5, a new option, as the proposal for Spelthorne.
4. Members stated that residents were surprised that a new option was now being considered as they had not had the opportunity to be consulted on this. Residents felt that Spelthorne was unique in Surrey due to other parts of the county being less densely populated and built up. In addition Spelthorne had a number of motorways and Heathrow airport close by. A Member of the Committee highlighted that residents in the area were prepared to pay extra council tax to maintain the two fire stations as there was concern that insurance premiums would rise due to the decrease in resilience.
5. The Cabinet Associate stated that they had consulted and listened to the responses they had received, and that was the reason for the new option 5 which was an affordable option. The aim was to provide an equitable service across Surrey whilst making savings required under the MTFP. They were working with national colleagues and a recent national review suggested on-call crews were the way forward. The Cabinet Associate stated that she hoped the local community would support the Fire Service by putting themselves forward to be on-call fire-fighters.
6. It was stated by the Cabinet Associate that it was not possible to raise council tax in a particular area to protect services.
7. Members felt it was important that the focus was on public safety and not financial benefits. Members also noted that the financial information had not been clearly presented. The Cabinet Associate informed the Committee that no site had been acquired for the new proposed fire station, and so no final financial information was available, though apologised again that sufficient financial information was not available during the consultation period. She stated that they were trying to look at the fire service in a more flexible way, such as in Salfords where they were converting a warehouse into a fire station.
8. Members queried whether support would come from outside the county if there was a ... view the full minutes text for item 7/13 |
|
|
DRAFT TOURISM STRATEGY
Purpose of the report: Policy Development and Review
Surrey does not currently have a strategy for Tourism. Consultation is underway on the development of a strategy and this report and presentation to the Committee provides an early opportunity for members to discuss and help shape the document as it progresses towards consideration by Cabinet later in 2014. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses:
Helyn Clack, Cabinet Member for Community Services Peter Milton, Head of Cultural Services Barrie Higham, Heritage Manager
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. Officers informed the Committee that during 2013 they had been in discussion with the tourism sector as the County Council did not have an official position on tourism. Surrey was not seen as visitor destination though it was viewed as a potential area of growth within the county’s economy, furthermore it promoted healthy lifestyles. There was Visit Surrey which was a lean organisation of 1.2 full time staff, though it was felt that there needed to be a clear identity for Surrey with specific focus on three geographical areas – Surrey Hills, Guildford and the Thames Corridor.
2. The Committee were informed that there were a number of websites which promoted Surrey though it was felt that these needed to be linked together to provide a more streamlined visitor experience.
3. Officers requested Member feedback on the ideas within the draft strategy and comments were noted on a powerpoint presentation, which can be found attached to the minutes.
4. Members queried whether there was any evidence that there was a demand for tourism in Surrey as it was not a statutory obligation of the council to provide tourism advice. Officers stated that just under 10% of the Surrey economy was dependent on tourism/leisure, with around 35,000 employed within the sector. It was felt that the sector benefited Surrey residents due to the facilities available. Furthermore, with a growing number of trips made to Surrey destinations, from 194 million in 2006 to 224 million in 2012 it was felt that there was a demand and tourism was a competitive market.
5. Members felt it was inappropriate to compare Surrey to Bath or Oxford as those locations had central points of focus whereas Surrey was a diverse county. It was felt that ‘lean and mean’ maybe a better approach for the county and that it was important for the council to have a coordinating position only as many of the Districts and Boroughs were involved in tourism within their own areas.
6. The Committee stated that not all residents would be in favour of increased tourism within the county, in addition greater numbers of tourists may create an adverse effect with people feeling that Surrey tourist destination were too crowded.
7. Members felt that the brand for Surrey could be its diversity as it had race courses, the Surrey Hills and urban areas, and that it was just a few miles from London.
8. Members suggested that Visit Surrey should be the focus of tourism for Surrey and that officers could consider requesting profitable tourist/leisure organisations contribute financially to the coordination of the sector within Surrey. It was further suggested that approved, successful organisations should be asked to include a Surrey logo on their marketing materials, thus providing a link for visitors. In addition, Members suggested that an app should be developed ... view the full minutes text for item 8/13 |
|
|
GRANT CRITERIA AND FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES GUIDE
Purpose of the report: Policy Development and Review
To share with the committee the proposed ‘Grant Criteria and Funding Opportunities Guide’ and seek the views of the committee as part of the consultation process.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declaration of interest: None.
Witnesses:
Helyn Clack, Cabinet Member for Community Services Laura Langstaff, Head of Procurement Jeremy Taylor, Procurement & Commissioning Partnership Manager
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Committee were informed that the documents they were provided with within the agenda pack was in draft format as they were still being consulted on until the end of January 2014. Officers stated that Member involvement in the grant approval process was in regards to the budget setting only.
2. The Chairman requested the Committee did not discuss the grants received by organisations as this would be raised with the service separately.
3. The grant criteria was the start of improving the grant award process and bringing it in line with the process of contract approval, with awards of up to £999,999 being agreed by the Cabinet Member, and over £1 million by Cabinet.
4. The Cabinet Member stated that the current policy was for services to be provided at best value and this was often achieved by awarding grants to the voluntary sector. The organisation which received grants was reviewed to ensure they were in line with Council priorities, such as providing dementia support. The Cabinet Member stressed the importance of the voluntary sector to the Council, and that this policy changed the process of commissioning grants only.
5. Members stated that they felt that Surrey Compact should be more influential within the grant process and should not have to apply for grants itself. The officers confirmed that they intended to strengthen the links with Surrey Compact and that they received a three year grants for their services. The Cabinet Member informed the Committee that Surrey Compact had a new Chairman and that the Committee may wish to invite them to a future meeting.
6. The Committee felt that many of the organisations which received funding were local and it would be better these grants which were below £10,000 were agreed by the Local Committees. Members requested that a briefing be given to the Local Committee Chairman’s Group regarding how Local Committees could be involved within the grant process.
7. Members queried whether the list of grants awarded included those awarded by Members Allowance scheme, and whether grants below £10,000 were cost effective due to administrative fees. Officers stated that many organisations were receiving multiple small grants each year, and that officers were in the process of trying to make the small grants process simpler by discussing the process with organisations to find out what aspects of the application forms they do not like.
8. Officers assured the Committee that part of the new grants process there would be an appropriate level of monitoring in place and that in the past they had been required to recoup monies when they were not been spent appropriately.
Recommendations:
1. The Committee would like to see Surrey Compact be more influential in this new policy.
2. The Chairman to speak to the service to decide how to relay the Committee’s ... view the full minutes text for item 9/13 |
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Committee will be held on Thursday 20 March 2014. Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee noted the next meeting of the Communities Select Committee would be held on 20 March 2014.
The Committee were requested to attend a private workshop with the Health Scrutiny Committee on 22 January 2014 at 2pm at Fire HQ in Reigate. This workshop would consider the Blue Light Service Collaboration and Public Safety Plan. |