To agree the previous minutes as a true record
of the meeting.
Minutes:
A Member commented on the
previous minutes from Thursday 19 October and referred to page 4,
paragraph 13 indicating that the risk management authority should
be referenced and the application of ‘impedance’ was
incorrect terminology. The Chairman noted the concern and advised
the paragraph was indeed satisfactory which was supported by the
Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Flooding.
The minutes from the previous
meeting were agreed as a true and accurate record.
3/16
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Share this item
All Members present are
required to declare, at this point in the meeting or as soon as
possible thereafter
(i)Any disclosable pecuniary interests and /
or
(ii)Other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in
respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this
meeting
NOTES:
·Members are reminded that they must not participate
in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary
interest
·As well as an interest of the Member, this includes
any interest, of which the Member is aware, that relates to the
Member’s spouse or civil partner (or any person with whom the
Member is living as a spouse or civil partner)
·Members with a significant personal interest may
participate in the discussion and vote on that matter unless that
interest could be reasonably regarded as prejudicial.
Minutes:
There were no declarations of interests
made.
4/16
QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
Share this item
To receive any questions or petitions.
Notes:
·
The deadline for Member’s questions is 12:00pm four working
days before the meeting (2 December 2016)
·
The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting
(1 December 2016)
·
The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no
petitions have been received.
A response from the Cabinet meeting of 18
October 2016 regarding the Winter Maintenance cost saving
recommendations is attached.
Minutes:
Key
Points raised during the discussion:
A Member queried the
responses regarding the Winter Maintenance saving cost
recommendation, part a. and b., raising the question whether
information around the Thermal Mapping proposal was available and
when Members be notified of the compensating savings
proposals.
The Cabinet Member
for Environment, Highways and Flooding indicated that this matter
would be discussed on 21 December 2016 and the information would be
available at the next Board meeting which will be held on 12
January 2017.
The Cabinet Member also wanted
Members to note that there was no truth in reports that roads
starting with the letters D and E roads had been missed from the
street lighting programme. The Board were advised that these roads
were still in the process of being assessed and had not been
scheduled in the programme as of yet.
Actions:
EP8- For the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding
to provide the board with details on the County’s decision
regarding thermal mapping proposals.
The Cabinet Member for
Environment, Highways and Flooding informed the Board that the Road
Safety Improvements on Bridge Street, Guildford would be discussed
at the LEP Board in January 2017.
The Board noted and agreed with
the proposed Recommendations Tracker and Forward Work
Programme.
7/16
UPDATES FROM MEMBER REFERENCE GROUPS AND TASK GROUPS
Share this item
To receive a verbal update from the
Board’s Task and Member Reference Groups.
Minutes:
Key
points raised during the discussion:
The Chairman
indicated the Basingstoke Canal was listed on today’s agenda
and advised that an update would be shared at item 11.
It was noted that the
Countryside Management Member Reference Group would meet in January
2017, following the Board meeting on 12 January.
In the Mr
Wilson’s absence, the Customer Service Excellence Member
Reference Group reported that Highways and Transport were
continuing to address the partial compliances identified during the
last assessment, the Champions network was gathering information on
how their areas of service were utilising feedback and benchmarking
data. In addition work was ongoing to ensure recruitment and
induction processes were embedded. A new customer service course
for Highways and Transport staff was being developed using real
examples to demonstrate good and bad behaviour. The course would be
delivered by volunteers across the service and roll out will
commence in the New Year.
Following input from
the MRG, a new weekly Highways bulletin has been launched and the
service would welcome feedback from Members. The Customer Service
Excellence MRG had also visited the Contact Centre and received an
update on how they were working with Highways to deliver
improvements for customers.
The Chairman
commended Councillor Richard Wilson for his continuous hard
work.
The Cabinet Member
for Environment, Highways and Flooding suggested to the Board that
the Finance Sub group, Highways MRG, Local Transport Review MRG and
the Waste Local Plan MRG organise a meeting, post 15 January 2017
to ensure everyone understands what the financial situation
is.
In terms of the
Finance Sub-Group, the Chairman reported that the Sub-Group did not
prepare any recommendations in their last meeting, however
requested Officers to provide a list of areas of possible savings
for Environment and Planning and Highways and Transport with
weightings attached to each area of saving. The Board noted that
the Finance Sub-Group would potentially meet in January 2017, when
the financial situation would be clearer.
It was noted that the
Highways for the Future Member Reference Group had not recently
met, however looked forward to working with Lucy Monie, the new head of Highways and
Transport.
The Waste Local Plan
Member Reference Group spokesperson stated that the MRG had met
twice previously and informed the Board that responses from the
November Consultation were being collated and would be reviewed in
a meeting following on from the Board meeting today.
The Board were
informed the Surrey Waste Partnership Future Member Reference Group
have met three times and have had discussions around recycling
credits and the direction of travel for the service. It was
highlighted that four District and Borough authorities had moved
towards a co-ownership approach, Mole Valley, Surrey Heath,
Elmbridge and Woking and the MRG were
anticipating the core functions of SCC to be incorporated into the
contract.
The Chairman informed
Members the new waste collection contractor for the co-ownership
would be Amey and that it was an open
invitation for other Boroughs and Districts to get involved and
join. ...
view the full minutes text for item 7/16
To review the summary of audit
findings and Management Action Plan produced as a result of an
internal audit review of Civil Enforcement (Agency
Agreements).
Richard Bolton,Local Highway
Services Group Manager
David Curl, Parking Strategy & Implementation Team
Manager
Tim Semken, Lead
Auditor
Simon White, Audit Performance Manager
Declarations of interest:
None
Key
points raised during the discussion:
The Local
Highway Services Group Manager introduced the report and informed
the Board that Surrey County Council (SCC) have been responsible
for parking enforcement since 2004 however the contracts in place
were due to expire in 2018. SCC was originally operating at a loss
of £1M but from 2011/12 were operating at no loss. There have
been concerns around parking enforcement but arrangements with
agents have worked well.
Due to
concerns highlighted by Members regarding issues with enforcement,
audit have provided the report which has been presented to the
Board today.
Officers
indicated that they had met with Reigate and Banstead officers which led to positive discussions
and outcomes, Officers advised that further details from this
meeting could be provided at a future date.
The
Chairman advised the Board that reports received from audit should
be reviewed with the approach that Members are satisfied the report
has not overlooked or missed anything key. The Chairman further
advised that Members should be confident the Management Action Plan
(MAP) has addressed these concerns.
In terms of
the Management Action Plan, it was noted that the Audit and
Governance Committee had raised concerns and gave the opinion the
Plan should be stronger.
A Member
queried whether the report only assessed and concentrated on
Reigate and Banstead or if concerns had
been presented in relation to all other Borough and Districts. The
Officer advised that as well as Reigate and Banstead, other authorities such as Elmbridge and Guildford were audited. TheLocal Highway
Services Group Manager was confident that information presented
from the agents was accurate.
Reference
was made to one of the key findings of the audit report which
stated that annual returns of all Boroughs and Districts were
subject to audit verification before it was submitted to SCC.
Officers were asked how this fits alongside the current contractual
agreement which covers the period 2013-2018 and whether authorities
could demand this as this had not been enforced or met with.
Members were assured Officers had the ability to make sure this was
complied with and going forward would devise a mechanism to ensure
it would be carried out.
Following
the discussion above the Member raised the concern that contractual
requirements should be monitored, the Officer indicated that it was
an agency agreement and not a formal contractual
agreement.
There was a
discussion around fixed apportionments and whether there was any
conclusion to reviewing this. The Officer explained this was a
complex area and to ensure SCC break even on the deficits produced
this will be raised with the Surrey Treasurers’ Group in
identifying a consistent approach for future arrangements across
the County.
A Member
suggested that it would be beneficial to have information
illustrating good practice and behavioural patterns across the
County to allow Members to see ...
view the full minutes text for item 8/16
Purpose of the report:Policy Development and
Review
This report provides
an update and overview of the implementation of the Community
Infrastructure Levy (CIL) across the eleven planning authorities in
Surrey and the outcomes to date.
Paul Druce, Infrastructure Agreements & CIL
Manager
Declarations of interest:
None
Key
points raised during the discussion:
The Infrastructure Agreements and
CIL Manager introduced the report and provided further updates
since the report was published, highlighting that Waverley Borough
Council was currently working on their charging schedule and were
hoping to publish it very shortly. Furthermore the Board were
informed that SCC have recently made 31 applications for CIL
funding for a variety of projects to Reigate and Banstead
Borough Council with a view to the projects being included in their
five year Strategic Infrastructure Plan.
A Member raised concern with the
five contributions restriction in accordance with the requirements
of the Regulation 122 once CIL was adopted and asked for more
information regarding this. The Officer explained this complex
area, informing Members s106 requests could still be sought to
support development if the infrastructure or project had not
previously sought five s106 contributions. It was further stated
that this restriction was causing significant difficulties for
authorities such as the County Council and that local plan site
allocations helped the County plan for S106 contributions on
strategic sites as a result of the on site requirements of such
large sites.
Following on from the discussion
above, Members requested whether the CIL Adoption progress in
Surrey table on page 37 of the report could in future indicate
which Boroughs and Districts allow s106 contributions from the
developer.
There was a discussion around
whether it was possible to make revisions to Regulation 123 lists
and the Officer indicated that this was possible but a short public
consultation was required. The Infrastructure Agreements & CIL
Manager advised that Elmbridge Borough
Council had recently undertaken such an
exercise.
Mike Bennison left the meeting at
11:35am
A Member referred to SANGS
(suitable alternative natural green spaces) and requested the
Officer elaborate on the impact money directed to infrastructure
has on this. The Officer advised the inclusion of SANGS
significantly reduced monies available for other infrastructure due
to its high cost and would encourage the allocation of CIL monies
to be reconsidered in order to avoid such implications. It was
explained that the large amount of money allocated to SANGS was
required in order to generate the housing, as was being done in
Surrey Heath. But this has an impact on education and highways
infrastructure which in turn is not being funded from
CIL.
6. The officer was asked on what grounds
an application could be rejected by Local Authorities for where CIL
should be spent. Members noted that Education was being excluded
from a number of CIL and s106 lists, but the widely held view was
that it should be covered by CIL, especially as it was a statutory
responsibility for the County to cover the costs and provide school
places.
A Member highlighted how the
previous regime did not affect Education in the same way as CIL
whereas now the new regime has increasingly stripped them of
resources. The Board noted the suggestion to ...
view the full minutes text for item 9/16
To update members on progress
and make a recommendation on the preferred option for the future
management of the Basingstoke Canal.
Minutes:
Due to officer availability the
Chairman agreed to consider this item before the Superfast
Broadband item (Item 10).
Witnesses
Ian Boast, Assistant Director
for Environment
Lisa Creaye-Griffin,Countryside Group Manager
Declarations of interest:
None
Key
points raised during the discussion:
The
Countryside Group Manager introduced the report by way of a
PowerPoint presentation, this outlined the historical context, the
canal’s characteristics, the canal’s risks, the
financial implications and the future management
options.
A Member
made reference to the length of the canal, informing the Board that
it is 37 miles long and of that, 32 miles is owned by SCC and HCC,
therefore who had ownership of the remaining 5 miles. Officers
clarified that the remaining 5 miles were out of use and were being
built across.
A Member
asked why borrowing money at low rates was not being taken
advantage of and applied to invest in the Canal. Officers explained
borrowing money would effectively generate revenue costs which was
not an option.
The
Chairman expressed the view that the status quo option was not
sustainable in the long term and that other possibilities would
need to be explored and looked at broadly, going
forward.
In terms of
income generation opportunities, a Member indicated that the canal
could potentially self-fund through this. Officers advised the
Board that there was a business plan in place, in particular around
improving the camp site at the Canal Centre site. Furthermore,
Members noted that Officers were meeting with Knight Frank to
discuss possible opportunities going forward.
The
Chairman informed the Board that further information would be
circulated to the Board after the Task Group meets in January
2017.
Recommendations:
The
Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways Board agreed
to:
Support ongoing collaboration with Hampshire County
Council in the development of a business case around the preferred
option.
Support further discussion and consultation with
Basingstoke Canal Joint Management Committee together with other
key stakeholders as part of that ongoing work.
Hold a Task Group meeting in early 2017 to report
the outcome of the market viability assessment.
To
providean update to the
Scrutiny Board on the status of the Superfast Surrey
Programme.
Minutes:
Witnesses
Graham Cooke, Project Manager
Superfast Surrey Programme
Cllr Peter Martin, Deputy
Leader
Declarations of interest:
None
Key
points raised during the discussion:
The Chairman agreed
for the meeting to be taken into part 2.
RESOLVED:That under Section 100(A) of
the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the
meeting during consideration of the following items of business on
the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt
information under the relevant paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A
of the Act.
Officers
were commended for their work and service around the Superfast
Surrey Programme, which has been recognised throughout the
County.
Recommendations:
The Board noted the update on
the Superfast Surrey Programme.
Actions:
None.
12/16
DATE OF NEXT MEETING: 12 JANUARY 2017
Share this item
The next meeting of the Economic Prosperity,
Environment and Highways Board will be held on Thursday 12 January
at 10:30am in the Ashcombe Suite,
County Hall, Kingston Upon Thames.
Minutes:
The next meeting of the Economic Prosperity,
Environment and Highways Board will be held on Thursday 12 January
at 10.30am in the Ashcombe Suite,
County Hall, Kingston upon Thames.
PDF 184 KB