To agree the previous minutes as a true record
of the meeting.
Minutes:
The minutes of the previous meeting were
agreed as a true and accurate record of proceedings upon correction
of Cllr. Mike Bennison’s reason of absence from the
meeting.
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 interest
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 (13
October 2016).
·The deadline for public questions
is seven days before the meeting (12 October 2016).
·The deadline for petitions was 14
days before the meeting, and no petitions have been
received.
Minutes:
There were no questions or petitions
received.
5/16
RESPONSES FROM THE CABINET TO ISSUES REFERRED BY THE BOARD
Share this item
There are no responses to report.
The Boards winter maintenance saving cost
recommendations agreed at the 8 September board meeting will be
considered at the 18 October Cabinet meeting.
Minutes:
Key
points raised in the discussion:
It was noted that the Cabinet response to the Winter
Maintenance cost saving recommendations was discussed at Cabinet on
18 October. The Chairman attended the Cabinet meeting and stated
that the Cabinet supported the board’s
recommendations.
The Board noted and agreed with the proposed
Recommendations Tracker and Forward Work Programme. The Chairman
explained that more items would be added to the December meeting
agenda in due course.
7/16
UPDATES FROM TASK GROUPS AND MEMBER REFERENCE GROUPS
Share this item
To
receive a verbal update from the Board’s Task and Member
Reference Groups.
Minutes:
Key
points raised in the discussion:
It was noted that the Basingstoke Canal Task Group
was meeting to discuss governance changes in November 2016 with the
aim of reporting back to the board in December 2016.
It was noted that the Countryside Management Member
Reference Group would potentially meet in December 2016 to
undertake a six month review. The Cabinet Member would contact the
support officer and Chairman to discuss this.
The Highways for the Future Member Reference Group
noted positive progress. It pointed out that the Social Enterprise
scheme and Highways Skills Centre were positive works that should
be further encouraged. It was stated that the social enterprise
scheme would be discussed further with the MRG.
The Waste Partnership Future Member Task Group noted
that they had met for the first time and had discussed scoping for
future meetings. More would be discussed with item 10.
Purpose of the report:Policy Development and
Review
As flooding falls
within the remit of the Economic Prosperity, Environment and
Highways Board, Members are asked to comment on the refreshed Local
Flood Risk Management Strategy for Surrey prior to its approval by
Cabinet.
Witnesses: Tor Peebles, Flood
Risk Management Strategy and Partnerships Team Leader
Tom Pooley, Flood Risk and Network
Resilience Specialist
Declarations of Interest:
None
Key
points raised in the discussion:
Officers highlighted that the Surrey Local Flood
Risk Management Strategy was a refreshed version of the 2014
document which addressed issues regarding historically recent
flooding events in Surrey, central government shift in policy and
ensuring that the document was a clear public facing
document.
It was noted that the final version of the document
would include specific actions plans that would be attached as
appendices.
Members queried what provisions were made for the
construction of new buildings on flood plains. Officers noted that
Surrey County Council sought to ensure that any new construction
undertaken on flood plains had sufficient drainage provision,
noting that it must allow for a water run off speed limited to
green field rates, normally about 5 litres per second (l/s).
However, it was noted that Surrey County Council could have
recommended refusal of planning permissions based upon failure of
this criteria, however the ultimate
decision is with the local planning authority.
It was highlighted that the strategy would give a
clearer indication of the guidelines regarding new constructions on
flood plains.
Officers explained that flood management
maintenance, and flood risk mitigation, was the responsibility of
all relevant parties. It was highlighted that there was a cross
authority plan, with input involving riparian land owners and flood
action groups, with the aim of ensuring a consistent
approach.
It was noted that there was responsibility for flood
risk mitigation which was with riparian land owners. However, it
was noted that there were grants available for use to assist with
the mitigation of flood risks of owned riparian land. It was also
pointed out that there was a net maintenance of flood risk
management through development improvement of drainage and there
was in place a Capital Works scheme to deliver small scale flood
risk mitigation projects.
Members questioned as to what the duties of riparian
landowners were to mitigate flood risks and what powers Surrey
County Council had to enforce these duties. Officers have the power
to inspect watercourses, but this is done reactively not
pro-actively, the power to enforce maintenance not improvement. The
strategy is looking at mitigating flood risk through improving land
owner awareness.
Officers explained that any funding for flood risk
mitigation projects was distributed through an integrated system in
which the partnership board is a key aspect. It was explained that
the funding process was a continuing project and that new ways of
integration were being examined between all concerned
bodies.
Members highlighted that the document was useful in
presenting an overall strategic picture for Surrey County
Council’s position, however it was questioned whether the
document was an informative one for public consumption and if it
would serve to reassure that a good strategic plan was in place. It
was highlighted that the report would be circulated for public
consultation, which would give the service ...
view the full minutes text for item 8/16
Witnesses: Lesley Harding, Place
and Sustainability Group Manager BronwenChinien, Environment Policy Team Leader
Mike Goodman,Cabinet Member for Environment
and Planning
Declarations of Interest:
None
Key
points raised in the discussion:
Officers outlined the Smarter Working for the
Environment (SWE) action plan which was part of Surrey County
Council’s overarching approach to the environment. While it
was acknowledged that many issues were global, it was the aim of
the plan to improve the County Council’s approach to
environmental services and manage any environmental impacts on
service delivery. The action plan would support income and grant
funding bids and would add value to the way we work.
It was highlighted that the SWE was a cross service
response that had the aim of creating an integrated approach to
managing future development risks.
The Member for Redhill
East expressed support for the initiative, noting the importance of
having a single policy framework for joined up delivery of the
environment plan. It was also highlighted that the plan presented
some value for money opportunities.
Members questioned air quality and carbon emissions
from motor vehicles within the Surrey region. Officers noted that
transport issues and carbon emissions had been a key aspect of the
strategy; however it was noted that there was no simple solution to
this issue. It was stated that district and boroughs were
responsible for monitoring air quality. Members also highlighted
that the service needed to engage with partners and with other
nearby authorities, such as Heathrow and Gatwick airports, London
local authorities and other partners to reduce carbon
emissions.
Mike
Bennison left the meeting at 12.05am
and returned 12.12pm
Officers highlighted that development of the policy
had included District and Borough Councils within Surrey and that
the service was seeking to encourage those without their own policy
to adopt the relevant aspects of Surrey County Council’s
policy to promote best practice. It was noted that some district
and boroughs already had policies in place.
Members agreed the policy was encouraging but some
parts of the action plan would need revisiting especially in
relation to staff parking. Officers explained that the pay and
reward strategy would pick up this issue.
Members queried traffic congestion data and whether
Surrey County Council could acquire access to these figures from
District and Borough authorities in order to improve their
environmental strategic planning. The Cabinet Member for
Environment and Planning, noted that possibilities for securing and
utilising this information would be explored.
Officers stated that no consultation had been
undertaken with London boroughs although discussions had taken
place with Heathrow around local environmental impacts. Members
were concerned around the collection of air pollution data for
Surrey but the Cabinet Member stated that this was a local
responsibility which the county did not have control
over.
Members highlighted that the environmental policy
should include more provision for low carbon emission vehicles and
electric car charging stations. It was explained that there were no
charging points outside the front of County Hall.
Purpose of the report:Policy development and
review.
Cabinet agreed that combining
SCC’s functions as a Waste Disposal Authority with those of
Surrey’s Waste Collection Authorities to deliver waste
services via a new co-ownership partnership is essential to deliver
public value for Surrey’s residents. Officers have worked with district and borough
councils to develop more detailed proposals. The board are asked to
feed into proposals prior to consideration by
Cabinet in December 2016.
Minutes:
Witnesses: Matt Smyth, Waste
Development Group Manager
Helen Trew, Waste Programme
Manager
Mike Goodman,Cabinet Member for Environment
and Planning
Declarations of Interest:
None
Key
points raised in the discussion:
Officers noted that there were opportunities to
improve the current system of waste disposal through the proposed
changes in the governance arrangements. It was highlighted that a
key benefit to these governance changes was an estimated potential
cost saving of £9 – 12 million per year as a result of
the co-ownership approach.
It was highlighted that four district and borough
authorities were moving towards a co-ownership approach: Mole
Valley, Surrey Heath, Elmbridge and
Woking. It was highlighted the new joint waste collection contract
could include other district and boroughs if they wished to join.
It is proposed that SCC joins with the four authorities as soon as
possible to demonstrate the benefits of co-partnership with early
adopters.
Officers pointed out that the proposals of
co-ownership were being presented to Cabinet in December 2016 and
that Surrey County Council’s functions could be integrated by
2017, with potential county-wide integration achieved by 2019. The
Chairman explained that two of the local authorities were tied into
contracts until 2019 and some other authorities have direct service
organisations (DSOs) but all had the opportunity to join the
partnership at an appropriate time.
Members questioned whether waste disposal would be
distributed evenly as part of the integration process. It was
highlighted by officers that there would be, as part of
integration, a more efficient usage of vehicle movement and
optimisation of routes as part of the integration to reduce
disruption and costs.
Members thanked officers for working hard to get the
partnership up and running. It was recognised that joint working
needed encouragement but would allow for each authority to benefit
financially.
A member from Mole Valley queried whether the
authority would have the opportunity to be involved in the
development of Community Recycling Centre (CRCs) proposals and
changes. Officers stated that each authority would have the
opportunity to be involved in this as savings for residents was the
key. CRCs would be part of phase 2 of the partnership
project.
It was noted that Surrey County Council was not
seeking a leadership role in the partnership, and that the
arrangement gave the District and Borough authorities in the
partnership equal opportunity to actively participate and
contribute effectively to the partnership.
It was noted by a Member that the report needs to
highlight and emphasise efficiency and financial benefits but also
parity in the relationship going forward. It was suggested that
‘localism’ and timescales also be highlighted
more.
Officers stated that there were plans to introduce
three new re-use shops across Surrey by January 2017.
Recommendations
The board noted the report and supported the proposals
outlined.
Actions
None
11/16
DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING
Share this item
The
next meeting of the Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways
Board will be held on Thursday 8 December 2016 at 10:30am in the
Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston
upon Thames.
Minutes:
The next public meeting of the Board will be
held 8 December 2016 at 10.30am, County Hall.
PDF 186 KB