The minutes of the previous meeting were
approved with one amendment.
11/18
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.
Paul Deach declared a historic pecuniary
interest as a former social media consultant for the Surrey
Wildlife Trust. He noted that he no longer had an interest in this
area.
Stephen Spence declared a non-pecuniary
interest as a member of the Rambler’s Association.
Bernie Muir declared a non-pecuniary interest
as a member of the Rambler’s Association.
Members questioned the status of the
recommendation of 11 October 2017. The Chairman noted that there
had been an update and discussion on this in February and that the
committee had scheduled a discussion on fly-tipping at its December
2018 meeting to follow up on this recommendation.
Members noted and approved the forward plan
and recommendations tracker.
Paul Deach disclosed a historical interest as a former media
consultant for the Surrey Wildlife Trust.
Witnesses:
Bob
Gardner
Wyatt Ramsdale
Mike Goodman, Cabinet Member for Environment
Key points
raised in the discussion:
1.
The Chairman of the Countryside Management Member Reference Group
noted that the group had been working with the Surrey Wildlife
Trust (SWT) to develop a robust and sustainable business plan. He
noted that there had been historic work undertaken regarding
countryside car parking, which had been developed and implemented
by the service.
2.
The Cabinet Member for Environment noted that there had been
significant concerns regarding the viability of the SWT Business
Plan. It was noted that the business plan was being refreshed and
that there would be a rolling three year business plan that Members
were invited to comment on. It was noted that this was aimed at
improving commercial viability.
3.
The Cabinet Member for Environment explained that the SWT needed to
become more proficient at being a commercially viable organisation,
but stressed that they were very good at the role of countryside
management. Members stressed that there needed to be a balance
found, due to the SWT being a service provider, rather than a
primarily a profit making organisation.
4.
Members noted that there would be an update on the work of the
Basingstoke Canal Task and Finish Group at the next meeting of the
Committee.
5.
Members noted that the Waste Local Plan Consultation item further
in the agenda would update the Committee on the work undertaken by
the Waste Management Member Reference Group.
Sarah Kershaw,Directorate Alignment Manager
Mike Goodman, Cabinet Member for Environment
Jason Russell, Deputy Director Environment &
Infrastructure
Lesley Harding, Head of Place Development
Key points
raised in the discussion:
Officers outlined the impetus for the creation of a
single use plastics policy, highlighting the motion of Full Council
in March 2018 to tackle the prevalence of single use plastics in
Surrey. Members noted that there was wide ranging political support
for the resolution of this issue as a result of this. It was
stressed that the Council needed to lead by example on this
issue.
It was highlighted that the strategy was planned in
two separate phases: Phase One of the plan was clarified as being
the strategy to tackle single use plastics within the organisation
of Surrey County Council. Phase Two of the plan was aimed to be a
wider Surrey strategy. Officers noted that the expected timescale
for completion of Phase One was October 2018.
The Committee expressed the need for additional
impetus on this project and stressed the requirement to engage with
the project with as much alacrity as possible. Officers noted that
work had been undertaken to analyse “quick wins” which
had immediate effects. It was also highlighted that scoping work
had been undertaken with departments in Surrey County Council and
that officers had been approached through internal forum to
identify additional ideas. The Cabinet Member stressed that the
Council motion was quite recent and that there had been significant
amounts of work undertaken in a relatively short space of time
which emphasised the political impetus and importance of this issue
for officers and Members.
Officers noted that there were wider implications
which needed to be considered when undertaking this project, noting
that there were some difficulties in removing plastics in some
areas, due to statutory requirements and unforeseen cost
implications. It was also noted that there may be some unforeseen
costs that would be analysed as part of Phase One.
Members questioned whether there had been a project
manager appointed for this project and how much that this would
cost the Council. Members also questioned the resources available
to the service to undertake this task.
Officers noted that there was an available resource of
£30,000 for a project manager and also identify other wider
costs for this project. The Cabinet Member for Environment noted
that there was a need to recruit good people to manage a project of
this nature to ensure a successful conclusion.
Members noted that it could work with partners to
gather knowledge and ideas, noting that some partners would have
already available resource and ideas. Members also questioned
whether the service had talked with partners and schools to
determine what they are doing and offer suggestions. It was stressed that there was an important need
to work with schools and partners.
Members suggested that there would need to be a
strong communications campaign in order to change attitudes on this
issue, noting that there was a ...
view the full minutes text for item 16/18
Purpose of the
report:Policy Development and Review
Surrey County Council is the
Waste Planning Authority and so is responsible for setting policy
concerning the development of suitable waste management facilities
in Surrey. The policy informs decision making for related planning
applications. The current Surrey Waste Plan includes such policies
and was adopted in 2008 and is now being reviewed. The new Plan,
known as the ‘Surrey Waste Local Plan’ is required to
go through several stages of public consultation.
A Draft Surrey Waste Local Plan
was published for public consultation between November 2017 and
February 2018 and this report sets out the results of this
consultation. 322 comments were received and these are being taken
into account in the preparation of the text of a
‘Submission’ Plan. Further technical assessments are
also being undertaken to verify the suitability of specific sites
proposed in the Plan for waste management.
Cabinet will be asked to agree
the text at its meeting in September. If agreed, the Submission
Plan would then be published for six weeks to allow representations
on its soundness and legality.
The Committee is asked to note
and comment on the nature of the response to the Draft Plan and the
work being undertaken to complete the Submission Plan.
Paul Sanderson, Minerals & Waste Policy Team Manager
Phil Smith, Environmental Assessment
Officer Jason Russell, Deputy Director Environment &
Infrastructure
Lesley Harding, Head of Place Development
Mike Goodman, Cabinet Member for Environment
Key points
raised in the discussion:
Officers clarified the role of Surrey County Council
as the waste planning authority. It was noted that the development
of this plan had been a long process and involved a significant
consultation, which was open for 14 weeks. It was noted that the
consultation response had been strong and had raised several key
issues.
It was noted that service would be putting forward a
submission plan in for consultation in Autumn 2018, noting that
there had been a revision in the timetable resultant of the need to
adequately review the consultation responses.
Members questioned the number of responses and
whether they were within expected parameters. Officers noted that
response had been good and that they also included a high number of
interested organisations as well as individuals. It was noted that
the consultation responses reflected the locations of the sites
that were proposed, and that the distribution of responses was to
be expected.
Members raised the suggestion of “Land
adjacent to the A25 and A22 next to Streets Court which was used
when the M25 was being modified and now sits vacant,” that
was in the consultation report and questioned why there was little
detail on the reasoning for rejection. Officers acknowledged the
lack of information, but clarified that the site was rejected based
on deliverability and the requirement for the site to be returned
to its previous state as a Green Field site.
Members questioned whether there were any
significant variations on the previous plan that had been made as
part of this submission, and how changes would affect members of
public. Officers noted that there had been updated evidence and
modifications based on changes in government policy from the last
plan. It was explained that there was updated emphasis in the plan
to recover and recycle waste rather than to landfill.
Officers explained that there had been site
assessments and environmental assessments undertaken and that local
transport plans would need to be flexible to account for changes in
traffic. It was also noted that sites had taken into account the
plans for Crossrail 2 and the Transport for London (TfL) had been
involved in consultation.
Members expressed the need for transparency creation
of future consultations and ensure that members of the public can
understand what is being asked of them. Officers noted these
comments and expressed the wish to improve upon consultation in
future to alleviate these concerns.
Members of the committee expressed concern regarding
the flexibility of the plan to allow the executive to have
significant decision making powers regarding waste management
facilities with little consultation from members of the public.
Officers noted that the plan may in future have some restriction on
the type of facility that is being created, but retains
flexibility.
Purpose of the report:To outline some of the significant issues facing the
County Council in respect of public rights of way at the present
time including capital investment and the role of volunteers and
parish councils in helping to maintain the network.
Stephen Spence declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of
the Rambler’s Association
Bernie Muir declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the
Rambler’s Association
Witnesses:
Steve Mitchell,Countryside Access and
Operations Manager
Lisa Creaye-Griffin, Countryside Group
Manager Jason Russell, Deputy Director Environment &
Infrastructure
Lesley Harding, Head of Place Development
Mike Goodman, Cabinet Member for Environment
Key points
raised in the discussion:
Officers explained that there was a backlog of
delivery for public rights of way. It was also noted that there
were issues regarding closures of public rights of way, such as
footbridges. Officers highlighted that one of the key challenges
for the maintenance of public rights of way was the reduction in
funding maintenance by 50%.
Members questioned how much funding was required to
improve and resolve maintenance issues and what resource was
required to resolve the backlog. Officers noted that estimates on
required funding had been made based on outstanding work but that
there were no precise figures available.
Members asked whether the backlog in maintenance
would cause significant issues in the long term and whether there
was a potential to invest to save in this area and restore funding
to previous levels. Officers noted that there had been some
consideration on this but that there also had been liaising work
undertaken with partners, volunteers and District and Borough
authorities to alleviate pressure.
Officers noted that the service had been using an
interactive web form to collate information of areas that required
work. The interactive map allowed the public to see what issues had
been reported. Members suggested that this could be spread wider
than it is currently, noting that County, Borough and District and
Parish Councillors could be useful conduits for the information
held on this resource. It was also suggested that volunteer groups
and rambling associations could also be supplied this information
to ensure that this work is more appropriately targeted.
The Cabinet Member for the Environment noted that
there would be work undertaken with the directorate to ascertain
whether there was budget available in the next financial year to
alleviate some of the issues raised.
Recommendations:
That the Environment and Infrastructure Select
Committee:
That the Cabinet Member for Environment works with Members from
borough, district and parish authorities to look at the potential
to achieve joint funding and explore developing an initiative to
increase funding to this service to restore more rights of
way
That the report is circulated to Local Committee Chairmen to
ensure better linkage with Local Committees;
That the service circulate wider the link to the interactive web
form to County Councillors, to volunteer organisations and to
interested parties
That a list of current issues in public rights of way be
circulated to all Members
19/18
DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING
Share this item
The
next public meeting of the committee will be held 6 September 2018
at County Hall..
PDF 190 KB