Skip to main content

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN

Contact: Andy Baird, Democratic Services Officer - Email: 

Webcast: View the webcast

No. 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



    ·         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.

    Additional documents:


    There were none.



    To receive any questions or petitions.


    1.     The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (2 February 2018).


    2.     The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting(1 February 2018)


    3.     The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received.

    Additional documents:


    Public questions were submitted by Mr Roger Miller, responses to these

    questions were tabled at the meeting and are attached to these minutes as

    Annex 1.


    Mr Miller indicated that he would like to ask a supplementary question and the

    Chairman informed him that as the question related to the Surrey Performing

    Arts Library, this would be taken at the beginning of item 6.




Surrey Performing Arts Library - Update on Development of Options for the Future pdf icon PDF 263 KB

    Purpose of the report:


    To provide Select Committee with a progress update on options for the future of the Surrey Performing Arts Library (SPAL) and the risks and benefits of the options, so that a recommendation of Select’s preferred option can be made to Cabinet.


    Additional documents:


    Declarations of Interests:






    Barbara Eifler, Executive Director, Making Music)

    Peter Milton, Head of Cultural Services, Surrey County Council (two minute statement)

    Denise Turner-Stewart, Cabinet Member for Communities

    Mark Welling, Chairman, Friends of Surrey Performing Arts Library – FOSPAL

    Rose Wilson, Head of the Library Service, Surrey County Council

    Anna Wright, President, International Association of Music Libraries, Archives and Documentation Centres (IAML)


    Key points raised during the discussion:


    1.    A supplementary question was asked by Mr Miller regarding the response provided to the public questions he submitted which are attached as Annex 1 to these minutes. Mr Miller sought clarity on whether Surrey County Council (SCC) would continue paying rent on the site where the Surrey Performing Arts Library (SPAL) was located at Denbies Wine Estate. He was informed that SCC would continue to pay rent on this property until 2021 as per the contract with Denbies. These costs were, however, met through SCC’s Property Services budget and did not form part of the £180,000 savings that the Library Service were required to make through SPAL.


    2.    The report was introduced by officers who provided Members with an update on progress against the recommendations made by the Communities Select Committee at its meeting on 7 November 2017. Members were advised that officers had continued to progress work regarding Option 1 which proposed separating the music and drama collections of SPAL and relocating them within existing libraries. The Committee heard that the Library Service had conducted analysis of SPAL users’ postcodes to identify where people who loaned items from the service were clustered and that this would inform locations of where the SPAL music and drama collections could be moved to should Cabinet agree to pursue Option 1.


    3.    Members also received an update on progress against a recommendation made by the Committee at its meeting on 7 November 2017 suggesting that the Council establish a forum with SPAL user group representatives to investigate the viability of an outside organisation assuming responsibility for the SPAL collection. Officers thanked user group representatives for their contribution to the forum which was echoed by Members. The Committee heard that representatives on the forum had proposed another option for the future of SPAL whereby responsibility for the collection would be transferred to a charitable incorporated organisation (CIO). Details of this proposal can be found within Annex 4 to the report considered by the Select Committee.


    4.    Officers also highlighted that they had continued to look at ways of reducing SPAL’s operating costs in addition to those that had been introduced since the Select Committee meeting on 7 November 2017. Members were informed that officers had devised a model for SPAL that would enable it to operate at a cost of just over £10,000k a year to the Council. Details of how these additional reductions in expenditure could be achieved were tabled at the meeting and are attached to these minutes as Annex 2.


    Alison Griffiths and Cameron McIntosh entered the meeting at 10.15am


    5.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6/18


Annual Scrutiny of Surrey Community Safety Board pdf icon PDF 133 KB

    Purpose of the report:


    The Police and Justice Act 2006 requires local authorities to undertake annual scrutiny of Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs). Subsequent guidance suggests (but does not mandate) that in two tier authority areas district/borough and county councils should work together to develop a collaborative approach to the scrutiny of community safety issues.


    In Surrey, district and borough councils fulfil the duty to scrutinise local community safety partnership plans. Surrey County Council’s Communities Select Committee will therefore scrutinise the work of the overarching strategic Community Safety Board (CSB).


    The Chairman of the Communities Select Committee is asked, based on the priorities of the Community Safety Board, to choose a single issue that could be explored in greater depth.  This year, that issue will be Surrey’s Prevent Strategy which will be considered fully by the Communities Select Committee at its meeting in September 2018.


    This paper sets out the responsibilities of the Community Safety Board and informs the Committee of county-wide priorities and activity that has taken place to address them during 2016/17.


    Additional documents:


    Declarations of interests:






    Gordon Falconer, Community Safety Manager, Surrey County Council


    Key points raised during the discussion:


    1.     The report was introduced by the Community Safety Manager who informed Members that Surrey County Council was responsible for administering the Community Safety Board (CSB). The CSB provided strategic leadership to district and borough community safety partnerships setting priorities and overseeing delivery against those specific areas of action agreed by the Board. Members were also advised that the CSB sought to ensure consistency of practise in the implementation and enforcement of community safety initiatives across the County.


    2.     The Committee enquired as to how the Board was proceeding with the implementation of its priorities given staffing reductions. Members were advised that this had caused significant challenges for the Community Safety Team although steps were being taken to mitigate these through the introduction of training for frontline staff. In particular, the Committee was told that Council staff such as social workers should be trained on identifying signs which may indicate a specific community safety issue such as domestic abuse. This can then be escalated to the appropriate agency to provide specialist support services to affected individuals. Members heard that SCC also funded outreach and refuge services to ensure that support was available to those who required it. The Community Safety Manager further highlighted the importance of collaborative working between public sector organisations in Surrey to create a coordinated approach that would reduce costs.


    Keith Witham left the meeting at 12.45am


    3.     Clarity was sought by Committee Members on how the CSB measured its effectiveness. Officers highlighted that the Board had a number of metrics in place to judge performance which demonstrated that it was embedding a joined up approach to tackling community safety issues.


    4.     Discussions took place regarding triple warranted officers which had been introduced in other local authority areas and the Committee asked whether there were any plans to introduce these in Surrey. Officers advised that this was primarily a matter for the Police but highlighted the role of Joint Enforcement Teams which operated within a number of districts and boroughs in Surrey. The Community Safety Manager stated that investing officers with additional powers did have the potential to reduce cost and highlighted that funding was being made available to train officers to give them more powers.


    5.     Committee Members expressed their support for the CSB’s priorities although suggested that consideration should also be given to public perceptions of crime and community safety. Officers emphasised that there was a particular challenge around making the public aware of issues related to serious organised crime as the majority of people don’t realise that it was happening in their communities.




    The Communities Select Committee noted the progress made since last year, particularly against a setting of increased responsibility, coupled with continuing reductions in resources available to undertake community safety work.



Update on the Surrey Fire & Rescue Service Integrated Risk Management Plan Member Reference Group pdf icon PDF 89 KB

    Purpose of the Report:


    To provide an update on scrutiny that has been undertaken into the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service’s (SFRS) Integrated Risk Management Plan (IRMP) as conducted by Members of the Communities Select Committee. Surrey Fire and Rescue Authority published its refreshed Public Safety Plan (the SFRA IRMP) in 2016 outlining its aims and priorities over the next ten years. Following from the proposals set out in the plan the Service is reviewing its response standard and how it responds to incidents. The Service has recently commenced a trial of some new tools and initiatives designed to improve SFRS’s efficiency, do it is timely that the Communities Select Committee receives an update from the Members Reference Group.


    Additional documents:


    Declarations of interests:








    Key points raised during the discussion:


    1.     The report was introduced by the Chairman of the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service Integrated Risk Management Plan Member Reference Group (MRG) who provided the Committee with a brief synopsis of the key issues considered by the MRG. He highlighted that Members had been given the opportunity to see one of Surrey Fire and Rescue Service’s new Initial Response Vehicles (IRVs) stating that it was very impressive. The Committee was informed that IRVs would be accompanied by a fully crewed fire engine when responding to emergency calls for the entirety of the trial period.




    The Communities Select Committee:


    1. noted scrutiny that the Member Reference Group is undertaking of Surrey Fire and Rescue Authority’s Integrated Risk Management Plan;
    2. agreed a date to receive a further update from the Member Reference Group; and
    3. proposed areas of future scrutiny by the Member Reference Group within the remit of its Terms of Reference.







  • Updated: 22 Feb 2019