To
agree the minutes of the previous meeting of the Communities,
Environment and Highways Select Committee as a true and accurate
record of proceedings.
The minutes of the Communities,
Environment and Highways Select Committee held on 8 March 2022 were
formally agreed as a true and accurate record of the
meeting.
Cameron McIntosh declared an
interest in Item 5, A Devolution Deal for Surrey, noting his
employment with the Department for Levelling UpHousing and Communities (DLUHC) and left the meeting for this
item.
The
public retain their right to submit questions for written response,
with such answers recorded in the minutes of the meeting;
questioners may participate in meetings to ask a supplementary
question. Petitioners may address the Committee on their petition
for up to three minutes. Guidance will be made available to any
member of the public wishing to speak at a meeting.
Notes:
1.The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm
four working days before the meeting (8 June
2022).
2.The deadline for public questions is seven days
before the meeting(7 June 2022)
3.The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the
meeting, and no petitions have been received.
To
provide the Committee with an opportunity to engage with and
contribute to the council’s approach to developing and
securing a devolution deal for the county. This report and
accompanying Annex 1 set out the context behind this work, some of
the potential key areas of focus for a deal, and the
council’s approach to developing the proposal
collaboratively.
Rebecca Paul, Deputy Cabinet
Member for Levelling Up
Michael Coughlin, Executive
Director Partnerships, Prosperity and Growth
Key
points raised during the discussion:
Vice-Chairman inquired if the devolution deal would
provide Surrey County Council (SCC) any meaningful powers and
whether any such deal would be fully funded to allow delivery. The
Leader of the Council informed that a Level 2 deal would not
guarantee any new or additional funding. Two aspects that might
bring some funding within a Level 2 deal were around skills and
adult learning – funding was currently provided through Local
Enterprise Partnerships Scheme (LEPs). A Level 2 deal would provide
the County Council the powers and responsibility to address the
SCC’s key focus areas of growing a sustainable economy,
tackling health inequality, enabling a greener future and
empowering communities.
A Member asked for
clarity around the specific powers that would be devolved. The
Leader of the Council said that potential devolved powers
identified by the government had been set out in the
‘Devolution Deal for Surrey’ paper with areas for
further devolution to be discussed more broadly with the districts
and boroughs.
A Member noted that
the government had confirmed there would be no financial assistance
to authorities to offset the powers devolved. The Leader of the
Council said that devolution of the LEPs and adult education
functions could bring with them pre-existing funding already
available to them, this would be the only additional funding
available through a Level 2 deal.
A Member queried if
the SCC would submit a devolution bid if the districts and boroughs
were not in agreement. The Leader of the Council noted that
districts and boroughs had no right of veto, however following the
positive engagement that had taken place following a programme of
visits to various districts and boroughs to explain the deal, no
opposition had been raised so far and the aim was to reach a
unanimous approach.
The Member asked if
Surrey County Council expected to take over any of the Shared
Prosperity Fund (SPF) and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
funding that were currently district funded sources. The Leader of
the Council noted the SPF’s priority of supporting economic
development and SCC needed to consider this within functional
economic areas on a county wide level to achieve the greatest
possible financial benefit. CIL funding was a matter for government
to change or offer guidance on but the Leader of the Council noted
the importance of using CIL to support the infrastructure and
mitigate the impact of housing developments.
A Member asked for
clarification regarding the transfer of LEP, SPF and CIL funding
and enquired what would happen if all the districts and boroughs
voted against a county deal. The Leader of the Council explained
that examples of pots of money that may be included in a county
deal had been provided to districts and boroughs and would follow
conversations between all three tiers of government ...
view the full minutes text for item 29/22
The purpose of this report is
to provide the Communities, Environment & Highways Select
Committee with performance information on the Environment,
Transport & Infrastructure directorate, and respond to
questions and feedback of the content therein.
Matt Furniss, Cabinet Member
for Transport and Infrastructure
Marissa Heath, Cabinet Member
for Environment
Katie Stewart, Executive
Director, Environment, Transport and Infrastructure
Natalie Fisken,Chief of Staff I
Environment, Transport and Infrastructure
Jo Diggens, Planning,
Performance and Improvement Manager
Key
points raised during the discussion:
The Chairman thanked
the officers for this important report. He noted the absence of a
Key Performance Indicator (KPI) for carriageways in either red or
amber condition and asked why performance was not rated higher
considering the additional capital expenditure given to highways.
The Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure explained that
there was a backlog of £300 million and said that £40
million would need to be spent solely on roads to clear the backlog
and maintain what has been achieved in recent years. The backlog
was being actively addressed, and although the £50 million
brought forward is dedicated to roads, the original highways
funding included structures such as the drainage network and street
columns in addition to roads and pavements. The Planning,
Performance and Improvement Manager explained that the aim was to
achieve a steady state and noted that the 35 per cent achieved was
in line with the rest of the country.
The Chairman asked
why Surrey County Council was aiming for a steady state rather than
improvement. The Cabinet Member for Transport & Infrastructure
clarified that with the latest increases in capital funding being
made available for highways, SCC was looking to
improve.
The Chairman asked if
a limited addition of KPIs more specific to Surrey could be
considered rather than relying on the national picture to reflect
that Surrey County Council is achieving a steady state for roads
and pavements. The Planning, Performance and Improvement Manager
said that this could be broken down and there was potential for a
target to be set to provide further information on how much of the
road network is rated red.
A Member said that in
a recent meeting of the Greener Futures Reference Group, it was
reported that targets to achieve the overall programme had an amber
rating. The Member noted the detailed suite of KPIs for the Greener
futures activity would not be available until early 2023 and asked
if this reflected the urgency required by the climate emergency
passed almost three years ago. The Chief of Staff, Environment,
Transport and Infrastructure explained that since publication of
the report, data had recently been superseded and Members that
attended the recent Greener Future Member Reference Group would
have seen more up to date 2030 target data which became available
last week. These latest figures show that Surrey County Council's
organisational emissions have reduced by 27 per cent since the
original baseline year of 2019/2020 when the aim had been a 33 per
cent reduction, and that did not mean that net zero would not be
met by 2030 but a five to six per cent deviation was expected. The
amber rating reflected that the programme was slightly behind the
trajectory but remained achievable. ...
view the full minutes text for item 30/22
Matt Furniss, Cabinet Member
for Transport & Infrastructure
Katie Stewart, Executive
Director, Environment, Transport and Infrastructure
Lee Parker, Director of
Planning, Infrastructure and Major Projects
Caroline Smith, Planning Group
Manager
Dustin Lees, Minerals &
Waste Policy Team Leader
Key
points raised during the discussion:
The Chairman
commended the considerable effort made with regards to the
consultation. He asked if the service was content with the response
received and was it representative sample. The Cabinet Member for Transport and
Infrastructure said that he was satisfied with the feedback for
this part of the long process. Stakeholders were not usually
enthusiastic until the later stages of the process when locations
were discussed and this was the expectation in this case. Themes
emerging from the considerable work done by the team to engage hard
to reach groups were consistent with general representational
feedback. The Executive Director, Environment, Transport and
Infrastructure said that recognition that however accessible a
consultation, there were certain demographics that would remain
unlikely to engage. The Directorate had embraced this and a small
amount of spending had been put into the commissioned focus groups,
which alongside the more traditional routes for consultation, would
ensure that the Directorate is able to access a representative view
of its work going forward – a hybrid approach to consultation
that the Directorate is keen to develop further.
A Member noted
commentary received directly from residents who attended the
Addlestone library session on the 4th of March 2022 said that
“it was only held a matter of days before consultation phase
one closed and left little time for residents to incorporate what
they had learned from the session into their responses” The
Member asked for assurances that more public consultations would be
taken into account. The Cabinet Member for Transport and
Infrastructure gave an assurance that this would be the
case.
A Member noted that
the regeneration bill references a minerals and waste plan for
every local authority with responsibility for its delivery. Given
that the next phase of public consultation for this preferred
option was due to be considered and progressed in June 2023, a
Member queried if there was a sense of urgency to be considered or
was the 12-month delay as a result of what was included in the
draft legislation acceptable. The Cabinet Member for Transport and
Infrastructure explained that the 12-month period was to deliver
the technical work necessary to prepare that draft plan for the
preferred options and public consultation material.
A Member noted that
2011 Minerals Plan currently in place was over 10 years old and
when set against the revised national planning framework, was
weakened every day. Several major planning applications involving
minerals would be put at risk given that the new plan would not be
implemented for at least two years. The Cabinet Member for
Transport and Infrastructure accepted that the existing plan was
out of date but confirmed that it was reviewed in 2014 and again in
2019 against soundness and conformity to the Mineral Plan
...
view the full minutes text for item 31/22
For the Select Committee to
review the attached recommendations tracker and forward work
programme, making suggestions for additions or amendments as
appropriate.
PDF 305 KB