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
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 (11 July
2024).
2.The deadline for public questions is seven days
before the meeting(10 July 2024).
3.The deadline for petitions is 14 days before the
meeting.
There was one question received
from a member of the public and one received from a Member of the
Committee, in writing, prior to the Committee meeting. The
questions and answer were provided in the supplementary agenda
circulated at the meeting.
The same member of the public
was present at the Committee meeting and asked a supplementary
question about Surrey County Council’s budget of £1.5
million for verge cutting in the current financial year, and
whether this was an appropriate use of these funds. The member of
the public also stated that it would be beneficial to the local
environment if the Council did not cut verges regularly and enabled
wildlife to develop in verges.
In reply, the Cabinet Member
for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth stated that the Council
encouraged environmental protection.
However, the Council received requests to cut back verges and
needed to balance these requests. In doing so, the Council would
continue with the previous district and borough scheme of six cuts
in urban areas and two cuts in rural areas. Maintaining this level
allowed the Council to continue the Blue Hearts Wildflower Scheme
and reduce the overall amount of cutting.
Purpose of
report:This report presents an updated
version of the Surrey RoadSafe Vision Zero Road Strategy. The
strategy has been amended following feedback from a ten-week public
consultation.
The Committee received a report
of the Road Safety and Sustainable School Travel Team of an updated
version of the Surrey RoadSafe Vision Zero Road Strategy, which had
been amended following feedback from a ten-week public
consultation.
Witnesses:
Matt Furniss, Cabinet Member
for Highways, Transport and Economic
?Growth.
Paul Millen, Strategic
Transport Group Manager.
Lucy Monie, Director of
Highways and Transport.
Ducan Knox, Road Safety and
Sustainable School Travel Manager.
Rebecca Harrison, Safer Travel
Team Leader.
Due to a
member of the public arriving late to ask their supplemental
question, the discussion briefly shifted to Agenda Item 4.
Following this short discussion, the Committee returned to Agenda
Item 5.
Key
points made in the discussion:
A Member asked how
the Vision Zero Road Safety Strategy changed because of the public
consultation. The Strategic Transport Group Manager hoped that
there would be more support for the 20-mph strategy. The public had
expressed preferences for where they wanted the 20-mph limit to be
implemented. The Strategic Transport Group committed to provide
additional information on how consultations with local people would
be conducted.
A Member asked if the
Vision Zero Road Safety Strategy should be reviewed considering the
percentage of respondents expressing a lack of confidence that it
would lead to improvements in road safety. The Strategic Transport
Group Manager replied that respondents’ lack of confidence in
the Strategy related to road maintenance. Significant work was underway to make
improvements.
A Member asked if key
performance indicators would be developed to measure progress in
achieving the strategy’s goal. The Strategic Transport Group
Manager said that the strategy included a delivery plan and
framework. This would be reviewed by the Road Safety Governance
Board (RSGB). There was no established threshold for a high level
of compliance with speed limits. However, intervention was
prioritised at sites with the most significant speed and casualty
issues.
A Member asked if
reducing serious injuries and deaths by 2035 was the primary
measure of success and what the RSGB’s relationship was to
Surrey County Council and this Committee. The Strategic Transport
Group Manager said that the data is arranged by road user groups.
The relationship between the RSGB and the Committee is determined
by the respective Cabinet Member, and the activities of both are
subject to scrutiny by this Committee.
A Member asked about
the number of speed surveys conducted and whether a high level of
compliance could be measured for most of them. The Strategic
Transport Group Manager said that data was collected from measuring
thousands of sites. The sites requiring the most attention were
identified in collaboration with local boroughs and districts.
Further data was gathered from telematics devices used by road
users.
A Member said that
participants in the public consultation were dissatisfied with
measures to ensure driver compliance with speed limits and
concerned about the new approach to implementing 20 mph speed
limits. However, the consultation results indicated that only 4% of
respondents experienced confusion or misunderstanding.
Purpose of report: For members to
consider and comment on the services performance and progress
following the outcomes of the inspection carried out by His
Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue
Services (HMICFRS) in Spring 2023.
The Committee received a report
of the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) on performance and
progress following the outcomes of the inspection carried out by
His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire &
Rescue Services (HMICFRS) in Spring 2023.
Witnesses:
Kevin Deanus, Cabinet Member
for Fire and Rescue, and Resilience.
Bernadette Beckett, Chief of
Staff.
Elizabeth Lacey, Head of
Change.
Sally Wilson, Assistant Chief
Fire Officer.
Key
points made in the discussion:
The Chief of Staff
said that the cause of concern issued by the HMICRFS was about
SFRS’s risk-based inspection programme and identifying its
highest-risk premises and meeting its own targets. All SFRS staff are aware of the expectations on
them in managing the risk-based inspection programme. The HMICRFS
returned in February 2024, carried out a detailed inspection of the
SFRS, and discharged the concern.
A Member asked about
the process of identifying high-risk sites and the communication
across the SFRS to spread the knowledge of these high-risk sites.
The Head of Change said that the risk-based inspection programme
was based on operational crews visiting all sites over a 12-month
period, and as of July 2024, 100% of the sites are up to date. The
visits were coordinated through the Community Risk Management
Database. Local crews were also informed about local risks, which
were included in station level and borough level plans.
A Member asked how
activities for the improvement plan were prioritized, considering
the large number of tasks to complete, and which tasks represented
the greatest priorities for achieving a significant reduction in
risk. The Head of Change said that many activities had been
undertaken, all which differ in size and complexity. Some tasks
were resolved quickly, while others required a more robust
management approach. All areas noted for improvement were treated
as priorities, with a focus on Safe and Well visits for the most
vulnerable members of the community.
A Member asked about
changing staff behaviour, how changes were managed, and what
adjustments to performance management were necessary. The Head of
Change said that all areas of improvement required changes in
behaviour. No modifications were needed for the performance
management framework; however, efforts were underway to improve
team familiarity.
A Member asked a
supplementary question about how these changes are being accepted
by the staff. The Head of Change said that the changes were
received positively.
The Chairman asked
about the new Prevent and Protect software, the technology roll out
and achieving productivity gains. The Head of Change said that the
software went live on 1 July 2024, with the primary focus on Fire
Safety Teams. Although it was too early
to know about productivity gains, the system received positive
feedback.
The Chairman asked
about the status of the Safe and Well visits. The Assistant Chief
Fire Officer said there had been a significant improvement in the
number of visits, although still below the national average. The
number of visits should align more closely with the national
average this year. Additional staff were being recruited to assist
...
view the full minutes text for item 28/24
Purpose of report: To provide Members
of the Select Committee with an update on the Your Fund Surrey
community grant programme, presented for scrutiny.
The Committee received a report
of the Head of Community Investment and Engagement providing an
update on the Your Fund Surrey (YFS) community grant programme,
presented for scrutiny.
Witnesses:
Denise Turner-Stewart, Deputy
Leader and Cabinet Member for
?Customer and
Communities.
Jane Last, Head of Community
Investment and Engagement.
Samantha Mills, Lead Community
Investment Advisor.
Key
points made in the discussion:
A Member asked about
the current total budget, the amount spent so far for projects,
what was in the pipeline, and how much remained in the YFS Large
Fund. The Head of Community Investment and Engagement said that
there was £43 million in total, £20.5 million has been
approved, and another £8.1 million has been set aside for the
YFS Small Fund. This leaves £14 million to be allocated for
the pipeline.
A Member asked which
fund had uncommitted resources. The Head of Community Investment
and Engagement replied that there is £14 million unallocated,
with a few projects that have come to the stage to be scored. The
£35 million within the pipeline includes projects in early
stages or that have stalled for various reasons. Applications were
still being accepted against the £35 million. The Deputy
Leader said that there had been approximately a 30% drop-off rate,
as some applicants had changed their minds.
A Member asked about
issues related to projects and their monitoring. The Head of
Community Investment and Engagement said that there were currently
no issues.
A Member asked about
the 16 projects allocated to deciles one and two, questioning
whether they were sufficient to meet the Council’s No One
Left Behind policy. They also noted that a more comprehensive
overview of projects across all deciles would be beneficial. The
Head of Community Investment and Engagement said they will provide
the breakdown across deciles as requested.
A Member raised
supporting approval for a local project and the issues for those
projects that do not have a local volunteer
infrastructure. They also questioned
the fund’s limit of £50,000 for the YFS Small Fund and
the barrier this creates for a project seeking £57,000 in
funding. The Head of Community Investment and Engagement said the
Council has Community Link Officers (CLO) that have been supporting
local needs and submissions. The established £50,000 limit
for the YFS Small Fund because those projects that exceed this
amount become more complicated to manage.
The Chairman asked if
this situation could be revisited. The Deputy Leader emphasised
that the mechanism for that quantity of funding would need more
diligence and be part of the Large Fund and staff are always
working to help organizations qualify and work hard to find
options.
A Member asked if
CLOs were trained in YFS. The Head of Community Investment and
Engagement said that CLOs work together with the YFS team to
understand expectations from communities. They received training on
YFS processes and assist communities with their local connections
and engagement.
Purpose of
item:For the Select Committee to
hear a verbal update regarding work underway to implement actions
and improvements following the Committee sessions with Energy and
Water Utility companies.
The Committee received a verbal
report updating the work underway to implement actions and
improvements following the Committee sessions with Energy and Water
Utility companies.
Witnesses:
Jonathan Hulley, Deputy Cabinet
Member for Strategic Highways.
Lucy Monie, Director of
Highways and Transport.
Carolyn McKenzie, Director of
Environment.
Key
points made in the discussion:
A Member asked
whether there had been discussions with utility companies regarding
post-work signage left for months and equipment abandoned on
highways. The Director of Highways and Transport said that leftover
signage had been covered and would be incorporated into the ongoing
discussion process. The team aimed to address the issue with the
appropriate utility company. The Deputy Cabinet Member for
Strategic Highways said that they were committed to addressing site
signage at the Utility Task Force meeting on 26 July
2024.
A Member asked
whether the volume of emergency works by utility companies is
tracked and if that data was used to reduce emergency works. The
Director of Highways and Transport said that water utilities
reported the highest number of emergency works. This information
will be used to discuss the accurate classification of emergency
works with utility companies. The Deputy Cabinet Member said that
over the past 12 months, all utility companies had planned works at
manageable levels. However, there was an increase in immediate work
activity, most notably with water companies.
A Member asked if
there was a benefit to the utility companies to come to Utility
Task Force meetings. The Director of Highways and Transport said it
was essential to communicate with these companies, emphasising the
cost savings associated with improved advance planning. The Director of Environment said that, from a
strategic and environmental perspective, there were numerous
benefits, particularly for water companies. The Deputy Cabinet
Member said the sessions held with water and energy providers noted
their commitment to collaborate.
A Member asked about
establishing specific guidelines for signage, including the use of
utilities’ logos. The Director of Highways and Transport said
that goal would be challenging due to the utility companies' use of
contractors. The Council could encourage utilities to improve
signage. The Deputy Cabinet Member said that signage was an agenda
item at the Utility Task Force meeting on 26?July 2024. Signage
could be created to indicate that the work was not being carried
out by the Council.
Decision:
The Committee NOTED the
verbal report.
CHANGE IN THE ORDER OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA
It was AGREED to change
the order in which items were considered at the meeting as set out
below. The minutes reflect the order of the meeting.
Purpose of
report: for the Select Committee to review the attached
recommendations tracker and forward work programme, making
suggestions for additions or amendments as appropriate.
The Committee NOTED its
next meeting would be held on
5 September 2019.
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
The Chair invited the Committee
to move into Part II to exclude the press and public and, following
a vote, the motion was carried unanimously.
RESOLVED, the Communities, Environment
and Highways Select Committee,
Decides under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972,
the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the
consideration of the following item 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.
PART 2 SESSION
33/24
VERGE-CUTTING PROGRAMME UPDATE
Share this item
Purpose of
item:For the Select Committee to
hear a verbal update regarding the current performance and status
of the verge-cutting programme and to provide an opportunity for
members to ask questions.
The Committee was presented
with a verbal update regarding the current performance and status
of the verge-cutting programme and provided an opportunity for
members to ask questions.
Witnesses:
Steve Bax, Deputy Cabinet
Member for Highways.
Richard Bolton, Assistant
Director for Highways Operations and
?Infrastructure.
Lucy Monie, Director of
Highways and Transport.
Key
points raised during the discussion:
1.The report was introduced by officers. The Committee
asked a number of questions which were responded to by the officers
present before moving to recommendations.
PDF 180 KB