Apologies were received from
Councillor Luke Bennett, Councillor Liz Bowes (substituted by
Councillor Robert Hughes), Councillor Cameron McIntosh (substituted
by Councillor David Harmer), and Councillor Buddhi Weerasinghe
(substituted by Councillor Helyn Clack).
To agree that the minutes of
the previous meetings held on 5 December 2024 and
13 January 2025 of the Communities, Environment, and
Highways Select Committee are a true and accurate record of
proceedings.
All Members present are
required to declare, at this point in the meeting or as soon as
possible thereafter:
1.Any disclosable pecuniary interests; or
2.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.
The public retain their right
to submit questions for a 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:
a.The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm
four working days before the meeting (Thursday,
6 February 2025).
b.The deadline for public questions is seven days
before the meeting (Wednesday,
5 February 2025).
c.The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the
meeting, and no petitions have been received.
There was one question received
from a member of the public, in writing, prior to the Committee
meeting. The question and answer were provided in the agenda
circulated prior to the meeting.
The same member of the public
was present at the Committee meeting and asked a supplementary
question regarding how Surrey County Council planned to improve
resilience to extreme flood events, especially at vulnerable
locations like bridges, and how the Council's flood risk management
strategy would enhance flood resilience for critical infrastructure
such as road bridges that connect communities across the county. In
reply, Marisa Heath, Cabinet Member for Environment, acknowledged
the concern and highlighted the importance of treating flooding as
a priority. She mentioned discussions with DEFRA about increasing
funding for climate adaptation and emphasised the need to improve
resilience and communication. She also noted the importance of
collaboration among stakeholders and communities to tackle the
issue effectively. Doug Hill, the Flood and Climate Resilience
Manager, explained the complexity of managing flood risk in the
county, particularly in large catchments like the Mole. He
mentioned ongoing assessments of the risk to assets and
infrastructure and the importance of keeping the network open and
ensuring safety around bridges. He invited the member of the public
to a face-to-face meeting to discuss the details further and work
out a plan of action.
The Chairman asked about the
recent decision to stop officers from attending flood forum
meetings, either in person or remotely. He expressed concern that
this decision could undermine the purpose and effectiveness of
these forums and requested that the matter be looked into. The
Cabinet Member for Environment emphasised the importance of flood
forums for community resilience and preparedness. She acknowledged
the resource constraints and the increasing frequency of flooding,
which stretched the Team's capacity, suggesting that they needed to
find a way to consolidate efforts to ensure effective collaboration
with flood forums, even if officers could not attend every meeting.
The Flood and Climate Resilience Manager stated that the issue was
not about the inability to attend meetings but about prioritising
resources effectively. He mentioned that flood groups worked best
when the right person was present to address specific issues, such
as highway drainage, and that flood groups needed to be
self-maintaining. He also mentioned recent funding approval to get
support from the National Flood Forum for several flood groups,
particularly those affected by recent flooding.
ACTIONS AND REQUESTS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
Flood and Climate
Resilience Manager to provide the Committee information on the
decision to stop officers attending flood forum
meetings.
To receive a report from the Countryside
Access Team Manager of the Environment, Property and Growth
Directorate on the development of the next 10-year Surrey Rights of
Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) and to provide feedback on the draft
before it is presented to Cabinet for adoption in March 2025.
Simon Crowther,
Executive Director for Environment, Property &
Growth
Carolyn McKenzie,
Director for Environment
Claire Saunders,
Access Team Manager
Katie McDonald,
Natural Capital Group Manager
KEY
LINES OF DISCUSSION
The Chairman asked
about the financial implications associated with making the
necessary improvements to the condition of public rights of way, as
stated in the Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP). In reply, the
Natural Capital Group Manager said that funding for maintaining
public rights of way came from three main sources: a revenue budget
from the Council, a capital programme, and funding from new
developments. The capital programme was significantly increased
approximatly four years ago and was expected to remain at the
current level in the Council's budget. Funding from new
developments allowed for meeting residents' expectations and
enhancing connectivity between villages and communities across
Surrey. Despite limited resources, a prioritisation process was
used for all enquiries and requests related to rights of way,
considering factors such as safety, path usage, and the benefits to
different users.
A Member asked about
plans for staff resources to utilise Community Infrastructure Levy
(CIL) opportunities and the barriers to engaging more volunteer
groups in maintaining structures. In reply, the Cabinet Member for
Environment mentioned that they had recently agreed to allocate
half a million into Greener Futures and emphasised the importance
of considering rights of way within that funding. She highlighted
the need for better connections with planning authorities to avoid
missed opportunities and ensure that new systems reflected and
captured these opportunities, while also stressing the importance
of understanding key issues across the county and prioritising
members' input on valuable rights of way for residents.
A Member asked about
the 81 recorded gaps relating to cross-border issues and emphasised
the importance of ensuring councillors in those divisions were
aware of these gaps. The Natural Capital Group Manager highlighted
the importance of prioritising which groups to work with first,
noting the enthusiasm of the Team and the significant contribution
of volunteers, who made up 50% of the workforce. She mentioned the
focus on engaging users who currently did not use the countryside
estate, such as young people, young families, people with
disabilities, and those from disadvantaged areas or ethnic
minorities. She also discussed opportunities to collaborate with
other Council areas and mentioned specific initiatives for people
with disabilities, such as all-access trails on the countryside
estates.
A Member asked about
the measurement of usage for footpaths and rights of way,
particularly in high-traffic areas like Woking town centre. The
Natural Capital Group Manager explained the challenges of
monitoring footpath usage, noting that while people counters could
be used, they often captured wildlife as well. She mentioned that
Hampshire used phone data for this purpose, and the Service is
exploring collaboration with them due to reduced costs. The Service
already monitors the canal in Woking but was considering the cost
and benefit of continuous measurement.
RESOLVED, The Communities, Environment
and Highways Select Committee
Recognises the high
level of consultation that was achieved. The Committee thanks the
team for their work. The Committee supports the draft Rights of Way
Improvement Plan and the 11 priority objectives
described.
Requests that Cabinet
prioritises the actions necessary to maintain our public rights of
way and reports back briefly to the Committee on progress against
actions 8-11 within six months.
Notes that the
Council cannot deliver the plan without extensive collaborative
working with partners; the Committee therefore requests that
Cabinet ensures that Council officers, stakeholders and volunteers
are properly supported.
Requests that this
work is joined up across all Council services, including Leisure
services, Public Health, Local Transport Planning and Vision Zero
initiatives that the Council is undertaking.
Requests that Cabinet
reviews the process for informing local Members on progress against
the ROWIP.
To note a report by the Flood and Climate
Resilience Team, providing a progress update around Surrey County
Council's first Adaptation Reporting Power (ARP) report,
highlighting progress and actions on climate change adaptation and
future efforts.
Simon Crowther,
Executive Director for Environment, Property &
Growth
Carolyn McKenzie,
Director for Environment
Sarah Birch, Climate
Change Adaptation Specialist
KEY
LINES OF DISCUSSION
A Member asked about
expectations regarding the response from central government and the
timeline for receiving an update on climate change adaptation. The
Director for Environment said that there were no specific
expectations at the moment, but there had been indications from
partners about wanting further conversations, though the details
were not yet clear.
A Member asked about
the level of engagement from other partners, such as districts,
boroughs, and parish and town councils, regarding the strategy. In
reply, the Cabinet Member for Environment said that the Greener
Futures Partnership Group, which includes relevant cabinet members
for the environment and officers, had strong engagement at an
officer level across the districts and boroughs. She emphasised the
need for more resources to engage more deeply with all partners, as
it was a partnership effort, and mentioned that they were
considering how to achieve this. The Director for Environment said
that initial conversations around the strategic agenda had taken
place with town councils, but more detailed follow-up was needed,
especially when conducting risk assessments. The Climate Change
Adaptation Specialist stated that her work on adaptation and
climate change-related risks was integrated with other partnerships
and boards, making it a collaborative effort rather than a
standalone one.
A Member asked about
the allocation of £500,000 recently added to the Greener
Future scheme, and whether some of it would go towards supporting
climate change adaptation. The Cabinet Member for Environment
stated that there was cross-party agreement at the full Council
meeting to allocate funds to this initiative. The Cabinet Member
for Environment emphasised the importance of tangible responses to
climate change to re-engage residents. She stated her desire to
increase resources allocated to the scheme. The Executive Director
for Environment, Property & Growth stated that the increase in
allocation was implemented recently and that the Department would
explore how to allocate the additional funding.
To receive a report from the Head of Strategy
and Policy, Resources & Circular Economy, on the progress of
the Strategic Waste Infrastructure Plan and the proposed work
programme up to 2029.
Natalie Bramhall,
Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure
Simon Crowther,
Executive Director for Environment, Property &
Growth
Steven Foster,
Director for Waste
Jade-Ashlee
Cox-Rawling, Head of Strategy and Policy for Waste
KEY
LINES OF DISCUSSION
The Chairman asked
about how the project would be affected in the next year given
local government reform. The Executive Director for Environment,
Property & Growth stated that the infrastructure plan was
designed to support the entirety of Surrey County. He highlighted
that over 90% of the Service’s expenditure and service
delivery was through two main contracts, which would continue for
at least another five years. Breaking down the waste disposal
function to reflect new organisational structures would have
significant implications for those contracts. He suggested
continuing to operate in a holistic manner on behalf of Surrey
County Council or the future authorities in Surrey for the medium
term and then reflecting on the changes when more information
became available.
A Member asked about
the apparent conflict between the short-term focus mentioned in the
discussion and the 30-year plan outlined in the executive summary.
The Head of Strategy and Policy for Waste said that the short-term
focus was on maintaining the programme of work and assets for waste
across Surrey, regardless of potential divisions. The aim was to
create inter-authority agreements for asset use. She clarified that
the plan included assessing available assets for waste treatment
across the Southeast, leading to recommendations and business cases
for infrastructure within their geographical area. The need for
long-term assets and infrastructure became relevant in the context
of the 30-year plan.
A Member asked about
the risks involved in building the new materials recycling
facility, the likelihood of the project succeeding, and whether
there was a Plan B if it did not succeed. The Head of Strategy and
Policy for Waste stated that the primary risk to the new recycling
facility was the planning application process. The application had
been submitted and validated, with positive stakeholder engagements
addressing concerns about noise, pollution, and transport. Ongoing
discussions with planning colleagues aimed to ensure all concerns
were addressed. The site had been identified in the Surrey West
local plan and was known to the new development of Long Cross. As
for a Plan B, the only option would be to look to the market, which
would involve sending waste further afield and increasing capacity
requirements on the waste transfer station network. She emphasised
the need for more space due to collection and packaging reforms and
stated that she preferred delivering the facility to a site in
Surrey to create a circular economy around the
materials.
A Member asked about
the discussions taking place with the third-party Materials
Recycling Facility (MRF) within Surrey and whether there was
sufficient material for both the existing and new facilities. The
Head of Strategy and Policy for Waste stated that there were three
third-party MRFs: in Leatherhead, Columbrock, and one near London.
The Service’s plans were transparent, and they had been in
discussions with contractors about ...
view the full minutes text for item 14/25
To receive a report from the Chief Fire
Officer providing an update 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.
Kevin Deanus, Cabinet
Member for Fire and Rescue, and Resilience
Jon Simpson,
Assistant Chief Fire Officer, Community Resilience
Elizabeth Lacey,
Assistant Director for Organisational Development
KEY
LINES OF DISCUSSION
The Chairman inquired
about the lessons learned from the cause for concern identified in
Spring 2023, and whether these lessons could be applied more
broadly to the service to prevent similar issues in the future. In
response, the Assistant Chief Fire Officer stated that identifying
the cause for concern and implementing corrective actions provided
valuable insights. Improvements were made to the risk-based
inspection programme using updated National Fire Chiefs Council
(NFCC) methodologies and internal audits. A follow-up plan was
established, and engagement with stakeholders helped refine the
process. Internal audits and National Fire Chief Council Fire
Standards were utilised to review ourselves against and to maintain
professional standards, and fire station assurance processes were
conducted on a rolling basis.
A Member inquired
whether all targeted partners had completed the emergency service
interoperability principles training and how the training's
effectiveness and improvements could be measured. The Assistant
Chief Fire Officer responded that the JESIP (Joint Emergency
Services Interoperability Principles) training for partners was the
responsibility of their respective organisations, so he could not
confirm their training status or evaluate the impact. However, he
noted that JESIP principles, introduced in 2012, were scalable and
routinely observed in day-to-day multi-agency incidents. He also
noted that SFRS (Surrey Fire and Rescue Service) have significantly
increased the number of multi-agency exercises that our frontline
crews and officers undertake with blue light partners. This is a
tangible way to observe JESIP principles in practice.
A Member asked about
the benefits observed so far from the performance conversation tool
currently under review and how its implementation with frontline
staff was progressing. The Assistant Director for Organisational
Development replied that, based on feedback, the new tool would be
implemented soon. The updated template focused on well-being, work
demands, support mechanisms, and leadership. It included sections
on attendance, core skills, and fitness standards. The form aimed
to align with performance conversations, identify trends, spot
areas for improvement, and recognise good performance. It
emphasised well-being, career growth, and clear communication to
foster a collaborative work environment.
A Member inquired
about the reasons for the Fire Service's lower response rate to
Freedom of Information (FOI) requests compared to the Council-wide
average. The Assistant Director for Organisational Development
explained that the increase in the number and complexity of FOI
requests, reliance on multiple teams for information, changes in
key contacts, and the need to redact confidential information
contributed to the delays in responses.
A Member asked about
the reasons for the Fire Service's lower response rate to corporate
complaints compared to the Council's normal measurements. The
Assistant Director for Organisational Development stated that the
low number of complaints meant that even a few delayed responses
significantly impacted the performance measure. Similar to FOIs,
these complaints were often complex and required coordination with
multiple teams, which could cause delays.
RESOLVED, The Communities, Environment
and Highways Select Committee
Recognises the
significant progress that Surrey Fire and Rescue Service has made
in response to His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and
Fire and Rescue Services’ inspection;
Welcomes the
Service’s response to the inspection’s cause for
concern;
Recommends that
Cabinet satisfies itself that the Service’s JESIP training
has improved inter-agency working with partners.
The Chairman invited the
committee to review the progress and updates related to the actions
and recommendations tracker and forward work programme.
FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME
A Member raised
concerns about the effectiveness of new line marking machines and
the quality of pothole repairs observed during a visit to the
Merrow Depot. He requested reports on both the efficiency of the
machines and the quality of the pothole repairs, as there are still
complaints about the latter.
The Committee NOTED the
Member’s concerns for the upcoming item, the action and
recommendation tracker and the forward work programme.
PDF 215 KB