Agenda and minutes

Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee - Monday, 4 December 2023 10.00 am

Contact: Clare Madden, Scrutiny Officer 

Media

Items
No. Item

35/22

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

    To report any apologies for absence and substitutions.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    There were no apologies or substitutions.

     

36/22

MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS: 5 OCTOBER 2023 pdf icon PDF 281 KB

    Purpose: To agree the minutes of the previous meeting of the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee as a true and accurate record of proceedings.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The minutes were agreed as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

     

37/22

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

    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); and

     

    ·         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:

    Minutes:

    None received.

38/22

QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS

    To receive any questions or petitions.

     

     

    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 (28 November 2023 ).

     

    2.    The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting(27 November 2023)

     

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

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    None received.

39/22

BUDGET 2024/25 AND MEDIUM-TERM FINANCIAL STRATEGY pdf icon PDF 129 KB

    Purpose of report: Scrutiny of the Draft Budget and Medium-Term Financial Strategy

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

    David Lewis, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources

    Nicola O’Conner - Strategic Finance Business Partner

    Rachel Wigley – Director Finance Insight and Performance

    Nicola Kilvington – Director of Corporate Strategy and Policy

    Tony Orzieri – Strategic Finance Business Partner

    Louise Lawson – Strategic Finance Business Partner

    Denise Turner Stewart, Cabinet Member for Customers and communities

    Natalie Bramhall, Cabinet Member for Property and Waste (Remote)

    Kevin Deanus – Cabinet Member for Fire and Rescue, and Resilience

    Matt Furniss, Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport & Economic Growth

    Key Discussions:

    1. A Member asked how the Council’s financial position compared to other Councils and if transformation activities were on track to achieve savings. The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources answered that the Council was on a sound financial footing and that transformational activities would take place over a 5-year period but faced variable challenges such as a new government and changes in grants and funding. The Director Finance Insight and Performance noted that compared to other County Councils, Surrey was fairing a lot better, and the Council had worked diligently over the last five years to improve their financial position. The Member asked for clarification on a comparative league table, the Director of Finance agreed to send information on borrowing requirements compared to the revenue budget.

     

    1. A Member asked what potential deterioration of services that fell under the remit of the Committee could be expected considering the year-on-year deterioration in budget. The Executive Director of Environment, Infrastructure & Growth noted that the focus was on finding efficiencies in the budget and driving more value out of existing contracts such as Waste contracts, not service cuts. The Executive Director emphasised that there wasn’t an area that fell in the remit of the Committee that would see a service reduction. The Member asked if the Council was still trying to lobby Government for a better funding formula for road maintenance. The Executive Director noted that the Leader of the Council was chairing the County Council Network, and the Council was exploring a host of solutions to improve funding.

     

    1. The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport & Economic Growth noted that the funding formula criteria had been raised with the Secretary of State for Transport, who was open to the idea of changing the formula and offered to report the outcomes of meetings with Department for Transport officials.

     

    1. A Member asked if the Council was confident in the assumptions that had been made around non-pay inflation. The Strategic Finance Business Partner noted that the level of inflation had a huge impact on budget pressures and that the impact had been significant. The corporate non-pay assumption was 5% in the draft budget and would be reviewed ahead of the Final Budget proposals which were due to be presented to Council in February.  It was noted that the corporate inflation assumptions were only used where there was no other insight. Inflation on food, fuel and in specific markets such as children’s social care where rates exceeded the corporate assumption.  In  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39/22

40/22

SURREY FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICE PERFORMANCE REPORT & HMICFRS INSPECTION pdf icon PDF 226 KB

    • Share this item

    Purpose of report: For members to consider and comment on the services performance and report on the outcomes from the most recent Inspection carried out by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMIC).

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

    Kevin Deanus - Cabinet Member for Fire and Rescue, and Resilience

    Dan Quin – Chief Fire Officer

    Sally Wilson – Assistant Chief Fire Officer

    Elizabeth Lacey – Head of Change

     

    Key Discussions:

    1. The Chairman asked if the Chief Fire Officer was surprised by the outcome of the inspection, specifically that seven out of eleven areas were graded by the inspectorate as requiring improvement. The Chief Fire Officer expressed disappointment but conceded that it was a fair reflection of the service. The Service had been very open and honest in briefings with the inspectorate about issues and areas for improvement and these issues were reflected back in the HMICFRS report. The Cause of Concern in protection had come as a surprise. The Chief Fire Officer offered to send the Committee a link to a BBC Surrey radio interview relating to the inspection report.

     

    1. A Member asked what organisational or structural changes would take place following the inspection. The Head of Change noted that there no big organisational or structural changes were needed to deliver the improvements. Project management resources had been allocated to deliver the Inspection Improvement Plan. An area commander had been allocated to both protection and prevention areas, to provide enhanced strategic leadership (previously one area commander covered both protection and prevention). The Service was looking to cultivate a shared understanding and collectively work to deliver improvements. The Service was also looking to align individual performance goals with corporate performance goals.

     

    1. A Member asked of the 24 areas identified as areas of improvement, to what extent had they been addressed. The Head of Change noted many of those actions had been identified for months and some actions even completed. Following feedback, monthly leadership forums and weekly engagement sessions to regularly discuss the outcomes of the inspection report had taken place. The Senior Leadership Team had also conducted weekly site visits to listen to feedback. The Chief Fire Officer noted that many things had been addressed and completed but that culture changes would be a long-term journey.

     

    1. The Chairman asked if improvements on culture had come at the expense of other areas highlighted in the report. The Chief Fire Officer answered that commitment to improving culture would always remain a top priority for the service.  It was critical to retaining staff and making the Service somewhere people wanted to stay. The Service was now experiencing a lower turnover rate compared to 2020. This was a success. The Chief Fire Officer outlined improvements in the majority of KPIs in 2023 compared to previous years and noted that the Inspection Improvement Plan had had a galvanising effect on the force.

    Cause of Concern

    1.  A Member asked if there was a mechanism to reduce buildings in the high-risk category and if there was a national policy to reduce the level of risk. The Chief Fire Officer noted that there was not an intent to build buildings that would be classified as high risk. Risk was sometimes raised due to the level  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40/22

41/22

NEW DRAFT VISION ZERO ROAD SAFETY STRATEGY AND 20 MPH SPEED LIMIT POLICY pdf icon PDF 157 KB

    • Share this item

    Purpose of report: To inform and seek the views of the Select Committee on the new draft Surrey RoadSafe Partnership Road Safety Strategy based on the principles of a ‘Vision Zero’ Safe System approach, including a new policy for 20 mph speed limits.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

    Duncan Knox, Road Safety & Sustainable School Travel Manager

    Rebecca Harrison, Safer Travel Team Leader

    Lucy Monie, Director, Highways and Transport

    Paul Millin, Assistant Director, Strategic Transport

    Matt Furniss, Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth

     

    Key Discussions:

    1. The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth noted that in Surrey 80% of fatal road incidents took place on 30 mph roads and that reducing speed would reduce fatalities.

     

    1. A Member commended the excellent report and the efforts to reduce deaths by 2050 and efforts to introduce 20mph areas. The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth noted that decision making regarding 20mph areas should be as local as possible and Members had the delegated powers to implement 20mph zones, however resident support must be demonstrated and a blanket 20mph policy was not appropriate in Surrey. The Assistant Director, Strategic Transport emphasised that it was important for residents to back plans for any new 20mph zones in their areas. The Road Safety & Sustainable School Travel Manager noted that the mid-point target of reducing the number of road deaths by half had a target date of 2035 to reflect the fact that the new Surrey RoadSafe strategy would likely be adopted in 2024.

     

    1. The Vice-Chair raised concerns that each road related fatality cost was estimated to cost £2.1m to the community. Delaying the target for reducing road deaths by 5 years (to 2035) would cost Surrey approximately £1 billion. In addition, the new policy required local consultation prior to approval and implementation with the risk that the process was now more complex and difficult to achieve than under the current system. More detail was required on how the consultations would work and what funding was available for introducing 20mph schemes in local areas.

     

    1. The Chairman noted that this topic was an area of interest for the public and asked for an overview from the existing policy and the proposed new policy. The Road Safety & Sustainable School Travel Manager noted that the new policy would make it easier to introduce 20mph speed limits if there were supported by the local Member and their local community. Previously, 20mph limits could only be introduced where the mean speeds were 24mph or less.  Under the new approach 20mph could be introduced with speeds of between 24 and 28mph with ‘light touch’ measures only. Where mean speeds were above 28mph physical traffic calming measures (e.g. speed bumps, road tables, gateway measures, etc) would be required.

     

    1. A Member asked if there were enough resources to meet the demand for new 20mph speed limits. The Assistant Director, Strategic Transport noted that they were waiting for the results from the new road safety strategy and consultation although, intuitively, it is believed that demand might be high.

     

    1. A Member asked how Surrey compared to other counties outside of London on road deaths. The Road Safety & Sustainable School Travel Manager noted that it was difficult to do direct comparisons due to different variables. The Road Safety  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41/22

42/22

REFERRAL FROM COUNCIL - WILL FORSTER MOTION ON VISION ZERO pdf icon PDF 75 KB

    • Share this item

    Purpose of the item: To consider the Council Motion referred to the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee. 

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Key Discussions:

     

    1.    The Chairman invited the Member who proposed the Motion to Council on Vision Zero to speak. The Member noted broad support for the new road safety strategy and 20mph policy which was a move in the right direction but raised two concerns: firstly, around the length of the consultation which he considered sufficient; and secondly, the availability of funding to meet the demand. The Cabinet Member reiterated that £2.5 million had been set aside for the 20mph zone initiative on top of what is already spent on road safety. If demand outstripped funding this could be explored further down the line

     

43/22

PARTNERSHIPS PROSPERITY & GROWTH UPDATE pdf icon PDF 81 KB

    • Share this item

    Purpose: This report provides a progress update on the economic opportunities set out within Surrey’s Economic Strategy. It explores how these will evolve in the coming years through the “LEP integration” process and provides a deep dive into the council’s “Programme for housing” to help address one of the main barriers to growth.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

    Tim Oliver, Leader (Remote)

    Sinead Mooney, Cabinet Member for Childrens and Families (and Housing)

    Natalie Bramhall, Cabinet Member for Property and Waste (Remote)

    Michael Coughlin, Executive Director, Partnerships, Prosperity, and growth

    Matt Furniss, Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth

    Key Discussions:

    1. A Member asked what the timeline was for unravelling existing LEP structures and transferring responsibilities and assets to County Council. TheCabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth reported that LEP integration was progressing well and offered to report back to the Committee once the transfer had taken place.

     

    A member asked what further engagement was planned with stakeholders to understand the local need and to shape the future service offering. TheCabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth noted that a strategic business review was recently conducted with local businesses and stakeholders. A preferred model had not been identified yet but would be in place by 1st April 2024. Further guidance was needed from government around growth hubs and the level of funding that might continue with those.

     

    1. A Member asked what governance arrangement would be put in place and how this would relate to existing Institutions. TheCabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth answered that the One Surrey Growth Board and its sub-forums would be used to provide the business voice and help shape the approach.  Work was underway to look at how to refresh the Growth Board and Business Leaders forum to get a greater range of views on that.

     

    1. A Member asked how integration of LEP functions would support the Council’s green agenda or boost the green economy. TheCabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth answered that the green agenda was a big priority for the Council and growth in the green sector had a lot of potential in Surrey. £2.3 million had been bid for Skills Bootcamp Funding which had green skills education. There was also opportunities with the Rural Prosperity Fund Partnership to encourage businesses to switch to Electric Vehicle options.

     

    1. A Member asked if there was enough resources to carry out the Council’s ambitions. TheCabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth answered financially yes but noted that this was a new process and should be reviewed in a year’s time.

    Skills

    1. The Cabinet Member for Childrens and Families (and Housing) highlighted areas of the strategy which identified housing for key workers as a priority. Childrens homes and adults social housing had also been accelerated due to this strategy.

     

    1. A Member noted that responsibility of delivering housing belonged with Districts and Boroughs but asked if there was enough buy-in from them around for the Housing strategy. Historically there were concerns. The Executive Director for Partnerships, Prosperity, and growth noted that a lot of work had been done to reassure Ds and Bs and many concerns had been resolved.

     

    1. A member noted dependencies with the planning system and that many of the issues raised in the Housing strategy stemmed from there.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43/22

44/22

RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME pdf icon PDF 40 KB

    • Share this item

    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.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Key Discussions:

     

    1. The Chairman noted the opportunity to review and agree the Forward Work Programme and to make suggestions for possible amendments or additions to the programme. A request for the Committee to hold a special session on Utilities was noted and the Committee gave its approval in principle for a special session in the New Year on the performance of Utility providers. The Chairman agreed to explore options to scrutinise Ringway contract and performance as well as parking enforcement. A review of the Library Service was also raised.

     

45/22

DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING: 7 FEBRUARY 2024

    The next public meeting of the committee will be held on 7 February 2024

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The next meeting will be held on the 7 February 2024.

     

     

     

     

    Meeting ended at: 15:26

                            Chairman