Agenda and minutes

Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee - Monday, 29 April 2024 10.00 am

Venue: Council Chamber, Woodhatch Place, 11 Cockshot Hill, Woodhatch, Reigate, RH2 8EF.

Contact: Clare Madden, Scrutiny Officer 

Media

Items
No. Item

12/24

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

    To report any apologies for absence and substitutions.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Apologies were received from John Beckett.

     

13/24

MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS: 7 FEBRUARY 2024 pdf icon PDF 133 KB

    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:

    Agreed.

14/24

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.

15/24

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 (Tuesday 23 April 2024).

     

    2.    The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting(Thursday 18 April 2024)

     

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

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    No questions or petitions.

     

16/24

SURREY CONNECT DIGITAL DEMAND RESPONSIVE TRANSPORT SERVICE (DDRT) pdf icon PDF 663 KB

    Purpose of report:  To provide an update to the Select Committee on the progress of the Surrey Connect Digital Demand Responsive Transport service (DDRT).

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

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

    Katie Stewart, Executive Director for Environment, Growth, Land, Property and Infrastructure

    Lucy Monie, Director for Highways and Transport

    Paul Millin, Assistant Director for Strategic Transport

     

    Key points raised during the discussion:

    1. The Chairman asked what could be done to increase the number of registered users of the Digital Demand Responsive Travel (DDRT) Service. The Assistant Director for Strategic Transport explained that the number of people using the service varied across the different DDRT zones, primarily due to population differences. Every household and business received publicity about the DDRT service before it started. Ongoing promotion and publicity were needed, which was part of the communication plan being developed. Local initiatives were being looked at to try to encourage greater ridership, such as through discounts and group travel offers.

     

    1. A Member asked how successful the DDRT’s communication plan had been. The Assistant Director for Strategic Transport explained that numbers were rising in terms of people subscribing and using the scheme. Work was being done with the communications team, and the University of Surrey to see how to increase DDRT usage.

     

    1. A Member raised that Mole valley’s DDRT service was set up as a door-to-door service, rather than a stop-to-stop service, and asked if this remained. The Assistant Director for Strategic Transport explained that this was part of the learning. DDRT was offering essential door-to-door trips but was now only offering a stop-to-stop service. If a new ‘stop’ was desired, it could be assessed and made available to residents. The Stop-to-stop service made services more available for residents.

     

    1. A Member raised that between 10-15% of the cost of running DDRT services was recovered. The Member asked what the realistic cost recovery ambition was once the services were established, and if there was an indication of how much, per journey, the Council was subsidizing for the Mole Valley District.  The Assistant Director for Strategic Transport noted that DDRT was not introduced to become a commercial offer. DDRT was successful in areas with relatively low levels of public transport. As DDRT became more established and optimised, it was reasonable to achieve between 20-25% of cost recovery in running the service.

     

    1. A Member asked what proportion of the £4.85 million (m) budget for DDRT was being funded through government funds, and if there was any further Government Rural Mobility Funding available. The Assistant Director for Strategic Transport explained that the Rural Mobility Fund grant, allocated to Mole Valley’s DDRT service, was a 2-year grant finishing in May 2024, and would be fully utilised. Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) Phase 2 funding was the other source of funding, where around £2.4m would be applied for DDRT for the current and next financial year of 2025/26.

     

    1. The Member asked if the DDRT funding was sustainable, and if the Council could continue the service if there was no further government funding. The Assistant Director for Strategic Transport explained that there had been transparency over what the current costs  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16/24

17/24

BUS SERVICE IMPROVEMENT PLAN UPDATE pdf icon PDF 238 KB

    • Share this item

    Purpose of the report: To provide the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee with an update on progress in delivering and revising the County Council’s Bus Service Improvement Plan to meet the requirements and timescales of Department for Transport’s recently published new guidance.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

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

    Katie Stewart, Executive Director for Environment, Growth, Land, Property and Infrastructure

    Lucy Monie, Director for Highways and Transport

    Paul Millin, Assistant Director for Strategic Transport

     

    Key points raised during the Discussion:

    1. In reference to the twelve national priorities for Bus Service Improvement set by the Department of Transport (DfT), the Chairman asked what the priority areas were for improvement in Surrey. The Assistant Director for Strategic Transport explained that the most important areas to residents was looked at to invest and improve. Previous consultations undertaken in Surrey, asking for resident’s opinions on Bus Service Improvement investment plans and the Bus Service Improvement plan (BSIP), and the results of your bus journey survey, highlighted resident’s desire for buses to be more reliable, run where and when people wanted to travel, were frequent and had fares set at an attractive level for regular and new customers. The key issue for bus operators was the need for more bus priority measures that supported bus reliability. These, along with the greener futures priority, focussing on decarbonizing public transport and investment in electric and hydrogen fuel cell buses were the priority areas for the BSIP and Council investment.

     

    1. A Member asked if there was a scoring mechanism for funding schemes in accordance with the priority areas. The Assistant Director for Strategic Transport explained there was not a scoring criterion, but there was a governance framework with an enhanced partnership board and a stakeholder reference group. The two big bus operating companies sat on the board along with a Small to Medium sized Enterprise (SME) that were representing the interests of all bus operators. Investment was going into bus priority measures to improve reliability and bus enhancements alongside bus operators which made buses more attractive and frequent, helping to grow patronage. Investment was going into the fare offer, such as the Surrey link card introduced in 2023 to support residents aged 20 and under to access half the adult bus fare. There was investment into more zero-emission buses, as part of greener future priorities and more real time information so residents could make better travel choices. There was hope that more government funding would be received and there had been previous success with £7.8 million of BSIP funding going to Surrey.

     

    1. Regarding consultation, a Member asked which stakeholders had been involved, with particular reference to Members. The Member also asked about the Surrey Enhanced Partnership and Stakeholder Reference Group (SRG) and how it informed the 2024 BSIP update. The Assistant Director for Strategic Transport explained there would have usually been more engagement with Members, but the BSIP timeline, with draft guidance published end of January 2024 with a deadline of 12 June 2024, took away this opportunity. The priorities of that were hoped to be achieved was consistent across the previous BSIPs and had not changed. What was updated in the current BSIP was additional investment, along with the current position with the investment planned  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17/24

18/24

LAND MANAGEMENT POLICY pdf icon PDF 533 KB

    • Share this item

    Purpose of report:  To seek the views of the Select Committee on the developing Land Management Framework and the new draft Land Management Policy for Surrey County Council owned land.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses

    Natalie Bramhall, Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure

    Marisa Heath, Cabinet Member for Environment

    Katie Stewart, Executive Director for Environment, Infrastructure & Growth (EIG)

    Carolyn McKenzie, Director for Environment

    Colin Galletly, Assistant Director for Estates Management

     

    1. The Chairman asked if the work to develop the Land Management Framework and Land Management policy suggested any major change in direction in how the council managed its land-based assets. The Director for Environment explained there were several areas being reviewed such as the way land-based assets were managed from an environment agency point of view. Potential for using council owned land was being reviewed to provide Biodiversity net gain (BNG) for the Council’s own developments. Potential for adaptation and flood-risk management was being reviewed, to see how sites could be used to mitigate impacts in flood-risk areas. A lot of the Council’s sites had a lot of footfalls, which meant looking at other sites to develop. Renewables would also be reviewed.

     

    1. A Member referred to the report’s description of the Land Management Framework as a tool to aid decision making on how land-based assets and risks were managed, and asked what early decisions this was expected to influence. The Member also asked how the framework integrated environmental, social, and economic consideration into initial planning and development stages to align the broader sustainability and community goals. The Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure explained that the Wray Park estate was currently being reviewed for opportunities that could be realised in terms of improved farming, release of land, buildings for disposal and get land designated as BNG. The Assistant Director for Estates added that West Park estate was 3 farms with some other land. It was not an ideal commercial or operational set up from a farming aspect. Work was being done with farmers and colleagues in natural capital to see how the farms could be consolidated into better and more sustainable businesses. This would release land for disposal and BNG.

     

    1. A Member asked what the main opportunities were for the Council’s income generation, and how the council balanced those opportunities against its duties as a landlord and guardian of the natural environment. The Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure provided the example of the letting of Kinnersley Farm. Estates and Natural Capital agreed a set of terms that enabled the farm to be marketed for regenerative farming, while ensuring that tenants provided a strong business case. The farm had new tenants that paid an increased rent with innovative farming methods and grant funding. Some land was released for BNG. This model could be used elsewhere.

     

    1. The Member asked what the annual income for rents was, received by the council. The Assistant Director for Estates Management could not provide the exact figure. A review was currently being completed on the rents.

     

    1. A Member asked about the opportunities to sell land to developers, and if the Council coordinated with borough and districts and their local plans to ensure appropriate infrastructure was provided and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18/24

19/24

SUSTAINABLE FOOD STRATEGY – REPORT ON A COUNCIL MOTION pdf icon PDF 118 KB

    • Share this item

    Purpose of report:  To brief members of the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee on the Original Motion regarding the Whole System Food Strategy submitted to the Council meeting on 11 July 2023.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

    Marisa Heath, Cabinet Member for Environment

    Mark Nuti, Cabinet Member for Health, Wellbeing and Public Health

    Katie Stewart, Katie Stewart, Executive Director for Environment, Infrastructure & Growth (EIG)

    Carolyn McKenzie, Director for Environment

    Katie McDonald, Natural Capital Group Manager

    Negin Sarafraz, Public Health Principle

    Cllr Lance Spencer, Committee Vice-Chairman

     

    Key points made during the discussion:

    1. The Cabinet Member for Environment suggested that the terminology ‘plant-based’ should not be used in the motion and instead terminology around reduction of meat consumptions and consuming other foods should be used.

     

    1. The Public Health Principle, regarding language, outlined that plant-based food could imply processed food, which may not be healthy. Inclusivity needed to be ensured, such as for children with eating disorders.

     

    1. The Vice-Chairman asked if the recommendation effectively encompassed what was put forward in resolution one. The Vice-Chairman brough attention to ‘Government Buying Standard for food and catering services’, rather than using the term plant based. The Public Health Principle explained that the food strategy supported the resolution. Terminology needed to indicate more fruit and vegetables, rather than using the term plant-based, which could be interpreted as the processed plant-based products. It was already included in the school curriculum to have conversations with children and families around food choices.

     

    1. The Cabinet Member for Environment raised that the ‘buying standards’ was about buying sustainable and local food, rather than plant-based food. The recommendation was about using more sustainable food chains.

     

    1. A Member asked whether it could be ensured that when catering contracts were tendered, there was a requirement to follow and deliver on the Council’s food strategy policies. The Cabinet Member for Environment explained that Compass Group (foodservice company) and others had their own ambitious sustainability objectives. Compass Group was aiming to achieve 50% non-meat products. These companies were on similar food strategy pathways to the Council, so it should not be difficult to challenge them on the topic.

     

    1. Regarding the service recommendation to resolution two, the Vice-Chairman suggested that it did not reflect what the resolution was trying to achieve, which was to encourage schools to have meat-free Mondays. The Public Health Principle explained that the resolution was supported, but it was about making it inclusive for all children. Some schools were involved in meat-free Mondays, whereas others were not. A part of the food strategy would be to ensure that all schools were involved in this where there was the opportunity.

     

    1. The Chairman of the Adults and Health Select Committee (AHSC) raised that there was a concern around how the motion would affect people in any form of social care. It was important that these people had a full choice and were not restricted. This was particularly important in areas of neurodiversity, mental health issues and those with dementia.

     

    1. The Chairman asked if the whole system food strategy already supported a meat free Monday in schools. The Public Health Principle explained that the food strategy actions were still being developed, but If the language used was clear and considered inclusivity, the food  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19/24

20/24

CABINET RESPONSE TO COMMITTEE REPORTS pdf icon PDF 110 KB

    • Share this item

    Purpose of report:  To update the Committee on the Cabinet response to the March 2024 Select Committee reports and recommendations on i) a Referred Council Motion ‘Advertising & Sponsorship Policy’ ii) Surrey Utilities – Water and Wastewater Services.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Key points raised during the discussion:

    1. The Chairman noted that following the Water Utility companies’ special session that took place on 25 January, a report was submitted to Cabinet. The report included several recommendations on improving collaboration on strategic planning and new developments, working with the regulator on the development of water company KPIs and the establishment of a task force to deliver several objectives. The Cabinet accepted these recommendations.

     

    1. Regarding advertising and sponsorship, the Vice-Chairman explained that the Cabinet did not accept the greener futures reference group recommendation and the advertising and sponsorship would go ahead unrestricted.

     

21/24

RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME pdf icon PDF 39 KB

22/24

DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY 17 JULY 2024

    The next public meeting of the committee will be held on Friday 14 June 2024.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The date of the next public meeting will be held on Wednesday 17 July.