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 (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.
Purpose of report:
To provide an update to the
Select Committee on the progress of the Surrey Connect Digital
Demand Responsive Transport service (DDRT).
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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:
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
PDF 182 KB