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 (Friday,
29 November 2024).
b.The deadline for public questions is seven days
before the meeting (Thursday,
28 November 2024).
c.The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the
meeting, and no petitions have been received.
There were two questions
received from a Member of the Committee, in writing, prior to the
Committee meeting. The questions and answers were provided in the
supplementary agenda circulated prior to the meeting.
The Member who submitted
questions asked a supplementary question about what had enabled
past asset disposals and what the proposed timeline had been for
the collaborative asset management agreement.
The Cabinet Member for Property
and Waste explained that the Council had sold land to Tandridge
District Council at a slight discount under Section 123 rules for a
social housing project. Discussions had been ongoing about another
site, but discounts had been legally limited, and some councils had
lacked funds to buy land. Specific dates for the policy had been
provided later.
The Chair introduced the
response to the Select Committee recommendations from the Capital
Programme and Bus Services & DDRT (Digital Demand Responsive
Transport) Budget Deep Dives.
The Committee NOTED the
Cabinet response to recommendations.
David Lewis, Cabinet
Member for Finance and Resources
Matt Furniss, Cabinet
Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth
Denise Turner
Stewart, Cabinet Member for Customer and Communities
Natalie Bramhall,
Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure
Marisa Heath, Cabinet
Member for Environment
Kevin Deanus, Cabinet
Member for Fire and Rescue, and Resilience
Mark Nuti, Cabinet
Member for Health and Wellbeing, and Public Health
Claire Edgar,
Executive Director for Adults, Wellbeing and Health
Partnerships
Dan Quin, Executive
Director of Community Protection and Emergencies (Chief Fire
Officer)
Owen Jenkins,
Executive Director for Highways. Infrastructure and
Planning
Simon Crowther,
Executive Director for Environment, Property and Growth
Carolyn McKenzie,
Director for Environment
Lucy Monie, Director
for Highways and Transport
Rachel Wigley,
Director for Finance, Insights and Performance
Sarah Bogunovic,
Assistant Director for Registrations, Coroner's Service and
Customer Strategy
Jane Last, Head of
Community Investment and Engagement
Jean Pierre Moore,
Head of Community Partnerships & Prevention
Clare Matthews,
Principal Strategy and Policy Lead
Nicola
O’Connor, Strategic Finance Partner for Corporate
Tony Orzieri,
Strategic Finance Partner for Environment, Infrastructure and
Growth
Louise Lawson,
Strategic Finance Business Partner Resources and Customers, Digital
and Transformation
KEY
LINES OF DISCUSSION
ENVIRONMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE & GROWTH
The Chair asked
whether more could be done to reduce the cost of large multi-year
EIG (Environment, Infrastructure and Growth) contracts. The
Director for Highways, Infrastructure and Transport said that costs
in large multi-year EIG contracts are managed through competitive
tendering, ongoing reviews, and integrating social value and
environmental goals. She emphasised the need to reassess policies
and specifications and highlighted savings achieved through
innovations like LED lighting and targeted road lining.
A Member asked about
the risk of the identified pressures of £14.5 million for
2025/26 being higher than expected and inquired about the specific
risk areas. The Executive Director for Environment, Property and
Growth explained that the pressures for 2025/26 were anticipated to
arise from scope changes, inflation in contracts, and staffing
costs, particularly as many costs were tied to contractual terms.
The Director for Highways and Transport said that a key risk was
related to concessionary fare reimbursements, which could increase
with higher bus usage. She mentioned that while the risk was
considered low, it would still be monitored due to its dependence
on external factors.
The Chair asked about
the status of the bus fare cap. The Director for Highways and
Transport said that the cap was increasing from £2 to
£3 in 2025. More details were expected to come in the early
part of 2025 regarding the implications of the change for both
users and operators.
A Member asked for
clarification on whether the levels of reimbursement would decrease
if the bus cap went up. The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport
and Economic Growth explained that the bus cap was a national
policy requiring operators to join the scheme for government
reimbursement. He also mentioned efforts to encourage more
operators to participate and noted that any cost increases would be
managed within the budget.
RESOLVED, That the Communities,
Environment and Highways Select Committee:
I.
Is very concerned about the deprioritisation of Greener Future’s spend in
the budget.
II.
Supports the investment in additional verge maintenance and area
clear up gangs (set out on page 28).
III.
Repeats its recommendation to reconsider expansion of Digital
Demand Responsive Travel and further investment in light of the
extreme financial challenges outlined in the draft budget papers,
noting that Digital Demand Responsive Travel investment is
identified as a continued priority in Cabinet response to
Committee’s November recommendations and in the budget papers
(page 28).
IV.
Supports the re-set of capital expenditure plans (page 29) to bring
down the capital debt financing requirement. This was highlighted
by the Committee as an area of concern in its budget deep dive
conclusions and recommendations.
V.
Recommends, in light of the large contracts that account for a
large proportion of EIG’s spend, a greater focus on driving
value out of large Council contracts (page 32).
VI.
Recommends that Members be advised of any changes to the capital
programme that affect their divisions.
Kevin Deanus, Cabinet
Member for Fire and Rescue, and Resilience
Dan Quin, Executive
Director of Community Protection and Emergencies (Chief Fire
Officer)
Sally Wilson,
Assistant Chief Fire Officer
Lee Spencer-Smith,
Area Commander responsible for Protection and the Community Risk
Management Plan
Sophie Whitfield,
Senior Communications Manager for CRMP
KEY
LINES OF DISCUSSION
A Member asked about
the changes at Banstead Fire Station and Camberley Fire Station, as
well as details on the feedback received from the council's
consultation with the local areas regarding these changes. The
Chief Fire Officer said that Banstead had been identified as a
low-risk area. He emphasised that all proposals were based on the
Community Risk Profile (CRP) which is annually updated, and is an
externally verified risk analyses.
A Member asked about
emerging risks to monitor and analyse heading into 2025 and beyond.
The Chief Fire Officer outlined three key risks in Surrey's CRP:
road (the leading cause of fatalities), water-related incidents,
and wildfires. He emphasised prevention, tailored responses, and
learning from nationwide trends to address emerging
challenges.
A Member asked about
the chances of finding an appropriate or affordable site in the
area of Whyteleafe for a fire station. The Assistant Chief Fire
Officer said that Surrey County Council will be conducting a new
search for appropriate and affordable sites in the Whyteleafe area,
with a third party handling the review, and that a search has
already been undertaken previously. If no appropriate and
affordable site is found, the crew and fire engine will move to
Godstone Fire Station. Works to develop Godstone Fire Station will
continue during this time. The outcome of the search remains
uncertain as it has not taken place yet.
A Member asked why
any subsequent reviews has or will not included Banstead and the
surrounding areas, and whether there had been any significant
difference between Whyteleafe and Godstone, given that they were
next to each other from a Banstead perspective. The Chief Fire
Officer explained that Banstead had not been considered because the
risk analysis had not indicated a need to focus there; instead, the
Whyteleafe area had been prioritised due to findings from the CRP.
He acknowledged that while Whyteleafe and Godstone were
geographically close, the key difference is the risk level.
Godstone, being a 24/7 fire station, had often required Banstead to
respond eastward, affecting coverage in the rest of Tandridge. The
goal is to ensure timely responses in areas with higher
vulnerability. Regarding Banstead’s response time, he noted a
minimal impact, with only a 40-second difference to Reigate and
Banstead as a borough and a slight improvement in Tandridge, aiming
to balance coverage across Surrey, especially in less well-served
areas like Tandridge.
A Member asked what a
seasonal response model was, whether it was considered best
practice across the sector, what challenges were associated with
its development, and if any cost savings could be achieved from
implementing it. The Area Commander responsible for Protection and
Risk said that the seasonal response model enhanced resilience
during ...
view the full minutes text for item 56/24
RESOLVED, That the Communities,
Environment and Highways Select Committee:
I.
Welcomes the use of technology to ensure a dynamic and agile fire
service across the county.
II.
Welcomes the robust process undertaken to develop the Community
Risk Management Plan including external validation by the NTU.
III.
Recommends that the Fire Service continues to explore closer
working relationships with Health partners and promotes a
preventative model to risk where possible.
Matt Furniss, Cabinet
Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth
Simon Crowther,
Executive Director for Environment, Property and Growth
Patricia Huertas
Cedeira, Assistant Director for Economy and Growth
KEY
LINES OF DISCUSSION
A Member asked about
the implications of Coast to Capital's decision to continue as a
private company, and whether it had become a private competitor to
the Council's support for businesses. The Cabinet Member for
Highways, Transport and Economic Growth explained that Coast to
Capital's continuation as a private company had slowed the transfer
of assets to Surrey County Council, West Sussex County Council, and
Brighton & Hove City Council. He did not view it as a
competitor because its focus had historically been on the Brighton
and Hove area, with limited business support provided to Surrey.
Surrey had seen more success and funding from the EM3 LEP. The
Cabinet Member explained how since establishing Business Surrey,
Surrey County Council has now the government funding and mandate to
provide the Growth Hub business advice service to Surrey
businesses. The Assistant Director for Economy and Growth added
that the funding expected from Coast to Capital was not expected to
be substantial, but the final amounts were still to be
determined.
A Member asked about
the division of liabilities and assets during the transition,
whether the private organisation would retain or dispose of its
assets, and how liabilities from its previously government-funded
role would be managed. The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport
and Economic Growth explained that liabilities and assets were
being clarified by Brighton & Hove City Council as the
accountable body, with investments from EM3 being converted into
cash for local reinvestment, while Coast to Capital’s
transition was slower due to plans to go private.
A Member asked if
Surrey County Council could take any additional steps to improve
its internal audit rating above reasonable assurance. The Cabinet
Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth said that Surrey
County Council had robust oversight with key individuals involved
in decisions, and the last audit had raised no concerns about its
governance. The reasonable assurance rating applied to Brighton
& Hove City Council as the accountable body for Coast Capital,
with the focus then on resolving Coast Capital’s assets and
liabilities.
A Member asked
whether the uptake of 280 businesses for the Surrey Growth Hub had
been beyond or below expectations and requested feedback from those
businesses on the tailored advice they had received. the Cabinet
Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth said that
feedback had been positive, with businesses describing the service
as invaluable and helpful for direction. Current uptake of the
service is in line with targets set out for the Growth Hub service,
which focuses on a proportion of all 110,000 businesses in Surrey.
The steady uptake and recommendations from participants indicated a
strong start with growth potential.
A Member asked how
Surrey had supported its green economy and net-zero targets while
also supporting high-growth businesses in Surrey. The Cabinet
Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth said
... view
the full minutes text for item 57/24
RESOLVED, That the Communities,
Environment and Highways Select Committee:
I.
Notes the progress that has been made to conclude the LEP
transition process.
II.
Endorses the reframed strategic priorities in the refreshed local
economic growth strategy.
III.
Endorses the approach to create a Strategic Funding Framework as
the mechanism through which investment decisions are made using the
LEP legacy local growth funds.
IV.
Approves the role of the Committee to receive an annual report
about the performance of the Surrey Growth and Innovation Fund and
updates on funded projects.
PDF 214 KB