Agenda and minutes

Environment & Transport Select Committee
Thursday, 23 April 2015 10.30 am

Venue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN

Contact: Huma Younis or George Foster 

Items
No. Item

21/15

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

22/15

MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: 12 March 2015 pdf icon PDF 151 KB

23/15

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

    To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.

     

    Notes:

    ·    In line with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, declarations may relate to the interest of the member, or the member’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom the member is living as husband or wife, or a person with whom the member is living as if they were civil partners and the member is aware they have the interest.

    ·    Members need only disclose interests not currently listed on the Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests.

    ·    Members must notify the Monitoring Officer of any interests disclosed at the meeting so they may be added to the Register.

    ·    Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest.

    Minutes:

    There were none.

     

24/15

QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS

    To receive any questions or petitions.

     

    Notes:

    1.  The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (Friday 17 April 2015).

    2.  The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (Tuesday 14 April 2015).

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

    Minutes:

    There were none.

     

25/15

RESPONSES FROM THE CABINET TO ISSUES REFERRED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE

26/15

RECOMMENDATION TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME pdf icon PDF 182 KB

    The Committee is asked to monitor progress on the implementation of recommendations from previous meetings, and to review its Forward Work Programme.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

     

    None.

     

    Key points raised during the discussion:

     

    The Chairman drew the Committees attention to the Forward Work Programme on page 7 of the Agenda and informed Members that the Select Committee scheduled for the 14 May 2015 would no longer take place so that the Local Transport Review could go through a second round of consultation.

     

    The item would be coming to the 11 June Select Committee meeting.

     

    Recommendations:

     

    None.

    Committee Next steps:

    None.

     

27/15

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY & S106 UPDATE pdf icon PDF 158 KB

    Purpose of the report:  Policy Development and Review

     

    This report provides an overview of the implementation of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) across the eleven planning authorities in Surrey and an update in relation to the changes to the s106 regime, including the impact upon the ability to seek developer contributions from new development.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

     

    Paul Druce, Infrastructure Agreements & CIL Manager

     

    Key points raised during the discussion:

     

    1.    The Committee discussed paragraph 22-23 on page 17 of the Agenda which highlighted barriers that existed for Local Area Committees in the governance of CIL and voting restrictions that applied to county council Members. One Member stated that voting was open to all Members including those from borough and districts and the county council. It was explained that in some areas only County Members attend meetings but that Local Area Committees had a role to play in the governance of CIL.

     

    2.    The Committee asked officers to clarify the relationship between CIL and Local Committees and if there was a requirement for CIL money to be dispersed within the district or borough it originated from. Officers stated that generally CIL monies will be spent in the area that secured it, although it was possible for cross border infrastructure to be funded using CIL. The involvement with Local Committees was challenging as CIL money was district/borough money, but officers assured the Committee that work was being undertaken to involve county councillors in the process and to inform Local Committees of bids in their area. Officers agreed to report back on progress with Local Committees.

     

    3.    The Chairman assured the committee that the Infrastructure Agreements & CIL Manager along with members of his team would work on behalf of SCC to make sure bids were sensibly placed.

     

    4.    Members questioned the cost of developing green and brown belt sites. Officers informed the Committee that brown belt sites are typically more expensive as costs often include the demolition and clearing of the previous development and any contamination arising from previous commercial uses.

     

    5.    The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding informed the Committee that is was Members responsibility to involve themselves in CIL bids and ensure that members considered the whole county when making any decisions regarding CIL.

     

    Recommendations:

     

    The Environment and Transport Select Committee agreed the following recommendations;

     

    a)    Officers should continue collaboration with Borough and District colleagues in their preparation of Local Plan policies, Infrastructure Delivery Plans, CIL Charging Schedules and Regulation 123 Lists to ensure the County Council is able to support development in each of the areas by securing and providing strategic infrastructure at the required time,

     

    b)    Officers should continue to seek mitigation of infrastructure impacts from developers, on an application by application basis, in those LPA (Local Planning Authority) areas where CIL is not adopted post 6th April 2015,bearing in mind the restrictions placed on s106 agreements for any given district and borough. Details of any infrastructure mitigation that have not been achieved should be recorded.

     

    c)    Officers should establish a reporting back regime to establish the level of ‘infrastructure deficit’ arising from new development which is not being mitigated by the allocation of CIL or site specific s106 or s278 agreements,

     

    d)    That officers should continue close working with the planning authorities operating CIL, and where possible negotiate changes  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27/15

28/15

THE AGREEMENT WITH SURREY WILDLIFE TRUST FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL'S COUNTRYSIDE ESTATE pdf icon PDF 140 KB

    Purpose of the report:  Scrutiny of Services and Budgets/Performance Management/Policy Development and Review 

     

    Since the last report on this subject which came to the Committee on 15th December 2014 further detailed negotiations have taken place with Surrey Wildlife Trust which have resulted in the proposed changes to the Agreement between Surrey County Council (SCC) and Surrey Wildlife Trust (SWT).  Some of these changes are still being negotiated and therefore this report principally focuses on the proposed changes relating to property and woodland.

     

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

     

    Lisa Creaye-Griffin, Countryside Group Manager

     

    Rod Edbrooke, Countryside Partnerships Team Leader

     

    Key points raised during the discussion:

     

    1.    The Countryside Group Manager outlined the report and informed the Committee of the aim to reduce Surrey County Council (SCC) contribution to the Surrey Wildlife Trust (SWT) to zero by 2021. The Committee were informed that an annual report on the SWT agreement would come to this Committee for review. The final agreement would be signed off by April 2016.

     

    2.    The Committee discussed the need for detail in the annual report and facts and figures around SCC assets run by the SWT. Officers informed the Committee that a first draft would be ready for the task group and more detail by June.

     

    3.    There was a discussion around repairs that need to be done to SCC owned buildings that are run by the SWT and officers informed the Committee that a schedule of repairs had been drawn up that needed to be finalised as part of the agreement. Members highlighted paragraph 6 on page 34 of the Agenda and questioned why the terms of the lease had not been updated following the Cabinet Agreement to the supplemental lease in 2010.

     

    4.    One Member asked if SCC could back out of the agreement should they wish. Officers informed the Committee that the agreement allows SCC to back out should SWT default on their KPI’s, or SWT are able to serve one year’s notice if they can no longer afford to manage the Countryside Estate.

     

    5.    It was explained that a strategic woodland management plan would be ready by December 2015. By this date officers should be able to tell how much income could be generated from the woodland.

     

    6.    Members questioned whether SCCs estate managers had financially assessed the SWT ran estate. Officers informed the Committee that there had not been a full internal assessment of the SWT estate.

     

    7.    One Member expressed concerns about the agreement with regards to financial return on investment and the need for qualified staff.

     

    8.    The Committee discussed the monitoring of Key Performance Indicators and questioned when these would begin. Officers informed the Committee that they begun in 2002.

     

    9.    The Committee discussed the level of detail in the report and agreed there was a need to scrutinise the SWT agreement equipped with greater detail before Cabinet on 23 June 2015.  Officers agreed to liaise with the Chairman of the Committee as to when would be the best time for the SWT agreement to come back and to inform Members accordingly; this was put to vote with all Members in agreement.

     

    Recommendations:

     

    None

     

    Actions/Further information to be provided:

    ·                    For the Chairman of the Committee to liaise with the Cabinet Member for Environment as to the best time for the item on the SWT agreement, contract variation to come back to Select Committee.

    ·                    For the Scrutiny Officer to inform Members of the Committee as to when the SWT agreement will come back to the Committee for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28/15

29/15

SELECT COMMITTEE TASK AND FINISH GROUP SCOPING DOCUMENT: FUTURE GOVERNANCE OF THE BASINGSTOKE CANAL pdf icon PDF 117 KB

    The Committee is asked to review the scoping document for the proposed Task Group that will assess the Future Governance of the Basingstoke Canal.

    Minutes:

    Key points raised during the discussion:

     

    1.    The Chairman informed the Committee that Michael Sydney, George Johnson and himself had offered their services to the proposed task group. No further comments were made.

     

    Recommendations:

     

    The committee noted the task group scoping document.

     

30/15

DATE OF NEXT MEETING

    The next meeting of the Committee will be held at [13:00] on [Thursday 14 May 2015] in the Council Chamber, County Hall.

    Minutes:

    The next meeting of the Committee will be held at 10.30am on 11 June 2015 in the Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames.