Purpose
of the report:For the Select Committee to receive
an update from the Deputy Leader, Cabinet Member for Highways,
Cabinet Member for Environment and Waste and Cabinet Member for
Community Safety, Fire and Resilience on progress against their
priorities and objectives.
Denise Turner Stewart, Cabinet
Member for Community, Safety, Fire & Resilience
Colin Kemp, Deputy
Leader
Mike Goodman, Cabinet Member
for Environment and Waste
Key
points raised during the discussion:
The Chairman thanked
the Cabinet Members for their reports and notes.
The Chairman of the
Committee stated that the Leader of the Council was dissatisfied
with the share of LEP resources that Surrey received. The Chairman
asked the Deputy Leader of the council to explain over what
timescale the Communities, Environment and Highways Select
Committee might be involved in getting better value out of the two
LEPs.
The Deputy Leader of
the Council responded by saying that Cabinet had not had the
capacity to put in bids for LEPs and there was no new money coming
into them, which had led to lack of certainty. He added that until
the future of LEPs had been established, he would not be able to
confirm the direction of the council. He highlighted, however, that
the Council was building its capability and needed to both put
together bids and work together with boroughs and districts to
ensure that the County Council’s plans were aligned with
local plans. The Cabinet Member could not confirm how the Committee
could get better value out of LEPs because it was a reactionary
process but when appropriate, a discussion with the Committee could
take place.
The Chairman stated
that the committee wanted a reasonable timeframe in which this
discussion would take place and the Deputy Leader of the Council
suggested that there would be greater clarity after 12 December
2019.
A Member of the
Committee requested that a list of projects currently funded by
LEPs be published. The Deputy Leader responded by saying that a
list of projects that had been funded by LEPs existed in the public
domain. He also stated that he could not discuss something that
hadn’t been finalised, but he would be happy to have a
non-public verbal conversation with the member to inform her of
current funded projects in the area.
A Member of the
Committee asked whether the Deputy Leader could separate the county
bids that were under consideration with the district and borough
bids that were under consideration. The Member also asked the
Deputy Leader what was in hand between partnered county and
district bids and asked about the status of the HIF bids. The
Member also wanted to be informed of the scale of budget that would
be required for 2021 to fulfil any bids and regeneration projects
that the council wished to make, and over what
timescale.
The Deputy Leader
informed the Committee that nothing would be released with regards
to the A320 during purdah. He confirmed that the local plan
conversations went well and he was satisfied with the evidence base
that the council was putting forward.
The Deputy
Leader informed the committee that the Guilford HIF bid had been
received and announced, and the Woking one had been received. There
...
view the full minutes text for item 24.
Denise Turner Stewart,
Cabinet Member for Community, Safety, Fire &
Resilience
Alan Bowley, Head of Environment
Key
points raised during the discussion:
The Cabinet
Member for Community Safety, Fire & Resilience stated that the
Council was looking to maximise health and wellbeing in the
population of Surrey by encouraging as much use as possible of
Surrey’s countryside. A cabinet decision was taken in January
2018 to introduce charges at the five busiest countryside sites. In
July 2018, it was agreed that a review be undertaken after 12
months of the charges being introduced and, unless significant
contribution had been made to the countryside in terms of income,
the charges would be removed. The net income was stated as being
£42,000 for Newlands Corner and £61,000 for the wider
estate, with £0.3 million in capital costs. The review
concluded that the financial benefits of charging to access the
countryside was outweighed by extensive physical and mental health
and wellbeing benefits, as well as providing quality of life and
community interaction for residents. The Cabinet Member stated it
was important that access to the countryside not be constrained by
fixed financial outlay. She informed the
members that the Council was investigating a voluntary
payment scheme, as adopted at many National Trust sites. Newlands
Corner would be subject to a local access agreement and, in the
event of removal of charges, Albury Estate would be required to engage in
discussion, which had already commenced. The recommendations were
set out in the report and the Cabinet Member asked the Committee
whether it had any questions.
A Member
asked the Cabinet Member for Community Safety, Fire &
Resilience to emphasise the point about Newlands Corner not being
included in the proposal due to considerable lack of understanding
on part of most members of the public that the land was not public
property. The Cabinet Member for Community Safety, Fire &
Resilience pointed to paragraph 25 of the report where there was
explicit reference to the Member’s query. The Cabinet Member
assured the committee Member that this would be emphasised at the
Cabinet meeting.
Another
Member of the Committee stated that they thought car parking
charges should not be scrapped rather lowered to a nominal fee to
cover some maintenance costs. The Cabinet Member referred to the
National Trust which had a donation system in place and said that
she would be looking into the prospect of voluntary contributions
in Surrey’s countryside estate car parks for which most of
the existing infrastructure would stay in place.
A Member of
the Committee informed the Cabinet Member that he had concerns that
scrapping parking charges would be to the detriment of Surrey
Wildlife Trust and asked whether the trust would be negatively
impacted by this decision and experience a reduction in revenue.
The Cabinet Member for Community Safety, Fire & Resilience
stated that Surrey Wildlife Trust received the majority of its
funding from Natural England and that conversations between the
council and Surrey Wildlife Trust were ...
view the full minutes text for item 25.
Purpose of the report:To
provide the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee
with a detailed report on the findings and recommendations of the
Greener Future Task Group which was set up to consider the
council’s role in tackling climate change.
Minutes:
Declarations of interest:
None
received.
Witnesses:
Esme Stallard – Climate Change Project
Manager
Simon Griffin –
Partnership Lead. Strategic Commissioning
Colin Kemp, Deputy
Leader
Mike Goodman, Cabinet
Member for Environment and Waste
Key
points raised during the discussion:
The Vice-Chairman
summarised the work and final report of Surrey’s Greener
Future Task group explaining that in light of the declared climate
emergency and Surrey’s Community Vision, the Task Group had
explored actions that the Council could take to tackle climate
change. It had been concluded that Surrey County Council’s
current policies were inadequate and would not help realise the
county’s net zero carbon by 2050 target. The Vice-Chairman
stated that the ‘call to action’ summarised the
recommendations of the Task Group and what the Council should act
on in order to develop a more detailed strategy. It was also
specified that further and more extensive research would need to be
undertaken in collaboration with partners and residents to form a
realistic, costed and inclusive strategy to deliver net zero. To
achieve this, it had been suggested that a member reference group
be established with involvement from Cabinet.
Committee Members
reiterated that whilst the report had a strong evidence base and
had communicated well the scale and seriousness of the challenge,
it was broad in its outlook and failed to set out in detail what
actions needed to happen to meet the climate targets.
Members suggested a
bottom-up workshop approach to engage the public in concerted
positive action to fulfil the vision of the Task Group. Members
asked the Cabinet Member how they might engage the public and
empower them to work together to form part of the
solution.
A Member questioned
whether the Task Group had public acceptance of what it had
suggested and asserted that residents must come first. It was
suggested that involving schools would be beneficial as engagement
of children can encourage adult engagement.
Members of the Task
Group stressed that there also needed to be a cultural shift within
Surrey County Council itself and that all officers and councillors
should make positive behavioural changes.
It was suggested that
engagement with Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and with central
government to clearly establish Surrey County Council’s aims
and the cost of meeting the targets of the Greener Future project
would be helpful. Concerns were raised that unless enough money was
invested, the work of the Task Group would simply remain a report
and not be acted upon. Members agreed that significant financial
support would be needed to achieve many of the recommendations
presented by the Task Group.
Members of the
Committee stated that there needed to be a modal shift from private
to public transport, but this had been inhibited by buses being run
by the commercial sector, which lacked incentive to achieve climate
and air pollution targets. It was suggested that it would be
beneficial to give local authorities the means to implement how
buses run and this was something that central government should
look at.
Purpose
of the item:For the Select Committee
to review the attached forward work programme making suggestions
for additions or amendments as appropriate.
Minutes:
Key
points raised during the discussion:
A Member
suggested that the Committee discuss the issue of road safety in
Surrey in light of the recently released figures by BBC Surrey that
eighteen people are killed or seriously injured every week on
Surrey’s roads. Members agreed that this figure needed
quantifying. The Chairman stated that he would ascertain whether
there was scope for serious and credible work for the
Committee.
A Member
told the Chairman that he would like a discussion to scrutinise the
bus strategy. The Member also highlighted that the Surrey
Environmental Partnership was looking to develop a climate plan and
that this was a new policy that should be scrutinised by the
committee. He also suggested scrutiny of the new highways
maintenance contract.
The
Chairman agreed that the Member’s points should be looked
into for inclusion on the Committee’s forward work
programme.
It was
requested that the Cabinet Member for Highways be asked about the
current status of Project Horizon.
Actions/ Further information to be
provided:
i.Submit question to the Cabinet Member for
Highways on the status of project horizon.
ii.Quantification of statistic of
traffic-related deaths in Surrey to determine scope for potential
future scrutiny.
iii.The Committee Forward Work Programme be
updated to include the proposed agreed scrutiny items.