Councillors and committees

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Surrey County Council, Woodhatch Place, 11 Cockshot Hill, Reigate, Surrey, RH2 8

Contact: Kunwar Khan, Scrutiny Officer  Email: kunwar.khan@surreycc.gov.uk

Media

Items
No. Item

1/22

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS

    Purpose of the item:

     

    To report any apologies for absence and substitutions.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Victor Lewanski substituted for Keith Witham.

2/22

MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS: 15 DECEMBER 2021 pdf icon PDF 242 KB

    Purpose of the item:

     

    To review the minutes of the previous meeting. The minutes will be formally agreed as a true and accurate record of proceedings at the next public meeting of the Select Committee.   

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The minutes of the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee held on 15 December were reviewed. The minutes will be formally agreed at the 8 March 2022 Committee Meeting.

     

3/22

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

    Purpose of the item:

     

    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.

4/22

QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS

    Purpose of the item:

     

    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 (17 January 2022).

     

    2.    The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting(14 January 2022)

     

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

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    None received.

5/22

SURREY FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICE REPORT ON HER MAJESTY'S INSPECTORATE OF FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES INSPECTION REPORT 2021/22 pdf icon PDF 396 KB

    Purpose of report:

     

    To update the committee on the outcomes of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services 2021 Inspection Report and the service’s response.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

    Kevin Deanus, Cabinet Member for Community Protection

     

    Dan Quin, Deputy Chief Fire Officer

    Bernadette Beckett, Chief of Staff

     

    Key points raised during the discussion:

     

    1.         The Chairman acknowledged the progress made and appreciated that the Service was on a continued journey of improvement. The Chairman said the Report (page 56) noted that response times up to March 2020 were slower than the average for services, like Surrey, that cover both urban and rural areas’ and queried if response times have improved since and asked whether the ten-minute target set was unambitious. An Officer confirmed that current figures were resting at an average of seven minutes and 12 seconds. Benchmarking takes place among Fire and Rescue services and was a helpful in many ways, albeit it causes challenges in terms of how rural and urban services were differentiated. Surrey was reflected as predominantly urban only at borough and districts level, however if the benchmarking were more exact, Surrey would be reflected as predominantly rural. As part of the Making Surrey Safer plan, the Service aimed to keep the target whilst demonstrating that changes being applied were not having a detrimental effect on services or a negative impact on the ability to perform against that commitment. Reviews of the response standard were continual with the balance of meeting targets whilst ensuring safe and appropriate responses to calls.

     

    2.         A Member asked if there were plans to conclude the ongoing issues concerning relationships with staff and the dispute with the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) observing that the media battle between the FBU and the Fire Service had been direct and at times harmful to the reputation of the Service. An Officer confirmed that the trade dispute had continued for a number of years. Work was continuing with colleagues in the FBU and with that agreement on one item had been removed from ongoing discussions recently. Although the Service was meeting the FBU frequently, it was becoming evident that it would be impossible to resolve all matters in the trade disputes and it was time for honest discussions with trade union partners. A Joint Committee for Consultation and Negotiation had been set up to include all locally recognised trade unions, resulting in a significant improvement in engagement between the trade unions. This committee, in addition to ACAS training and conversations, had agreed the implementation of open letters by the Chief Fire Officer and were confident that this would culminate in a final agreed policy on how to work together. 

     

    3.         A member noted the new initiatives to encourage better relationships with staff and the continuing dispute with the trade unions and asked how they reflected on each other.  An officer explained that the Service was actively encouraging an honest dialogue with staff to seek their views, irrespective of representation. Engagement was being expanded by supporting and empowering staff. Station visits were being conducted to encourage face to face conversations although this had been more difficult during the COVID-19 pandemic. A newsletter including feedback,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5/22

6/22

SURREY ELECTRIC VEHICLE PUBLIC CHARGEPOINTS PROGRESS AND PREFERRED PROCUREMENT OPTION pdf icon PDF 313 KB

    • Share this item

    Purpose of report:

     

    To propose how Surrey County Council (SCC) can support the transition to Electric Vehicles (EVs) in Surrey; to explain the procurement options for an EV public chargepoint roll-out; and to gain feedback on the preferred option of procuring a long term sole supplier agreement for the installation and operation of a pubic chargepoint network across Surrey.

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Witnesses:

    Matthew Furniss, Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure

     

    Katie Stewart, Executive Director – Environment, Transport & Infrastructure

    Jonathon James, Electric Vehicle Project Manager

    Lee Parker, Director – Infrastructure Planning and Major Projects

     

    Key points raised during the discussion:

     

    1. An Officer gave a brief presentation on the background to the report explaining that since 2015 there were ten times more electric vehicles on Surrey’s roads and during November 2021 more electric vehicles were sold than diesel. The proposal for a single supplier concession for chargepoints to shoulder the financial risk and responsibility for delivering on-street public chargepoints across Surrey was reinforced by a research report in 2020 by KPMG. Discussions had taken place with dozens of local authorities to learn from their experiences and 14 chargepoint operating companies had been consulted in wide ranging research. Forums with the districts and boroughs had taken place to explore progress and share best practice with a view to building partnerships. Research had shown that until recently, all pioneer authorities that had delivered chargepoint projects had almost all received significant grant funding, such funding was time limited and authorities needed to look to alternative means of delivery. The market had responded over the last 12 months by accessing investor funding to support fully funded installations where these can be secured by an extended period to achieve a reasonable financial return. The model for recommendation was principally private sector funded but also enabled the opportunity for part funding by public sources where this was available and justifiable.

     

    1. On behalf of the Committee, the Chairman expressed concern at the lack of detail included in the report and said that the Committee sought reassurances on the programme as a whole.

     

    1. The Chairman noted that the site selection of chargepoints could be controversial for residents. An Officer agreed that this topic divided opinion and whilst it was widely acknowledged as necessary, the opinions of residents and councillors was dependent of their personal and moral positions. Some residents might be against any change at this point but the Service had to reflect these advancements and improve the way that they were communicated to residents to improve the proportion of acceptability.

     

    1. A Member said that the report in its current format was confusing and did not provide enough information. An Officer said that whilst the exact numbers of chargepoints required were not currently known and would, by necessity, evolve, that should not stop the County Council making progress to procure an Electric Vehicle (EV) chargepoint partner that could scale delivery to the required demand over time
    2. A Member asked if the boroughs and districts would have the final say on Electric Vehicle (EV) chargepoints in their car parks. A Member confirmed that the districts and boroughs had been invited to be part of the process. In response it was noted that it was their choice to sign up but in any event they would control their own carparks.
    3. A Member asked if Surrey County Council knew how many houses did not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6/22

7/22

COMMUNITY RECYCLING CENTRE POLICY CHANGES pdf icon PDF 231 KB

    • Share this item

    Purpose of report:

     

    The report is intended to address three policy issues at the Community Recycling Centres (CRCs) now that they have returned to near normal operations after the removal of social distancing measures. Two of the proposed policy changes will contribute towards Enabling a Greener Future by either allowing more material to be recycled through our sites or by reducing the journey distances involved in residents transporting their waste

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

                Witnesses:

                Marissa Heath, Cabinet Member for Environment

     

    Katie Stewart, Executive Director for Environment, Transport & Infrastructure

    Richard Parkinson, Waste Group Manager

    Carolyn McKenzie, Director of Environment

     

     

    Key points raised during the discussion:

     

    1. A Member asked how proof of residency would be checked, would residents be turned away if they didn’t have the correct documentation and what policing and safeguards against any potential abuse were planned. An Officer explained that initially, the policy would be implemented softly. There would be publicity to notify residents of the new requirements but until it was common knowledge, residents would be permitted to use facilities with a reminder to bring proof of address on their next visit. Residents would be required to provide proof of address on their first visit and would be issued with an annual windscreen sticker so that they would not have to bring documentation on each visit. The ability to register vehicles would be considered for the future.

     

    1. An Officer summarised that SCC was bearing the costs of processing other counties’ waste. The policy change was to counteract this and act as a cost avoidance. This change was considered a short-term measure to contain cost pressures. In terms of climate change, changes were being made in the immediate term and the Committee would be engaged in the longer-term approach to waste going forward.

     

    1. A Member said that it would be useful to see the cost implications referred to and it was important for discussions with other counties to explore cross border agreements. An Officer confirmed that dialogue was continuing with neighbouring counties and there was a willingness to work together in a wider context of climate change. 

     

    1. A Member was concerned that reduced opening hours would result in residents travelling further to recycle which was not only inconvenient but also against the climate change policy. An Officer said that the planned re procurement of waste services would give the opportunity to consider the future use of Surrey County Council’s infrastructure

     

    1. A Member said that it would be useful to digest figures relating to use of the recycling centres following these changes. An Officer said that residual waste and recycling was monitored closely in addition to vehicle numbers providing good data for the Committee to analyse.

     

     

    Resolved:

     

    In supporting all three policy changes listed in the report, the Select Committee:

     

    1. Asks the Cabinet Member to consider joint agreements with neighbouring authorities to facilitate and help residents in using the nearby recycling centres/facilities that might fall under other local authorities;

     

    1. To minimise longer travel; environmental impact; and to encourage more recycling, asks the Cabinet member to explore whether the Surrey County Council Recycling Centres should extend their opening times and days to cover the whole week; andconsider developing pedestrian access to recycling facilities in future; and

     

    1. Asks that the Service put in place a mechanism whereby local residents can register online to comply with these changes as opposed to only being able to do so onsite - and often only after sitting in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7/22

8/22

FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME AND RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER pdf icon PDF 94 KB

9/22

DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING: 8 MARCH 2022

    The next public meeting of the committee will be held on 8 March 2022.  

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    The Committee noted its next meeting would be held on 8 March 2022.