Agenda item

(1)        The Leader of the Council or the appropriate Member of the Cabinet or the Chairman of a Committee to answer any questions on any matter relating to the powers and duties of the County Council, or which affects the county.

(Note:  Notice of questions in respect of the above item on the agenda must be given in writing, preferably by e-mail, to Anne Gowing in Democratic Services by 12 noon on Wednesday 8 July 2015).

(2)        Cabinet Member Briefings on their portfolios

These will be circulated by email to all Members prior to the County Council meeting, together with the Members’ questions and responses.

There will be an opportunity for Members to ask questions.

Notice of 15 questions had been received. The questions and replies are attached as Appendix B.

A number of supplementary questions were asked and a summary of the main points is set out below:

(Q1) Mr Sydney asked the Cabinet Member for Business Services and Resident Experience – (i) when the Department for Education changed their policy on Bio-mass installations, and (ii) why had the original wood fuel installation at High Ashurst been removed. The Cabinet Member said that she would respond outside the meeting.

(Q2) Mr Robert Evans extended an invite to Mr Ivison to visit Stanwell Moor to see what the impact of proposed expansion at Heathrow would have on this community.

Mr Beardsmore asked the Leader of the Council if he was aware that an additional 9000 homes would be required in the Spelthorne / Runnymede area if further expansion at Heathrow went ahead – this would also put more pressure on the Green Belt in Surrey.

Mr Forster requested that issues relating to air quality in parts of Spelthorne were adequately addressed as part of the Council’s debate on airport expansion.

Mr Munro informed Members that the Council Overview Board would be considering airport expansion at its meeting on 10 September 2015.

The Leader of the Council said that the County Council would only support airport expansion if it was beneficial for Surrey and that expansion could not take place until the necessary improvements to infrastructure had taken place. He also confirmed that he was aware of the issues re. housing and the pressures for Stanwell Moor and agreed to visit the area.

(Q3) Mr Goodwin asked the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding if he was aware that there had been recent articles in the press relating to the programme for re-surfacing Surrey roads and that all Members should have been informed prior to it appearing in the press. The Cabinet Member said that the information used in the article was three years old and that under the Horizon programme, Surrey was performing well.

(Q8) Mr Robert Evans asked the Cabinet Member for Localities and Community Wellbeing to expand on the information provided in his response concerning emergency access to and from roads closed due to the Prudential Ride London event. The Cabinet Member agreed to provide a response outside the meeting.

(Q9) Mr Essex questioned whether the figure of an average 160 passengers being negatively affected by the proposals and recommendations arising from the Local Transport Review were accurate. He also queried the carbon emission data and asked what would be environmental impact of the changes in Surrey. The Cabinet Member considered that the Local Transport Review had been thorough, and had included two extensive consultations. He said that the ‘160’ figure had not been challenged previously, and concerning the carbon data, he said that the figures were projections, it was not an exact science but the County Council was fully aware of carbon issues and were addressing them.

(Q10) Dr Grant-Duff asked the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding if he was aware that the Police had powers to take action against illegal and anti-social activities of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs). The Cabinet Member confirmed that the Police did have the powers but did not necessarily utilise them and that ultimately it was the Police and Crime Commissioner who made the decision on where to target their resources.

(Q12) Mr Robert Evans asked the Cabinet Member for Business Services and Resident Experience why the cost of this project remained commercially sensitive when the land had already been purchased. The Cabinet Member said that it was part of the Property Asset Management Programme and therefore she was unable to provide more information in a public meeting.

(Q13) Mr Essex requested details from the Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning on what action the County Council would be taking to address and reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions which could arise from further airport expansion at Heathrow. The Cabinet Member said that they would be discussing any mitigating actions with Heathrow later in July.

Cabinet Member Briefings on their portfolios are attached as Appendix C.

Members made the following comments:

·         The Cabinet Member for Business Services and Resident Experience asked Members to note a name change: that the Surrey Pension Fund Board be re-named as the ‘Surrey Pension Fund Committee’ with immediate effect.

This name change would be formally included in the report – Updates to the Constitution’ which would be reported to the next County Council meeting in October.

·         Asked the Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning to confirm that the County Council would continue to offer support, beyond the setting up phase, for Community Transport. The Cabinet Member said that the next phase of the Local Transport Review would include engaging with and looking at Community Transport

·         Now that the assessment study was complete, assurance requested for the County Council’s continued support for the North Downs Line

·         Also continue to lobby for Oyster Card use in Spelthorne

·         Several questions relating to the Ofsted inspection of Children’s Services from Mr Kington, which he agreed to put in writing to the Leader of the Council who agreed to respond outside the meeting

·         That there would be an opportunity at a Member seminar, scheduled for later this year, for Members to input into the Surrey Infrastructure Plan and other infrastructure studies, including Crossrail 2 (CR2)

·         A suggestion that future Local Transport Reviews should show a net effect of those passengers who would be negatively affected by any proposals

·         School building projects – concern where projects overran, resulting in children being taught in temporary rooms. However, assurance was given that the quality of teaching and learning was not jeopardised if / when alternative temporary rooms were used.