Agenda item

ITEM 9(i)

 

Mr Stephen Cooksey (Dorking South and the Holmwoods) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

 

‘This Council notes:

(i) the findings of the most recent Footways Network Survey, showing that a third of all the county's footways are either "functionally or structurally impaired".

(ii) that models produced by the Council's highways team show that the current low levels of capital investment in the county's footways will lead to a continued deterioration in their condition, with 40% of the county's footways expected to be "functionally or structurally impaired" by 2028.

In light of these worsening conditions, this Council requests the Cabinet to give much higher priority to the funding of footway resurfacing, re-paving and repair to improve the condition of Surrey's footway network for the benefit of pedestrians.’

 

 

ITEM 9(ii)

 

Mr Tim Hall (Leatherhead and Fetcham East) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

 

‘This Council warmly welcomes a new Conservative Government which is listening to the voice of Local Government and is now setting out an agenda of reforming business rates, devolving power and responding to the funding needs of adult social care.’

 

ITEM 9(iii)

 

Mr Jonathan Essex (Redhill East) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

 

Supporting LGA Climate Local Initiative 

 

‘Surrey County Council takes note of the International Climate Talks currently taking place in Paris and takes this opportunity to reaffirm the importance of its leadership role in this area by committing to sign up to the Local Government Association's Climate Local initiative, and call on other Councils to do the same.’

ITEM 9(iv)

 

Mrs Hazel Watson (Dorking Hills) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

 

‘Council notes that when roads are surface dressed in order to prolong the life of roads by sealing them and to save money before a full resurfacing, the road surface becomes noisier for residents living nearby.

 

This Council requests the Cabinet to amend its policy to take into account not just cost but also the quality of life of residents, including noise levels of different road surfaces when deciding on different types of materials and processes for surface dressing or full road resurfacing.’

 

 

ITEM 9(i)

 

Under Standing order 12.3, the Council agreed to debate this motion.

 

Under Standing Order 12.1, Mr Cooksey moved the motion which was:

 

‘This Council notes:

(i) the findings of the most recent Footways Network Survey, showing that a third of all the county's footways are either "functionally or structurally impaired".

(ii) that models produced by the Council's highways team show that the current low levels of capital investment in the county's footways will lead to a continued deterioration in their condition, with 40% of the county's footways expected to be "functionally or structurally impaired" by 2028.

In light of these worsening conditions, this Council requests the Cabinet to give much higher priority to the funding of footway resurfacing, re-paving and repair to improve the condition of Surrey's footway network for the benefit of pedestrians.’

 

Mr Cooksey made the following points in support of his motion:

 

·         That most footways were in a deplorable state and little maintenance was undertaken to improve them.

·         The County’s footways were a hazard for residents to contend with on a daily basis.

·         The Footways Network Survey provided data which demonstrated that one-third of the County’s footways were in an unacceptable condition.

·         There was insufficient funding in the highways budget for footway improvements and there would be a continued deterioration of their condition.

·         Project Horizon focussed on highway and not footway improvements.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Goodwin, who said that footways were an integral part of the highways and should be a higher priority for maintenance and repairs. He said that although some Members, including himself, had used their local allocations for repairing footways in their divisions, there was insufficient funding for local committees to undertake this work in many instances.

 

 

Mr Furey moved an amendment, which was tabled at the meeting. The amendment was formally seconded by Mr Harmer.

 

The amendment was as follows (with additional words in bold and underlined and deletions crossed through):

 

‘This Council notes:

(i) the findings of the most recent Footways Network Survey, showing that a third of all the county's footways are either "functionally or structurally impaired".

(ii) that models produced by the Council's highways team show that the current low levels of capital investment in the county's footways will lead to a continued deterioration in their condition, with 40% of the county's footways expected to be "functionally or structurally impaired" by 2028.

In light of these worsening conditions, this Council requests the Cabinet to give as great a priority as it can much higher priority to the funding of footway resurfacing, re-paving and repair to improve the condition of Surrey's footway network for the benefit of pedestrians within the context of the Council’s challenging funding circumstances.’

 

Mr Furey spoke to his amendment, making the following points:

 

·         The highways network was used by most Surrey residents and businesses every day.

·         There was a statutory requirement to maintain the highways network and the County Council had made a significant investment to both maintain and improve it.

·         The amendment was the right approach for the County Council to take.

·         The technical jargon used in the report to describe footway conditions was as required for formal returns to Government.

·         That the Council’s footway network was no worse than many other highway authorities.

·         That a strategic approach was important to any investment and that the service was in the process of finalising a new 15 year Asset Strategy for the highway network, which included footways. This approach would complement the good work undertaken by local committees.

 

 

Nine Members spoke on the amendment and made the following comments:

 

·         That there had been a major investment in improving the pavement in West Street, Dorking.

·         As there were limited funds for footway improvements, it was requested that officers engage with local Members and also local residents to maximize the best use of resources.

·         The modeling exercise, which had been demonstrated at a recent Member seminar was useful, this illustrated the ‘cause and effect’ of moving funding within the Highways Budget.

·         That poorly maintained footways created difficulties for wheelchair users.

·         Footways should be given a higher priority in the budget because poorly maintained pavements were a trip hazard which then impacted on the NHS.

·         A balancing act was needed to decide the best way forward for funding footway re-surfacing, re-paving and repair – this would be discussed at the relevant Scrutiny Board and local committees.

 

The amendment was put to the vote with 56 Members voting for and 8 Members voting against it. There were two abstentions.

 

Therefore, the amendment was carried and became the substantive motion.

 

Two Members spoke on the substantive motion before, under Standing Order 23.1, Mr Kington moved:

 

‘That the question be now put’.

 

The Chairman considered that there had been adequate debate, agreed to the request, with the support of the Chamber, and the debate was wound up.

 

The substantive motion was put to the vote with 60 Members voting for and 7 Members voting against it. There were no abstentions.

 

Therefore, it was:

 

RESOLVED:

 

This Council notes:

 

(i)      the findings of the most recent Footways Network Survey, showing that a third of all the county's footways are either "functionally or structurally impaired".

(ii)      that models produced by the Council's highways team show that the current low levels of capital investment in the county's footways will lead to a continued deterioration in their condition, with 40% of the county's footways expected to be "functionally or structurally impaired" by 2028.

In light of these worsening conditions, this Council requests the Cabinet to give as great a priority as it can to the funding of footway resurfacing, re-paving and repair to improve the condition of Surrey's footway network for the benefit of pedestrians within the context of the Council’s challenging funding circumstances.’

 

 

ITEM 9(ii)

 

Under Standing order 12.3, the Council agreed to debate this motion.

 

Under Standing Order 12.1, Mr Hall moved the motion which was:

 

‘This Council warmly welcomes a new Conservative Government which is listening to the voice of Local Government and is now setting out an agenda of reforming business rates, devolving power and responding to the funding needs of adult social care.’

Mr Hall made the following points in support of his motion:

 

·         There had been a shift in emphasis in the working relationship between Central Government and County Councils, due partly to the Government’s engagement with local Council Leaders and also the changing world that we live in.

·         Devolution of power would be good for the area because issues in the South East would be different from those in the north of England and resources could be targeted to specific areas of need.

·         This County Council was making excellent progress in developing partnership working and new ways of working.

 

This motion was formally seconded by Mr Brett-Warburton who made the following points:

 

·         A request that all Members supported this motion

·         Surrey County Council’s Leadership had played an active part in lobbying Government for reform of business rates, devolution and responding to the funding needs of Adult Social Care and Members should be proud that the Government had listened to the Council.

·         There were many examples of collaborative work.

·         The importance of standing together as Surrey County Councillors, regardless of political parties.

 

 

Under Standing Order 23.1, Mr Robert Evans moved:

 

‘That the question be now put’.

 

Twenty Members stood in support of this request. The Chairman considered that there had not been adequate debate and refused the request. She said that she would allow the four Members who had indicated that they wished to speak to do so before taking the vote on the motion.

 

These Members made the following points:

 

·         The importance of politicians listening to the needs of residents.

·         The work undertaken to date and on-going by the Senior Management Team to drive forward the efficiency and value for money agenda.

·         A need to wait for the detailed budget allocation for the Council because the ‘devil could be in the detail’.

·         That the Care Act reforms were now postponed until 2020.

·         That there would be an additional 2% on all council tax bills next year to help fund Adult Social Care.

·         The Leader should be commended for his successful lobbying of Government and should continue to lobby for fairer funding for Surrey for 2016.

 

The motion was then put to the vote with 49 Members voting for and 16 Members voting against it. There were 2 abstentions.

 

Therefore, it was:

 

RESOLVED:

 

That this Council warmly welcomes a new Conservative Government which is listening to the voice of Local Government and is now setting out an agenda of reforming business rates, devolving power and responding to the funding needs of adult social care.

 

ITEM 9(iii)

 

Under Standing order 12.3, the Council agreed to debate this motion.

 

Under Standing Order 12.1, Mr Essex moved the motion which was relating to:

 

Supporting LGA Climate Local Initiative 

 

‘Surrey County Council takes note of the International Climate Talks currently taking place in Paris and takes this opportunity to reaffirm the importance of its leadership role in this area by committing to sign up to the Local Government Association's Climate Local initiative, and call on other Councils to do the same.’

 

Mr Essex made the following points in support of his motion:

 

·         The importance of focussing on what needs to be done today to combat climate change – he also referred to the terrible flooding in Cumbria.

·         That violent conflicts had nearly doubled in the last ten years.

·         Referred to the International Climate talks taking place in Paris and that investment and action was required to address the issues.

·         Acting to address climate change was a shared responsibility, and also a shared vision.

·         He considered that Surrey’s flood defences were a higher priority than airport expansion because 20% of Surrey homes were at risk of flooding.

·         Surrey should be prepared to take the voluntary lead in the Local Government  Association’s Climate Local Initiative and work together with the County’s partners.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Forster, who reserved his right to speak.

 

Four Members, including Mr Forster made the following points:

 

·         Concern that if global climate change continued, one in six species would face extinction.

·         Political will was needed to make the changes required to combat climate change and it was hoped that all Members would support this motion.

·         The County Council investment to support schools in reducing their energy bills.

·         That the County Council worked in partnership with Boroughs and Districts to reduce carbon emissions.

·         Encouraging residents to insulate the least efficient homes.

·         The Council’s sustainable travel programme and also the commitment to reducing food waste.

·         An invitation from the Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning for Mr Essex to partake in a working group, starting in January to look at various  options.

·         Climate change was a challenge that needed to be tackled now.

·         A request that the Cabinet Member included regular updates on the County Council’s progress in this area as part of his Cabinet Member briefings.

 

The motion was then put to the vote with 64 Members voting for it. No Member voted against it but there were three abstentions.

 

Therefore, it was:

 

RESOLVED:

 

That Surrey County Council takes note of the International Climate Talks currently taking place in Paris and takes this opportunity to reaffirm the importance of its leadership role in this area by committing to sign up to the Local Government Association's Climate Local initiative, and call on other Councils to do the same.

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM 9(iv)

 

Under Standing Order 12.3, the Council decided it wished to hear further before agreeing whether or not to debate this motion.

 

Mrs Watson made a short statement giving reasons why the motion should not be referred. She considered that it was an important motion because the surface dressing of roads caused them to become noisier, which then affected the quality of life for many residents across the county.

 

The Leader made a short statement stating that it would be inappropriate to debate this matter today because evidence needed to be gathered before the Council could have a debate on this issue and, therefore, he proposed referring this motion to the Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways Board for detailed work and scrutiny.

 

The majority of Members voted against debating the motion today.

 

Therefore, it was:

 

RESOLVED:

 

That this motion be referred to the Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways Scrutiny Board for determination. Under Standing Order 12.6, the Scrutiny Board must report back to County Council at the earliest appropriate meeting.