Agenda item

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.

[Jan Mason arrived at the meeting at 10.05]

Witnesses:

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:

1. The Chairman thanked the Cabinet Members for their reports and notes.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. The Deputy Leader informed the committee that the Guilford HIF bid had been received and announced, and the Woking one had been received. There had been no update on the Tandridge A22. He emphasised that although four bids had been accepted through the first stage, it would not be guaranteed that they would get funded in the second stage.

9. A Member of the Committee stated that the lack of funding for transport to the south east was a major issue and asked the Deputy Leader to update the committee on how council would get devolution in the funding to the south east to improve Surrey’s infrastructure.

10. The Deputy Leader responded saying that he estimated that five to ten million pounds would enable him to plan and deliver and more work needed to be done in this area. He further explained that transport for south east was stalled due to a lack of statutory status. The major road network work was ongoing and would be submitted later that year albeit there was still no financial understanding of how much money the council would receive. He concluded that there would be new certainty with the newly elected government. 

11. A Member of the Committee raised concerns that the future bus strategy would not facilitate a shift from the use of private car to public transport nor fulfil the place-making agenda. The Cabinet Member for Environment and Waste was asked whether he could assure the committee that the future bus strategy would look for funding and not increase the scale of the roads, rather increase the scale of bus routes.

12. The Cabinet Member for Environment and Waste agreed that the county needed more of its residents to adopt regular use of public transport. The Council was looking into electric buses with borough colleagues and thinking about how bus routes could be linked up to train stations. He stated that the Leader of the Council was aware that the council needed to look at what resources were needed to make this happen.

13. A Member of the Committee stated that bids are hugely resource intensive and asked the Deputy Leader what the resource implications would be for the council and enquired whether it would be worthwhile establishing a permanent team to apply for funding. The Deputy Leader agreed that the council needed a permanent team to manage funding alongside a core of officers who could both scope out work with members and districts and lead a vision for place making and shaping and creating solutions around the county’s towns, roads and communities. Following this, he stated, the council would then need funding to buy in external resources to design each individual scheme. Finally, he highlighted the importance of setting a framework to bring the right people in at the right time and that they were in the process of understanding this. The  Deputy Leader was thanked for the work he was doing on Transport for the South East but it was requested that greater transparency of the project was provided and that members should be involved from an earlier stage.

14. It was queried what liaison the Deputy Leader had had with the LEPs with regards to securing money from them for energy projects and whether the Deputy Leader had been in touch with the Greater South East Energy Hub and, if so, what had been said. 

15. The Deputy Leader responded by asserting that the environment needed to be at the forefront of everything the council does. He assured the committee that the LEPs were increasingly focused on environmental issues, future technologies and related skills. He also stated that the energy board was driving a lot of work around renewable energy resources and that he needed to bring himself up to speed on these issues.

16. The Chairman highlighted that the Countryside Strategy had been continually delayed and asked the Cabinet Member for Community Safety, Fire & Resilience when the committee would likely see the strategy for scrutiny so that possible suggestions could be made.

17. The Cabinet Member for Community Safety, Fire & Resilience stated that there were several ongoing pieces of work which were influencing the Countryside Strategy namely the Leader’s environment charter, renegotiation of Surrey Wildlife Trust contract and the work of both the Surrey Health and Wellbeing agenda and the Surrey’s Greener Future Task Group. The Cabinet Member appreciated that the countryside strategy item had been constantly referred on the agenda but explained that this strategy must be aligned with the aforementioned issues, as ultimately they would inform the countryside strategy. The Cabinet Member stated that the committee could expect the strategy to be on the agenda in 2020.

18. Members expressed concern that planting 1.2 million trees would be insufficient to replace the huge number of trees lost due to Ash Dieback and asked the Cabinet Member for Environment and Waste whether the Council would be looking at alternative methods of carbon sequestration. The Cabinet Member for Environment and Waste stated that whilst the target was 1.2 million, he hoped that this figure would increase and informed the committee that this was being discussed.

19. Members asked the Cabinet Member for Environment and Waste whether Surrey Highways would consider planting trees on the road verges to help mitigate against traffic congestion. Members also relayed that people living on residential streets would like more trees planted on their roads and highlighted that trees are greatly lacking in densely populated residential areas. The Cabinet Member for Environment and Waste reminded the Committee that DEFRA was about to produce its urban tree planting strategy. The Council has been working closely with its highway colleagues and had productive discussions with about how tree planting could be done in the right way.

20. A Member of the Committee raised concerns that the council’s climate strategy appeared to bare down on the ability of people who manage the countryside estate to make profit and asked the Cabinet Member for Environment and Waste whether he thought that this was the case. The Cabinet Member for Environment and Waste said he understood the importance of protecting the countryside for future generations. The Cabinet Member for Community, Safety, Fire & Resilience said that they would be careful that the climate strategy would not constrain the ability of the rural economy nor Surrey Wildlife Trust’s activity in terms of conservation.

21. The Committee asked the Cabinet Member for Environment and Waste whether any money could be put into removing tree stumps. The Cabinet Member stated he would ask environmental experts whether any of the existing tree stumps could be removed.

22. Members requested that further information on drainage issues be provided and it was agreed that this would be passed onto the Cabinet Member and it would be provided outside of the meeting.

23. The Chairman asked whether the Cabinet Member for Community Safety, Fire & Resilience was happy with any improvements in the performance of the service.

24. The Cabinet Member for Community Safety, Fire & Resilience stated that the first action of appointing a senior team had given stability to the service and the recent inspection letter had reflected very well on the work that had been done. She also stated there had been a lot of activity with on-call and wholetime recruitment. With regards to the FBU dispute, she assured the Committee that a sophisticated communications campaign would manage any risks and that resources and plans were in place should any matters arise and informed Members that the service met regularly with Fire Brigade Union officials and discussions were progressing well. In terms of confidence, the Cabinet Member assured the committee that the service was on target and performing as it should be.

Actions/further information to be provided:

i.              Deputy Leader to provide an update on all the outstanding bids with both LEPs, the value of them and the likelihood of getting the resources and capacity in place to deliver them. The deputy leader should break them down into surrey bids, partnered bids between county and borough, and borough and district independent bids.

ii.             Cabinet Member for Highways to send written responses to the questions posed to him to all Members of the Committee.

Recommendations:

1. The Select Committee reviews the information contained in this update and offers feedback to the Cabinet Member;

2. The Select Committee considers where it may add value to the Cabinet Member’s work through scrutiny and scopes topics as required.

The Chairman agreed to consider Item 6 before Item 5a