Key points
raised during the discussion:
HIGHWAYS
-
The Director of Financial Insight gave an overview
of the council’s budgetary position and strategy. They stated
the budget was in the consultation phase and that comments and
observations from each of the Select Committees would be
communicated back to the Resources and Performance Select Committee
ahead of Cabinet. Cabinet would then decide whether to recommend
the budget to council on February 42020. The budget was underpinned
by the concept of financial envelopes for each directorate. Service
strategies and proposals had been developed to ensure costs were
contained within these financial envelopes. The Director stated
that the financial strategy set out how resources would be directed
to deliver on both the organisation strategy and the transformation
and ambitions of the council. Significant progress had been made as
an organisation from financial recovery towards financial
stability, whilst continuing the journey of improvement. The
Director stated that two years previously the council had been
relying on reserves to balance the budget however, the budget for
20/21 would be based on sustainability and investment. The
Transformation Programme would continue to deliver efficiencies,
providing offset against continuing demand for services. For the
council’s picture as a whole, in terms of revenue, there was
£78m worth of demand pressure from services which were partly
offset by £38m in proposed efficiencies. Therefore, the
council’s net budget increased from £928m to
£968m in 20/21. The £40m increase was from additional
funding from central government. The Capital Programme proposed
over the coming years was £1.4b. The Director highlighted
that the cost of borrowing had been included in the council’s
budget.
-
The Director - Infrastructure and Delivery stated
that, with regards to highways and transport, the directorate would
be reviewing management of the network and supporting a shift to
more sustainable travel solutions. The strategic transport infrastructure had been
developing well and would also aid a shift to more
sustainable solutions. With regard to the environment, there
was significant change expected in strategy from the National
Planning Policy Framework, the Environment Bill and the Resources
and Waste Strategy. The directorate needed to ascertain how these
changes would fit in with the Council’s own agenda in the
corresponding areas. The Director - Infrastructure and Delivery
stated that there would also be great focus in the year ahead on
achieving both Surrey’s and national climate emergency
targets.
-
The Director - Infrastructure and Delivery referred
to the budget spend that Surrey County Council had been making on
highway maintenance and service levels. The Director -
Infrastructure and Delivery emphasised that it was important to
appreciate the choices that the council had made with regard to its
service levels in managing the network and that the figures should
not be interpreted as value for money. Surrey’s urban network
was intensive and costly to look after. With regard to benchmarking
on waste and recycling, there were variances across the districts
and boroughs and the service would be looking at how more
efficiencies could be achieved from increased recycling levels in
the county.
-
The Strategic Finance Business Partner discussed how
they would make the transition from the existing revenue budget to
the proposed 2020/21 budget. There were a number of growth items,
totalling £9.6m, which were offset by efficiency proposals of
£4m (covering all services within the portfolio), equating to
net growth of £5.6m. The Strategic Finance Business Partner
also summarised the proposed capital programme which was split into
two parts: the capital budget – comprised of schemes that
were largely developed, such as the River Thames Scheme, highways
maintenance – and the capital pipeline – comprised of
schemes that required additional development, such as solar energy,
recycling schemes, introduction of low emission vehicles. The
Chairman requested a written response outlining those areas under
the committee’s remit where cost savings had not been
achieved and why.
-
A Member asked how realistic the efficiency
proposals were, how the envelopes were formulated and whether they
were achievable. The Director of Financial Insight stated that
efficiencies were generated by the directorate and the envelopes
were calculated so that council could achieve its £968m
budget. The Director - Infrastructure and Delivery stated that some
proposals in terms of the 2021 efficiencies were well developed
with a high degree of confidence, whilst others needed development.
Overall, there was mixed confidence albeit plans were in place to
try and mitigate risks.
-
A Vice Chairman questioned how the council would
manage the following year without the additional £40m of
funding. The Director of Financial Insight stated that they were
not planning to use this contingency fund and, where it was used,
it would be largely directed towards continuing improvements around
adult social care and health.
-
A Member highlighted that there was less detail in
the pipeline relative to the capital budget and asked whether both
parts of the capital programme where being looked at. The Director
assured Members that there were a lot of ideas around the capital
pipeline and these had been provided for in the £1.4b but
needed more development.
-
A Member stated that £84m was designated for
Greener Futures but the budget did not detail how nor when this
would be used. The Member stated that they would like scrutiny of
the following, once details had been put forward: the £68m
for ‘other’ in the pipeline and approximately
£30m for corporate asset programmes; the breakdown of the
£84m for Greener Futures; the breakdown of overall capital
programme called ‘brief summary’. The Cabinet Member for Highways stated that they
would share this information with the Committee once it became
available. They informed the Members that significant
investment was going into the county.
-
The Chairman asked whether there was any further
information that could be provided regarding the community
investment fund and asked when the first monies from the fund could be expected to be
dispersed into Surrey’s communities. The Director of
Financial Insight replied that the details were still being worked
on. The Chairman stated that the Committee planned to be part of
the process of stipulating what the criteria and scope of the fund
would be.
-
A Member asked for assurance that there would be a
re-examination of how the work and spend on Surrey’s road
network was delivered and contract management improved. The
Director - Infrastructure and Delivery informed the Committee that
the service was looking at a better service on potholes. The
existing contract management was robust and there was a lot of
performance management around this. Key Performance Indicators were
also in place with dedicated officers to check that repairs were
carried out to the expected standard. In the past more investment
had gone into preventing potholes and that additional funding would
enable more to be done on this. They stated that they would work
with the task group and select committee regarding future
contracts. The Cabinet Member for Highways stated that in previous
they had simply been managing the network but, going forward, they
would be investing to make improvements.
-
A Member also asked where the funding was for the
continuation of Project Horizon. The Director - Infrastructure and
Delivery stated that the budget for Project Horizon was contained
within the budget amounts. The breakdown of capital budget for
highways maintenance was based on the continuation of the highways
management asset strategy, underpinned by a combination of
prevention and intervention processes.
-
A Member asked how much money was allocated in the
budget for the drains contract relative to the overall highways
budget. There were backlogs of maintenance which the Director -
Infrastructure and Delivery acknowledged needed addressing. With
regard to capital spending, there was some additional budget in
drainage for the year ahead. They stated that the breakdown
depended on what the problems were and how they were prioritised.
The Cabinet Member for Highways stated that there was £6m of
extra funding allocated for drainage and £33m for flood
alleviation the following ten years. They understood that collapse
of drain structures was a big issue.
-
A Member asked how the £6m funding for drains
would be phased. The Strategic Finance Business Partner stated that
the £6m would be spent evenly over a five-year programme. The
Director - Infrastructure and Delivery stated that they could not
give an exact breakdown of how this funding would be spent,
however. The Cabinet Member for Highways reassured the Member that
long-term problems were being looked at.
-
A Member noted that the council was one of the most
expensive authorities per mile and the fifth most expensive
authority per vehicle mile, of the authorities that were compared.
The Member asked whether there was an opportunity to scrutinise
this and stated that it would be useful to make a comparison with
London costs. The Member asked how they could be assured that the
council was getting value for money with regard to physical works
and money spent. The Director - Infrastructure and Delivery
asserted that the council’s spending was reflective of the
service level it provided and that there was not a direct link to
value for money. They assured the Committee that they would
continue to benchmark across other authorities when considering
future contracts.
-
The Vice Chairman asked how the council would
receive its fair share of government funding for infrastructure,
given that previously the council had not benefitted from this as
much as it could have done. The Cabinet Member for Highways stated
that, in the past, they had not had plans in place in a timely
manner to submit bids for government funding. There were two
outstanding bids for government Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF)
funding. The council was supporting district and borough councils
on infrastructure projects. It was important to have the programmes
ready for submission when government announced and released
funding. The Cabinet Member also informed the Committee that the
Leader of the Council was increasing communication with Government
Ministers which would be key in securing funding.
-
The Vice Chairman also stated that the biggest
disruption regarding highways were utility companies and
developers. The Director - Infrastructure and Delivery stated that
there were resources in the planning team and the highways street
work team to monitor performance of utilities and developers on the
network. There were recognised inspections to check on performance
according to certain specifications or the planning agreement on
which they would have to deliver. The Director - Infrastructure and
Delivery also stated that there were some challenges around level
of resource versus activity on the network. The Cabinet Member for
Highways informed the Committee that they were currently collecting
data on how many defects were on the network due to utilities. They
stated that they would be lobbying the government to change the
rules around utilities to decrease the amount of time that
utilities have to carry out a proper and long-lasting
repair.
-
A Member asked whether funding should to be directed
towards works communications. The Cabinet Member for Highways
replied that no additional funding would be going into works
communication however, issues had become easier to report due to a
new website and digital improvement programme including an
interactive map showing existing and future proposed work. The aim
was to get as much information out to the public as
possible.
-
The Chairman questioned why the budget did not
appear to support the subsidy of buses and why the budget for
concessions was decreasing. They stressed that revenue support for
the bus network would be key for the Greener Futures agenda. The
Cabinet Member for Highways stated that as part of rethinking
transport, capital would be invested in improving the bus network
and promoting electric and hydrogen buses, whilst their key aim was
removal of older buses from the network as quickly as possible. The
Strategic Transport Group Manager stated that with regard to
concessionary fairs, the budget was reimbursement to bus operators
for people using their services for free. Both nationally and in
Surrey, there had been a trend of declining patronage by those with
concessionary passes. The Strategic Transport Group Manager
informed the Committee that the decline in patronage was reflected
in the £600,000 decline in funding. They were looking at
growing patronage in different ways and investing in partnerships
with bus operators. Work was underway to developing the pipeline of
schemes which would help the development of bids to Local
Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs). The importance of further
investment in active travel and public transport was
emphasised.
Actions/Further information to be provided:
- For the Cabinet
Member for Highways to share information with the Committee
regarding the following, once it became available:
-
£68m for ‘other’ in the pipeline
and approximately £30m for corporate asset
programmes
-
Break down of the £84m for Greener Futures
- Break down of overall capital programme called
‘brief summary’
-
The Chairman requested written response outlining
areas under the Committee’s remit where savings had not been
achieved in the current financial year and why.
-
For the Committee
to be part of the process of stipulating what the criteria and
scope would be for the community investment fund.
Key points
raised in the discussion:
ENVIRONMENT
- A Member asked
whether there could be more ambition regarding rethinking waste and
a drive towards making Surrey the county that generated the least
amount of waste in the country. The Environment Delivery Group
Manager stated that ambition regarding recycling and waste
minimisation was vital. They stated that Surrey was 41st
out of 365 authorities in recycling but there were big disparities
between Surrey’s districts and boroughs. They stated that
there was huge potential to recycle more food waste.
- The Head of
Environment stated that since Cabinet Member for Environment and
Waste had taken on the role of chair of Surrey Environmental
Partnership, he had initiated a series of conversations between
districts and borough councils to unpick what they could be doing
better, such as collection arrangements. The 2020 focus for the
Surrey Environmental Partnership was on reduce and
reuse.
-
A Vice Chairman asked what impact the budget would
have on the decisions taken regarding community recycling centres.
The Environment Delivery Group Manager stated that in terms of the
community recycling centres an adjustment had been made in the
budget to reflect that they remained open. This saving that was due
to be made could be accommodated within the existing
budget.
-
The Chairman asked whether there were any budget
revisions or implications for Eco Park. The Environment Delivery
Group Manager stated that there were a range of discussions between
Suez and the Council and that
Cabinet received regular updates on those discussions.
-
A Member asked for an update on the Eco Park and
what impact the delays had. The Environment Delivery Group Manager
stated that there were two elements to Eco Park: 1) an operational
anaerobic digestion plant that qualified for subsidies and 2) the
gasifier that was not operational. None of the equipment had been
paid for yet which was important to factor in. In terms of
revenues, they flowed through into the financial model and the
council received some benefit although some revenues may cease in
the future. There were a range of options being discussed with Suez
and officers stated that the budget was sufficient to accommodate a
variety of outcomes and stressed that there was also a £16m
sinking fund that could be called upon.
- The Chairman
voiced concern that the importance of the contract with Surrey
Wildlife Trust had not been reflected in the budget. The Cabinet
Member for Community Safety, Fire and Resilience stated that
bringing countryside property management in-house would be more
effective and generate income to subsidise visitor experience. The
Cabinet Member reassured the Committee that Surrey Wildlife Trust
were happy for this transfer of responsibility and that the Trust
received considerable funds from membership fees. The Head of
Environment added that the changes being negotiated with Surrey
Wildlife Trust were expected to have a neutral budget implication.
Going forward, they would be looking into investment in the
countryside and improving access to residents, which the Committee
would be later scrutinising.
-
A Member asked what the revenue budget
implication was to ensure that there was capacity to deliver on
Greener Futures. The Strategic Finance Business Partner stated that
transformation funding for Greener Futures was £400,000 and
£300,000 for feasibility. The Member
also asked for a breakdown of transformation and feasibility
funding for 2021. The Environment Commissioning Group Manager
stated that that funding did not include the rethinking transport
elements nor waste. They were working on a greener future
investment paper that would go to Cabinet in March
2020.
- The Member also
asked how much money would be put into increasing the energy
efficiency of Midas House, the proposed new council headquarters.
The Environment Commissioning Group Manager stated that the
investment would bring the building up to a D rating but there were
opportunities to link Midas House to the new Combined Heat and
Power network. They emphasised that the plans were still very much
in their infancy.
- A Member asked
whether the plan to plant one million trees in the County was
provided for in the budget. The Environment Commissioning Group
Manager stated that the tree planting programme was the partnership
programme and that the council would facilitate the planting of
those trees. There were opportunities to get free or heavily
subsidised trees from organisations such as the forestry
commission. There was allocated revenue funding of £120,000
to move the programme forward. The Environment Commissioning Group
Manager stated that there had been highway verge enhancement
strategy developed. That document going to Cabinet on this in April
and the committee in March.
Key points raised in the discussion:
FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICE
- The Chairman
asked why there appeared to be a decrease in spending on the fire
service. The Director of Community Protection and Emergencies
stated that this reflected the efficiencies in the fire and rescue
service that would be achieved through the modernisation programme
in response to the inspector’s judgement.
- A Vice Chairman
asked what the efficiencies were and how they would be achieved.
The Director of Community Protection and Emergencies stated that
the modernisation programme for the service enabled improvements in
delivery. A new structure coming into place in April 2020 would
deliver efficiencies and would be a phased approach to ensure
changes were safe.
- A Member asked
what had happened with regard to the pension scheme and why. The
Director of Community Protection and Emergencies believed that the
fire pension scheme had not been managed well enough; the scheme
had closed but without drawing down government funds, which had
financially burdened Surrey County Council. The council had to
ensure that the pension scheme was remunerated
properly.
RESOLVED
i.
The Committee drew attention to the
fundamental need for departments to stay within their envelopes and
achieving their efficiency targets more effectively than they did
in the previous year, bearing in mind the uncertainties around
funding in the following year.
ii.
The Committee recommends that the Cabinet
Member for Highways considers increasing the revenue budget for bus
services. This would be to increase the use of these services and
to help the council meet its Greener Future ambition to be carbon
net zero by 2050.