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 Democratic Services by 12 noon on 7 October 2020).

 

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.

 

Member Questions:

 

Notice of twenty-two questions had been received. The questions and replies were published in a supplementary agenda on 12 October 2020.

 

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

 

(Q1) Mr RobertEvans noted disappointment in the response as it did not set a high target or was ambitious in the levels of recycling that Surrey should be doing and the variations between different boroughs and districts.

 

In response, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Change emphasised that Surrey was doing well as a county in terms of recycling, noting the most recent figures in which the county reused, recycled or composted fifty-six percent of all of its rubbish - putting the Surrey third in the country.

 

(Q2) DrAndrew Povey was pleased to see that Cranleigh High Street was to be included in the lane rental scheme. Concerning local consultation and engagement. He asked for the Cabinet Member’s assurance that local Members would be kept better informed and involved in discussions on works on the highways.

 

(Q4) Mr MikeGoodman thanked the Cabinet Member for her excellent answer and Cabinet Member Briefing which demonstrated the work on delivering Surrey County Council’s Climate Change Strategy. He queried the grant that had been secured for LoCASE (Low Carbon across the South East), how the system would work and what the benefits would be for residents and businesses.

 

Mr Jonathan Essex congratulated the Cabinet Member on the successful bid for the Government’s Green Homes Local Authority Delivery programme, asking how many of Surrey’s 600,000 homes would be retrofitted as a result of the funding and if there would be funding to retrain Surrey residents who were out of work, to do that task.

 

In response, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Change explained that Surrey County Council secured European Union investment though LoCASE worth approximately £6 million. The contract documents would be signed in early November, to be launched soon after and would run until June 2023. The programme would be promoted to small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) across the county, working in collaboration with borough and district councils and Surrey Chambers of Commerce. SME businesses were eligible for a grant of up to fifty percent for either energy efficiency or low carbon measures, or alternatively could sign up to ten hours of support to reduce their negative environmental impacts. The carbon saved and financial benefits to SME businesses from reduced energy and fuel bills would be monitored throughout the programme.

 

The Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Change would provide a written answer to Mr Essex.

 

(Q7) Mrs Bernie Muir did not have a supplementary question.

 

Mrs Clare Curran noted that she was delighted to welcome the Deputy Cabinet Member - Support for the Leader recently to Bookham to discuss a potential community project which was being supported by a major VCFS partner and could transform service delivery in the area. She asked if the Deputy Cabinet Member could reassure Members, that if and when communities put forward schemes for Your Fund Surrey (formerly the Community Projects Fund), there would be a timely and transparent process for the assessing their feasibility.

 

The Deputy Cabinet Member - Support for the Leader responded that yes there would be a transparent process and Members would find out more detail on the CPF at an upcoming members seminar on 23 October as the project was launched. The CPF encouraged community engagement and he hoped that more projects would come forward, other avenues would be looked at for schemes not considered feasible.

 

(Q9) Mrs Clare Curran asked the Cabinet Member whether the Surrey Local Outbreak Control Plan (LOCP) was subject to continuous revision responsive to Government guidance and intelligence. 

 

In response, the Cabinet Member for Adults and Health confirmed that Surrey’s LOCP was iterative as it was subject to regular review. Given the recent new national guidance issued by the Government, Surrey’s LOCP would be updated in the next week.

 

(Q11) Mr Nick Harrison noted disappointed that the response did not highlight the budget available and whether it was sufficient to resolve the high risk wetspots. He disagreed with the definition which referred to wetspots as being reoccurring flooding incidents as in his division one of the roads had flooding for the first time which substantially impacted five properties. He asked the Cabinet Member and officers for an analysis on the cause of flooding incidents in his division and if the Cabinet Member or Deputy Cabinet Member - Place could meet with him on the implementation of the work concerning wetspots. He asked if the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee could set up a task group to review the budget, policy, procedures and action programme to address flooding risks.

 

In response, the chairman of the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee noted that the select committee would take up that suggestion.

 

(Q12) Mr Jonathan Essex restated his original question requesting the average recorded daily response times for each night and day shift from 1 July 2020, and not the average response time since the first Phase of the Making Surrey Safer Plan 2020-2023 from 1 April 2020. He also restated his request for the average number of fire engines available for each night and day shift since July 1 2020.

 

In response the Cabinet Member for Communities noted that as stated in the response, Surrey Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) used Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services’ (HMICFRS) measurement so the average response times could be benchmarked against other services nationally. The Cabinet Member added that response times were cumulative so there was an opportunity at the end of the year to evaluate the full year quality and ratified performance measures over the transition of the first Phase - currently estimated at nine months but was dependent on engagement and discussions with staff at SFRS. The Cabinet Member thanked Mr Essex for his continued involvement with the SFRS Member Reference Group, the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee and member seminars.

 

(Q13) Mrs Nikki Barton noted concern that the aggregate data used by the SFRS might hide the situation in Haslemere. She noted that from her understanding Haslemere Fire Station was being regularly left without any crews at all and relied on fire crews from the surrounding areas and that response times regularly exceeded the ten minute target. She highlighted two incidents last night which were attended from crews outside Haslemere with sixteen and nineteen minute response times. She requested further data on Haslemere and invited the Cabinet Member back to Haslemere Fire Station to address the issues.

 

In response the Cabinet Member for Communities and senior officers would be happy to attend a meeting with the Member noting the constructive engagement session last time. The Cabinet Member noted that the needs of Haslemere were recognised fully in the Making Surrey Safer Plan 2020-2023, as the whole-time availability was extended to be 7am-7pm, seven days a week - providing that additional cover at weekends. She responded to the Member’s concerns about the A3 Hindhead Tunnel, noting that SFRS was heavily involved in the construction and preparation for the tunnel; complex fire solutions and regular exercises were undertaken so that the risks identified were fully recognised and managed in the Community Risk Profile.

 

(Q14) Mr Robert Evans asked whether the Cabinet Member knew how many tower blocks there were in Surrey that failed the Government safety tests due to Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) being used as cladding.

 

Mr Jonathan Essex commented that the Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 1 Report, suggested lowering the current definition of high-rise buildings from eighteen to eleven metres so match the height that could be reached from a standard fire engine. The report also extended the list of tower blocks to refit to include those with HPL (high-pressure laminate) cladding which had similar combustibility to the ACM cladding. He asked if SFRS and the Council had figures on the number of tower blocks in those categories.

                 

In response the Cabinet Member for Communities noted that SFRS and all fire and rescue services worked with a list that was produced by the Building Research Establishment, which undertook constant tests such as evaluating different materials and to determine fire spread at elevation and ground level. Surrey’s fire safety teams worked with building owners in the county and there was a dedicated fire safety team responsible for high-rise buildings in Surrey. SFRS had proactively investigated buildings over eleven metres in height since Grenfell and it also undertook sleeping risk assessments across a number of buildings including: high-rise, childrens’ homes, care homes, hospitals and hotels. SFRS through its Making Surrey Safer Plan 2020-2023, were redistributing resources to ensure there was capacity available to undertake these key priorities going forward.

 

(Q15) Dr Andrew Povey asked for an explanatory note on the Council Tax leaflet on the 2% increase of the Adult Social Care precept which was calculated on the total amount of Surrey County Council's precept for 2019/20, so that it was not seen as misleading by Surrey’s residents.

 

In response the Cabinet Member for Resources noted that he would take the Member’s comments on board and discuss the leaflet with officers.

 

(Q16) Mr Nick Darby questioned why there was no split of the total price for the Woodhatch property in Reigate, as there were three different projects: a new school, extra care housing and office buildings. He also asked the Leader for confirmation

on whether it was the case that Surrey County Council would give itself planning permission for the new school or if permission would be from Reigate and Banstead Borough Council.

 

In response the Leader did not see what advantage there would be in splitting the value of the site as it would be divided in due course when the school and extra care facilities would be built. The site was bought with the intention of adding in two other facilities and possibly others.

 

The Leader added that he believed it the case that Surrey County Council would give itself planning permission for the new school and Reigate and Banstead Borough Council would give planning permission for the extra care housing.

 

(Q17) Mr Jonathan Essex thanked the Cabinet Member for the response noting that facilities for Tetrapaks and small recyclables would be reinstated at all sites where they were previously present by the end of October 2020. However, he was concerned at the notion that the recycling of cans, plastic bottles and glass containers would be considered redundant at CRCs and he asked the Cabinet Member to review the volume of those materials that were collected from the CRCs before the Covid-19 lockdown and to consider reinstating such facilities at CRCs so that residents could recycle surplus.

 

In response the Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Change noted that she would review the volumes recycled at CRCs of those specific recyclables and highlighted that all but one of Surrey’s borough and district councils collected those recyclables at the kerbside.

 

(Q19) Mr Robert Evans noted that he was disappointed with the response as the question was specifically about the retention of senior fire officers in SFRS and not recruitment. He added that the £4,500 extra allowance for working in the London Fire Brigade may be one reason for leaving SFRS but noted that more senior fire officers leaving SFRS quoted bullying and the twelve hour shifts in their leaving interviews, and he asked if that concerned the Cabinet Member.

 

In response the Cabinet Member for Communities assured the Member that significant attention was given at frequent meetings and conversations on workforce management. Personal development, upskilling, training and promotion opportunities were extensive throughout SFRS. The Cabinet Member emphasised that she had many conversations with members of staff who were motivated around the opportunities at SFRS, which was a service made up of highly skilled, experienced and dedicated individuals. Senior leadership officers at SFRS were committed to enable every member of staff and fire firefighter to be their best for Surrey’s residents.

 

(Q21) Mr Jonathan Essex asked what would be needed to improve the current energy efficiency rating from C to A of the intended new Council Civic Heart in Woodhatch, Reigate and how much that may cost. Concerning access to Woodhatch, the Member also asked whether the travel plan could be shared with Members, staff and residents.

 

Mrs Clare Curran commented that she had visited Woodhatch and was impressed by the airy building and grounds. She asked the Leader whether anyone from the Council had contacted the former tenants, Canon and its property team to see what they did differently at their new building as any change of practice would be useful for the Council.

 

In response, the Leader noted that there was no simple answer to improve the energy efficiency to A. The introduction of LED lights and possible removal of the air conditioning units in the ground floor conference rooms were a start and he would liaise with officers on the matters and costs involved.

 

Regarding the travel plan, the Leader responded that it would be shared with the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee and with Members once completed. The travel plan would look at options around walking, cycling, and an electric shuttle bus service.

 

The Leader explained that there had been direct liaison with Canon during the handover period and he would look into whether officers had asked them on what they were to do differently at their new building. The current focus of the Council’s land and property team was fitting out the building with furniture and equipment, with the installation of 5G network cabling to be completed by the middle of December 2020.  

 

(Q22) Mr Jonathan Essex noted that he understood from the response that there were now less free buses places and places through the concessionary seat scheme due to Covid-19. He asked the Cabinet Member to provide assurance on a post Covid-19 plan which encouraged more to travel to school on buses especially for those in which walking or cycling was too far a distance, in order to reduce school travel car dependency.

 

In response the Cabinet Member for All-Age Learning noted that a substantial amount of analysis was undertaken on the matter, as a result there were additional school bus services to ensure social-distancing and were Covid-19 secure with sixty-five separate routes. Funding remained for the second half term and those arrangements would be reviewed.  

 

Cabinet Member Briefings:

 

These were also published with the supplementary agenda on 12 October 2020.

 

Members made the following comments:

 

Cabinet Member for Resources: was pleased that the Council’s Land and Property team had appropriate momentum and resource for the future. That as well as delivering the significant Woodhatch Civic Heart project, a Member asked if the Cabinet Member could provide assurance that there would be the capacity in the team to drive through other local property projects.

                       

The Cabinet Member responded with assurance that he received weekly update and with officers pursue it religiously to ensure progress is being made.

 

Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Change: on the CRC in Epsom has been an issue, a Member asked for the detail of when the booking system trial would start.

 

The Cabinet Member noted that several residents had contacted her as they were unhappy about queueing to get into the Epsom CRC and a retailer noted difficulty in receiving deliveries as a result. As a result, a booking system would be trialled from 5 November 2020 along with Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) to catch a number of people using the CRC from outside the county. The Cabinet Member noted that communications would shortly be distributed to residents in Epsom and Ewell and neighbouring Reigate and Banstead, as well as an update on the County Council’s Surrey News website.

 

Deputy Cabinet Member - People: on the continued closure of some of Surrey’s registry offices due to Covid-19 and in particular Reigate Registrars Office. Following the Member’s query on the matter at the last Cabinet meeting and response from the Cabinet Member for All-Age Learning, the Member asked if the Deputy Cabinet Member had looked at whether the service could be provided at the Council’s intended new Civic Heart in Woodhatch, Reigate from January 2021.

 

In response the Deputy CabinetMember noted that a plan was being formulated to look at how registry services could be re-established in places where social distancing was possible. She would liaise with officers on the possible use of the new site at Woodhatch, Reigate and provide a response to the Member. She noted positively that officers were keeping up with the backlog.