Agenda item

Item 8 (i)

Mr Nick Darby (The Dittons) to move under standing order 11 asfollows:

 

This council notes:

 

The unsuccessful attempt by the Leader of the Council and Cabinet to submit a case to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) to create a Surrey Single Unitary Council.

That the potential bid has caused reputational damage to Surrey County Council.

 

Therefore resolves that:

 

In order to understand the reasons behind the bid, the decision not to consult from the start with Borough and District Councils, and the cost to the council taxpayer, this Council calls upon the Leader and Cabinet to provide a full public written Report on this unsuccessful bid, to include the following:

                      I.        The process used to launch the bid and authorise expenditure on the bid.

 

                    II.        The rationale for developing a bid before the Government’s White Paper has been published.

 

                   III.        The full costs of the bid including the costs of the initial research and financial analysis, preparation of a comprehensive business case, consultants fees, Public Affairs support, the Telephone and Focus Group Survey, any Surrey-wide leaflets which included material in support of a bid for a Single Surrey Unitary, and officer time.

 

                  IV.        Other relevant information.

 

Item 8 (ii)

Mr Chris Botten (Caterham Hill) to move under standing order 11 asfollows:

 

This council notes:

 

This council recognises that the future of Surrey's local government may well be with appropriately sized and proportioned unitary authorities.

 

Therefore resolves that:

 

1. In future to ensure it works inclusively with Boroughs and Districts and their communities to establish a consensus on the way forward, including ensuring that funding can be devolved to elected bodies as close to communities as possible.

 

2. It minimises the use of public funds and resources in exploring and developing future models to put to Surrey residents, mindful of the fact that ALL councils in Surrey have very limited resources and that any move to Unitary bodies would be predicated on the need for greater efficiency and stewardship of public funds.

 

Item 8 (iii)

Mr Will Forster (Woking South) to move under standing order 11 asfollows:

 

This council notes:

 

• As people are being instructed to return to school, the national Government is encouraging everyone to walk or cycle where possible instead of taking public transport or returning to their cars.
• The Government has announced a £250 million “Emergency Active Travel Fund” for temporary infrastructure to enable safe cycling and walking – of which, Surrey County Council received £848,000 (and provided match funding) as part of phase 1. It has subsequently submitted a £7.8m bid for phase 2.
• The Transport Secretary issued new Statutory Guidance on 9 May to all Highways Authorities, requiring them to deliver “transformative change” within an urgent timeframe.
• Measures listed under the Statutory Guidance include (but are not limited to) ‘pop-up’ cycle facilities, widening footways, “school streets” schemes, and reducing speed limits.
• The guidance further states that “measures should be taken as swiftly as possible, and in any event within weeks, given the urgent need to change travel habits before the restart takes full effect”.
• “School streets” schemes, which close the roads outside schools during drop-off and pick-up times, have the multiple aims of: improving road safety for pupils, encouraging active travel to school/ modal shift out of cars, and improving the air quality and environment at the school gates, and are very effective for enabling social distancing outside schools.

 

This Council further notes that:

 

• Prior to Covid-19 related changes, “school streets” schemes were successfully introduced or were being trialled at multiple local authorities across the UK.
• Since the announcement, enthusiasm for “school streets” has sky-rocketed, with many more councils introducing these schemes before schools reopened and multiple NGOs calling for the introduction of “school streets” to manage social distancing at the school gate.
• Some councils are introducing the measures under their own considerable statutory powers, making experimental traffic orders where necessary.
• Now is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to positively impact travel choices, including the associated benefits on health, air quality and road safety.

 

This Council resolves to request that Cabinet:

 

1. Works with county councillors, Districts and Boroughs, schools and local partners to swiftly identify those schools in the county that could put a “school streets” scheme in place.

 

2. Works with county councillors, Districts and Boroughs, schools and local partners to enable all schools that wish to take part in the “school streets” scheme to do so – taking advantage of experimental traffic orders and new statutory guidance over fast-tracked Traffic Regulation Orders where necessary.

 

3. In the long term, continue to work with all schools in the county to develop accredited Travel Plans, which could include enforceable No-Idling Zones and “school streets” schemes.

 

4. Measures air quality around a sample of schools in all eleven districts/boroughs at child-head height to identify the level of air pollution children are being exposed to at school drop-off and pick-up.

 

5. Pilots additional measures to improve air quality near schools in 2020/21, such as “living green walls” and tree planting, working with local businesses to sponsor these initiatives.

 

6. Establishes a cross party group of members to work with officers in order to identify suitable measures, prioritise locations and oversee implementation of the scheme.

 

 

Item 8 (iv)

 

Mrs Helyn Clack (Dorking Rural) to move under standing order 11 as follows:

 

This Council notes: 

 

In Surrey, we are committed to enabling our residents, communities and local businesses to have a greater say over the issues that truly matter to them. 

 

Surrey has a strong track record of partnership working and innate strengths and capacity within our communities and we wish to build on this.

 

This Council fully supports the enhanced local engagement work currently underway to ensure our residents have more influence over what happens in their local communities. 

 

Therefore resolves that:

 

I.              It supports residents to have a greater role in determining the priorities for the future of their communities.

 

II.            It enables enhanced resident engagement through the creation of a number of Local Community Networks, drawing partners together with the Council at a local level and giving Surrey residents and communities a greater say in the issues that affect them.

 

III.           Through the Local Community Networks to work in partnership with local bodies and organisations to ensure effective and joined-up local approaches to addressing local issues and service provision.

 

IV.          It enables residents to take greater local control by the potential devolution of local assets and services. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 8 (i)

 

Under Standing Order 12.3 the Council agreed to debate this motion.

 

Under Standing Order 12.1 Mr Nick Darby moved:

 

This Council notes:

 

The unsuccessful attempt by the Leader of the Council and Cabinet to submit a case to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) to create a Surrey Single Unitary Council.

 

That the potential bid has caused reputational damage to Surrey County Council.

 

Therefore resolves that:

 

     In order to understand the reasons behind the bid, the decision not to consult from the start with Borough and District Councils, and the cost to the council taxpayer, this Council calls upon the Leader and Cabinet to provide a full public written Report on this unsuccessful bid, to include the following:

 

    I.       The process used to launch the bid and authorise expenditure on the bid.

 

   II.       The rationale for developing a bid before the Government’s White Paper has been published.

 

 III.       The full costs of the bid including the costs of the initial research and financial analysis, preparation of a comprehensive business case, consultants fees, Public Affairs support, the Telephone and Focus Group Survey, any Surrey-wide leaflets which included material in support of a bid for a Single Surrey Unitary, and officer time.

 

 IV.       Other relevant information.

 

Mr Darby made the following points:

 

·           He sought a full public written report on the unitary bid, to include the process used to launch the bid and authorise its expenditure, the rationale for developing the bid at the current time and to understand the full costs of the bid so far and any other relevant information.

·           Noted disappointment as the bid caused reputational damage with borough and district councils who had not been closely consulted on the options for Surrey and the bid sought their removal. Such a relationship was vital to achieve joint strategies such as the Surrey Place Ambition 2050 and dismisses their joint role in the county’s response to Covid-19.

·           He noted that residents should have been consulted on the proposal from the beginning, not through the belated Telephone and Focus Group Survey and not when the option chosen was expressed as a done deal, such as the leaflet to residents which promoted a single Surrey unitary.

·           That the bid was rushed without a detailed business case or briefings involving Member and resident consultation. Surrey’s encouragement by the Government to prepare a bid early to get in quick despite Covid-19, Brexit and the need to allow recovery was ill-judged. 

·           That the bid was a waste of taxpayers’ money as it was confirmed the previous day that Surrey was not being invited to make a bid at present. He asked what the Council had spent so far on the intended bid and noted an approximate figure of just under £350,000 composing of initial research and financial analysis, preparation of the comprehensive business case, a Telephone and Focus Group Survey, Surrey-wide leaflets, public affairs support and expenditure on a senior policy lead and officer time.

·           Highlighted the wasted costs of £183,000 for the intended purchase of the Council’s proposed headquarters in Woking, now scrapped in favour of Woodhatch, Reigate.

·           As a result of the above costs of just over £500,000 he asked what services could have be provided or saved, bearing in mind the constant cuts over the last ten years and continuing austerity.

·           He asked if the Leader would do the same thing again or what he would have done differently and what was the Council doing to repair the reputational damage.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Eber Kington, who reserved the right to speak.

 

No points were made by Members.

 

Mr Kington, the seconder of the motion, made the following comments:

 

·           That the motion was tabled as it was crucial that Surrey’s residents knew the reasons behind the ill-timed an increasingly expensive bid for unitary authority status.

·           The intended bid was shrouded in Conservative Party secrecy, confusion and uncertainty over costs and frequent u-turns over the bid’s status.

·           That from the outset there was no consultation with the Leaders of Surrey’s borough and district councils or residents.

·           That when interviewed by Guildford Dragon News on Youtube in September the Leader struggled to give an answer on costs eventually suggesting £100,000-£150,000. However, thanks to the challenge of opposition councillors that figure was in fact closer to £250,000 and rising.

·           That although Surrey’s unitary bid had been delayed as it was confirmed as not being on the Government’s early bid list, there should be no delay in the publication of a full public written report covering the issues raised in the motion.

 

The Chairman asked Mr Darby, as proposer of the original motion, to conclude the debate:

 

·           He hoped that support for the motion would be unanimous.

 

In accordance with Standing Order 28.1, Mr Eber Kington requested a recorded vote to be taken on the motion. The Chairman agreed to Mr Kington’s request.

 

The following Members voted for it:

 

Mrs Barton, Mr Beckett, Mr Botten, Mr Cooksey, Mr Darby, Mr Essex, Mr Robert Evans, Mr Forster, Mr Goodwin, Mrs Goodwin, Mr Harrison, Mr Kington, Mr Lee, Mr MacLeod, Mr Mallett, Mrs Mason, Mrs Rivers, Mr Spence, Mr Townsend, Mrs Watson, Mrs White.

 

The following Members voted against it:

 

Ms Azad, Mrs Bowes, Mrs Bramhall, Mr Brett-Warburton, Mr Carasco, Dr Chapman, Mrs Clack, Mrs Curran, Mr Deach, Mr Tim Evans, Mr Few, Mr Furey, Mr Furniss, Mr Gardner, Mr Goodman, Miss Griffiths, Dr Grant-Duff, Mr Gulati, Mr Hall, Mrs Hammond, Mr Harmer, Mr Harris, Mr Hawkins, Miss Heath, Mr Hussain, Mrs Iles, Mr Islam, Mr Knight, Rachael I Lake, Mrs Lewis, Mr McIntosh, Mr Mansfield, Mr Martin, Mrs Mooney, Ms Morley, Mrs Moseley, Mrs Mountain, Mrs Muir, Mr Nuti, Mr Oliver, Mr O’Reilly, Dr Povey, Mr Ramsdale, Mrs Rush, Mr Samuels, Mrs Steeds, Dr Szanto, Mr Taylor, Mrs Thorn, Ms Turner-Stewart, Mr Walsh, Mrs Young.

 

The following Members abstained:

 

Mr Bennison.

 

21 Members voted For, 52 Against and 1 Abstention.

 

Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:

 

The motion was lost.

 

Item 8 (ii)

 

Under Standing Order 12.3 the Council agreed to debate this motion.

 

Under Standing Order 12.1 Mr Chris Botten moved:

This Council notes:

That it recognises that the future of Surrey's local government may well be with appropriately sized and proportioned unitary authorities.

 

Therefore resolves that:

 

       I.   In future to ensure it works inclusively with Boroughs and Districts and their communities to establish a consensus on the way forward, including ensuring that funding can be devolved to elected bodies as close to communities as possible.

 

      II.   It minimises the use of public funds and resources in exploring and developing future models to put to Surrey residents, mindful of the fact that ALL councils in Surrey have very limited resources and that any move to Unitary bodies would be predicated on the need for greater efficiency and stewardship of public funds.

 

Mr Botten made the following points:

 

·      He felt that the motion was important to begin to address the reputational and financial damage done as well as trust eroded from the unitary bid.

·      That the question of unitary authorities would not disappear as proportionately sized unitary authorities could be an effective future for local government.

·      That proper consultation was needed with Surrey’s borough and district councils to ensure consensus on the way forward to deliver effective shared services and joint budgets devolved to elected bodies as close to communities as possible.

·      That consultation was also needed with parish, town and village councils in Surrey to obtain a clear view of Surrey’s unitary agenda across the county and to ensure the effectiveness of devolved powers and local representation.

·      That consultation with elected Members across Surrey was vital as focus groups, various assemblies or the proposed LCNs were not guaranteed to take ownership or be representative and long-lasting.

·      Emphasised that the Council must embrace modesty and humility going forward, looking towards consensus through local solutions.

·      Stressed that the boundaries of a new Surrey authority must ensure integration across services protecting the most vulnerable residents such as public health, adult and children’s social care.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mrs Fiona White, who reserved the right to speak.

 

Nine Members made the following points:

 

·      Thanked Mr Botten for the motion and was supportive of unitary authorities.

·      Noted that most forms of local government had lifespans of approximately fifty years of which Surrey in its present form as a non-metropolitan council had been in existence since 1974.

·         That the unitary question would not go away and had been debated six years ago in Council, a full debate on the matter should have been had before Covid-19 and the Government’s lead.

·         Agreed that residents must be put first, many felt that the present two or three tier structure in the county was not the most efficient system and the division between responsibilities was not always clear.

·         Was dismayed that residents were not kept well-informed on the unitary bid or the differing options, the Surrey-wide leaflet only promoted the Surrey single unitary option and some borough and district council leaflets opposed that view.

·         That it was crucial to reflect on all the options concerning the unitary bid ensuring detailed consultations on the matter to look towards Surrey’s future and financially efficient local government.

·         The way in which the single Surrey unitary bid was launched fractured relationships with its borough and district councils that would be difficult to repair and showed disregard to their opinions.

·         Noted that Leaders of the borough and district councils reacted strongly to the bid which proposed their abolition by investing in consultants to promote their different cases, which would likely not have been necessary if they had been consulted with from the beginning.

·         That the motion provided a mechanism to move forward, Surrey’s leadership and Public Service Reform Working Group must seriously consider other options in relation to the unitary bid and must engage constructively with the borough and district councils.

·         That the motion was emotional in tone but lacking in content and was displeased that LCNs were being dismissed before they had been discussed in detail.

·         That the Government would, in due course, be inviting different local authorities for their proposals and restructuring local government should be embraced if it meant better services for Surrey’s residents and sustainability.

·         Welcomed the dynamism of the Council which looked after 1.2 million residents and praised the leadership displayed during the pandemic by handling over 10,000 calls via the Surrey community helpline, making direct contact with 40,000 shielding residents and it opened a community hospital in just thirty-five days.

·         Noted that the first motion was based on the false premise that the unitary bid was unsuccessful as no bid had been made and that by not linking in with the proposed LCNs, this motion did not go far enough on local engagement.

·         That residents did not want a humble Council but wanted leadership.

·         Explained that the Government still intended to publish the Recovery and DevolutionWhite Paper, the restructuring of local government was a Government initiative. Surrey was encouraged to work on a business plan which it had and was currently in wave two for those authorities to be taken forward for unitary authority status.

·         That it was a shame that Members were dismissing LCNs without looking at the detail or their potential.

·         That the costs of the work on Surrey’s unitary bid had been published, borough and district councils had also spent £150,0000 on instructing KPMG and that work had identified the opportunities to save costs.

·         Did not recognise the alleged reputational damage to the Council’s relationship with its borough and districts councils, as the exploration of Surrey’s future governance structure was in the best interest of residents.

·         Highlighted that in the latest Surrey Residents Survey, 50% thought that the Council provided value for money and 68% of residents were satisfied with how the Council were doing things. Of those who participated in the Telephone and Focus Group Survey, 61% thought that the streamlining of local government was a good idea and 61% welcomed the idea of a single unitary authority - the younger generation were most in favour.

·         That the focus must be on what residents thought and what was best for them. The restructuring of local government by reducing the number of councillors and councils, and ensuring more efficient ways of delivering services was key, avoiding duplication. 

·         That the money committed by both borough and district councils and Surrey County Council on initial research on the restructuring of local government was not wasted, as greater information available to Surrey’s councillors was an asset and enabled more informed decisions.

·         That although the intention of the motion was understandable towards a more consensual debate, it could not be supported as no one but the Government though that local government reform was a pressing issue and the motion wrongly supported the Council’s pre-emptive move on the issue, conceding to the idea that a Surrey unitary was the way forward.

·         That it was a shame that it felt as though Members were siloing themselves into voting for or against a motion that was supposed to bring them together.

·         Hoped that going forward, differing views and options as opposed to a single Surrey unitary, would be reviewed and the public and that all of Surrey’s local councils would be consulted.

·         Disagreed with the Leader that humility and leadership were mutual opposites.

·         That it was important that the Council understood what the public wanted, and to recognise that some residents were confused when the unitary bid was on and then later off. More information was needed as although many residents wanted change, that change must be for the better - savings and efficient delivery of services.

 

Mrs White, the seconder of the motion, made the following comments:

 

·         Similarly to other Members, she was sorry to see the damage done to the Council’s relationship across Surrey local government particularly the borough and district councils.

·         That the Government’s rush for the implementation of unitaries and the need to publish the Recovery and DevolutionWhite Paper in the autumn despite Covid-19 and Brexit, was ill-judged.

·         That she was in favour of reviewing the current structure to avoid the confusion of multiple tiers of local government, however such considerations must be through detailed and considered consultation with Surrey’s local councils and directly with residents.

·         That a lot of work was needed to rebuild the Council’s relationship with its district and borough councils, their continued support during the pandemic was invaluable and it was unfortunate that the Council’s leaflet noting a possible single Surrey unitary, did not acknowledge that contribution.

·         That the idea of using parish, town and village councils as a local form of service delivery was interesting, however more awareness was needed to ensure that there were many candidates standing, so they were not later filled by co-option.

·         Whilst community and residents’ associations played a good role they were often self-selecting and so there was a governance question around their accountability, that concern applied to the proposed LCNs. There must remain a level of elected Member representation across the county including areas not currently covered.

·         Stressed that the Council needed to pull back from its proposal of a single Surrey unitary authority and instigate proper conversations across its tiers and with its residents.

 

The Chairman asked Mr Botten, as proposer of the original motion, to conclude the debate:

 

·           The intention of the motion was to bring the Council together, it must distance itself from its hubristic approach to the unitary bid and ensure humility and modesty as leaders going forward.

·           He was regretful that the Conservative Party Members could not support the motion as the issue seemed to be about ownership and not the content.

·           That ideas on a consensual way forward across all of Surrey’s councils including devolved funding to elected bodies as close to communities as possible could have been developed more fully later on.

 

The motion was put to a vote in which 20 Members voted For, 52 Against and 1 Abstention.

 

Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:

 

The motion was lost.

 

  Item 8 (iii)

 

  Under Standing Order 12.3 the Council agreed to debate this motion.

 

  Under Standing Order 12.1 Mr Will Forster moved:

 

            An amendment to the motion set out in the agenda for this meeting in his own name, as follows: (with additional words in bold/underlined and any deletions crossed through)

 

This Council notes:

 

·         As people are being instructed to return to school, the national Government is encouraging everyone to walk or cycle where possible instead of taking public transport or returning to their cars.

·         The Government has announced a £250 million “Emergency Active Travel Fund” for temporary infrastructure to enable safe cycling and walking – of which, Surrey County Council received £848,000 (and provided match funding) as part of phase 1. It has subsequently submitted a £7.8m bid for phase 2.

·         The Transport Secretary issued new Statutory Guidance on 9 May to all Highways Authorities, requiring them to deliver “transformative change” within an urgent timeframe.

·         Measures listed under the Statutory Guidance include (but are not limited to) ‘pop-up’ cycle facilities, widening footways, “school streets” schemes, and reducing speed limits.

·         The guidance further states that “measures should be taken as swiftly as possible, and in any event within weeks, given the urgent need to change travel habits before the restart takes full effect”.

·         “School streets” schemes, which close the roads outside schools during drop-off and pick-up times, have the multiple aims of: improving road safety for pupils, encouraging active travel to school/ modal shift out of cars, and improving the air quality and environment at the school gates, and are very effective for enabling social distancing outside schools.

 

This Council further notes that:

 

·         Prior to Covid-19 related changes, “school streets” schemes were successfully introduced or were being trialled at multiple local authorities across the UK.

·         Since the announcement, enthusiasm for “school streets” has sky-rocketed, with many more councils introducing these schemes before schools reopened and multiple NGOs calling for the introduction of “school streets” to manage social distancing at the school gate.

·         Some councils are introducing the measures under their own considerable statutory powers, making experimental traffic orders where necessary.

·         Now is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to positively impact travel choices, including the associated benefits on health, air quality and road safety.

 

This Council notes:

 

Funding for the highway improvements could be provided from external sources such as Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Some notable examples include the £250,000 cycle and pedestrian improvements outside Hinchley Wood Primary and Secondary Schools (funded from CIL), and the £360,000 pedestrian accessibility and safety scheme outside Burstow School in Smallfield (currently being designed, also funded from CIL).

 

School Streets, whereby roads near schools are closed at drop off and pick up times, provide an additional solution that could be considered as part of the Road Safety Outside School process. School Streets will not be appropriate for many sites, so it is important to follow the Road Safety Outside Schools process so the correct solutions can be developed for each location.

 

However, there are some important caveats. Within London, most School Streets have been enforced using ANPR cameras operated by the civil authorities (with exemptions for residents and school staff, and essential carers who may need to enter the closed road).

Outside of London, at the present time, Local Authorities do not have the legal power to use ANPR cameras to issue penalties for moving traffic offences such as passing a point closure at the start of a School Street. This will require legislation by central government. In the mean-time enforcement is only possible by the police who have many other demands on their resources.

 

In other locations where the School Street closures are manually operated, this has usually taken place where there are no residential properties within the closed road zone, and so a temporary barrier can be installed (by a school caretaker for example), to ensure no vehicle can physically enter the closed road during the closure period. This would not be practical at locations where some vehicles will still need to have access to the closed road. We are not aware of any locations within Surrey where a manually operated School Street would be practical and worthwhile (for example where there are not any residential properties on the roads in question).

 

The Transport Secretary Grant Shapps has indicated in Parliament that Central Government will be giving local authorities outside London the powers to enforce moving traffic offences.

 

With that in mind officers have identified a potential trial site (Bullers Road on the approach to Farnham Heath End school in Farnham) and have scheduled a site visit with local members in the coming weeks. Any scheme would require acceptance from the residents within the School Street that they would need to register their vehicles for an exemption. They would also need to accept that they will not be able to receive any deliveries or visitors using non-registered vehicles during the closure times. The impact of displacement of parking onto other nearby roads will also need to be considered carefully. The back-office arrangements to issue and administer penalties and exemptions will also need to be set up. If we proceed with a trial at this site, then the lessons learned will inform upon the viability, value for money and success of similar schemes elsewhere in the county.

 

All schools are encouraged to create a school travel plan using the national Modeshift STARS online portal which provides a template and resources to assist in creating their plan, and a nationally recognised accreditation. The council’s Safer Travel Team provide regular training and assistance to schools on developing their travel plans. At the present time there are 104 Surrey schools registered on the Modeshift STARS portal and 41 schools have an accredited travel plan. The same team have commissioned a School Air Quality Programme funded though contributions from Borough and District Environmental Health teams. This initiative involves theatre workshops, lessons and assemblies on air quality. It also includes children deploying diffusion tubes on the roads near the school to measure air quality and holding anti-idling events outside the school (subject to COVID-19 restrictions).

 

The Safer Travel Team also assist schools in applying for the international Eco Schools accreditation. This is achieved by the school undertaking a range of activities and practices in support of the environment and climate change. This could include tree planting, though it is for individual schools to decide what initiatives are most relevant to their site. There are 37 schools with Eco Schools “Green Flag” accreditation in Surrey.

 

This Council resolves to request that Cabinet:

 

I.   Works with county councillors, Districts and Boroughs, schools and local partners to swiftly identify those schools in the county that could put a “school streets” scheme in place.

 

II.   Works with county councillors, Districts and Boroughs, schools and local partners to enable all schools that wish to take part in the “school streets” scheme to do so – taking advantage of experimental traffic orders and new statutory guidance over fast-tracked Traffic Regulation Orders where necessary.

 

III.   In the long term, continue to work with all schools in the county to develop accredited Travel Plans, which could include enforceable No-Idling Zones and “school streets” schemes.

 

IV.   Measures air quality around a sample of schools in all eleven districts/boroughs at child-head height to identify the level of air pollution children are being exposed to at school drop-off and pick-up.

 

V.   Pilots additional measures to improve air quality near schools in 2020/21, such as “living green walls” and tree planting, working with local businesses to sponsor these initiatives.

 

VI.   Establishes a cross party group of members to work with officers in order to identify suitable measures, prioritise locations and oversee implementation of the scheme.

 

I.        Agrees that officers will proceed with an assessment of Bullers Road in Farnham as a potential school street pilot, subject to the caveats that central government provide the enforcement powers, residents support the proposal, and that the impact of the displacement of parking are considered carefully.

 

II.        Invites nominations for further school streets pilots from communities, highways, members and schools. To be assessed for suitability following the initial pilot at Bullers Road, Farnham.

 

III.        Agrees that the outcome of school street pilots in Surrey, along with school streets initiatives in other comparable areas, will inform the viability of school streets elsewhere in the county as part of the existing Road Safety Outside Schools policy process.

 

IV.        Officers will continue to work with schools throughout the county on developing school travel plans, will continue to oversee the Schools Air Quality Programme, and will continue to support schools in applying for Eco Schools accreditation.

 

V.        Notes the work officers are currently doing with schools throughout the county on any requests for neighbourhood zones, tree and hedge planting and air pollution projects, as part of the Schools Air Quality Programme, and continue to support schools in applying for Eco Schools accreditation.

 

Members agreed to debate the amended motion and therefore it became a substantive motion.

 

Mr Forster made the following points:

 

·      That during lockdown people across Surrey experienced better air quality and a safer environment due to there being fewer vehicles on the road and those benefits needed to be preserved.

·      That “school streets” could improve children’s health and wellbeing and road safety during drop off and pick up times and encourage children to walk and cycle.

·      That officers had identified Farnham Heath End school, which could be Surrey’s pilot for “school streets” and that if the motion was agreed, nominations of other schools would be invited.

·      Hoped that the Cabinet Member for Transport would press the Government for additional powers and resources to implement “school streets” for those places outside of London such as Surrey.

·      That in addition to “school streets” the motion was a commitment to the Council’s redoubling of its effort to improve local communities for example through neighbourhood zones, tree and hedge planting and air pollution projects; especially the School Air Quality Programme and the Eco Schools accreditation.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mrs Angela Goodwin, who reserved the right to speak.

 

Four Members made the following points:

 

·      Thanked the Member for his amended motion and confirmed that as Cabinet Member for Transport, “school streets” was something the Council supported and was pushing the Government for equal powers for areas outside of London.

·      That the Council did a lot of work around schools such as improving road safety around schools through and noted that changes such as “school streets” must be considered thoroughly as they could impact on residents.

·      That the Council were also working on its pledge of planting 1.2 million trees by 2030, 104 schools were registered with Modeshift STARS and forty-one with an accredited school travel plan, thirty-seven schools had the Eco Schools “green flag” accreditation in Surrey.

·      That the motion had changed substantially since it was tabled and was pleased that the amendment included consultation with residents and the careful consideration of the initiative and unintended consequences on the local traffic situation - such as adding to pollution and congestion.

·      Noted the work of the Safer Travel Team on improving air quality and working closely with pupils, endorsed Modeshift STARS which was an online portal for schools to create tailored travel plans encouraging different ways of travelling to school.

·      That ultimately schemes such as “school streets” would only be successful if local residents supported them and children were encouraged to use them.

·      Welcomed the amended motion on the basis that it sought to invite nominations for “school streets” from across Surrey, and asked for assurance that the pilot in Farnham could be replicated quickly across the thirty proposed LCNs so that many of the county’s children could experience the scheme.

 

Mrs Goodwin, the seconder of the motion, made the following comments:

 

·      Pleased to see that the Council was looking at “school streets” via a pilot and across surrey, recognising that the scheme would not work for all.

·      That whilst schools across Surrey had their own school travel plans, some residents reported that they were not always effective due to drivers blocking drives, engine idling and parking on pavements during school drop off and pick up times.

·      Stressed that “school streets” must be more than just temporary moveable barriers at the end of streets, it was an opportunity for the Council to be creative and to build on active travel practices that people were doing as a result of the pandemic such as greater walking, cycling or scooting.

·      That the introduction of neighbourhood zones with advisable twenty miles per hour speed limits, the planting of hedges and trees around schools to absorb air pollutants, implementing green walls, working with air pollution research experts to work with children on air pollution projects, introducing drop zones for parents to safely leave their children to walk to and from school were vital and achievable in collaboration with a variety of partners.

 

The Chairman asked Mr Forster, as proposer of the original motion, to conclude the debate:

 

·      Noted that the pandemic had encouraged many people to walk and cycle more.

·      That many in Surrey wanted to do more to cut their emissions and make roads safer, but the Government and Council had not done enough to tackle air pollution and investing in infrastructure to make walking and cycling safer.

·      That “school streets” and the other measures proposed in the motion redressed that, prioritising children’s wellbeing. 

 

The motion was put to a vote and received unanimous support.

 

Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:

 

This Council notes:

 

Funding for the highway improvements could be provided from external sources such as Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Some notable examples include the £250,000 cycle and pedestrian improvements outside Hinchley Wood Primary and Secondary Schools (funded from CIL), and the £360,000 pedestrian accessibility and safety scheme outside Burstow School in Smallfield (currently being designed, also funded from CIL).

 

School Streets, whereby roads near schools are closed at drop off and pick up times, provide an additional solution that could be considered as part of the Road Safety Outside School process. School Streets will not be appropriate for many sites, so it is important to follow the Road Safety Outside Schools process so the correct solutions can be developed for each location.

 

However, there are some important caveats. Within London, most School Streets have been enforced using ANPR cameras operated by the civil authorities (with exemptions for residents and school staff, and essential carers who may need to enter the closed road).

Outside of London, at the present time, Local Authorities do not have the legal power to use ANPR cameras to issue penalties for moving traffic offences such as passing a point closure at the start of a School Street. This will require legislation by central government. In the mean-time enforcement is only possible by the police who have many other demands on their resources.

 

In other locations where the School Street closures are manually operated, this has usually taken place where there are no residential properties within the closed road zone, and so a temporary barrier can be installed (by a school caretaker for example), to ensure no vehicle can physically enter the closed road during the closure period. This would not be practical at locations where some vehicles will still need to have access to the closed road. We are not aware of any locations within Surrey where a manually operated School Street would be practical and worthwhile (for example where there are not any residential properties on the roads in question).

 

The Transport Secretary Grant Shapps has indicated in Parliament that Central Government will be giving local authorities outside London the powers to enforce moving traffic offences.

 

With that in mind officers have identified a potential trial site (Bullers Road on the approach to Farnham Heath End school in Farnham) and have scheduled a site visit with local members in the coming weeks. Any scheme would require acceptance from the residents within the School Street that they would need to register their vehicles for an exemption. They would also need to accept that they will not be able to receive any deliveries or visitors using non-registered vehicles during the closure times. The impact of displacement of parking onto other nearby roads will also need to be considered carefully. The back-office arrangements to issue and administer penalties and exemptions will also need to be set up. If we proceed with a trial at this site, then the lessons learned will inform upon the viability, value for money and success of similar schemes elsewhere in the county.

 

All schools are encouraged to create a school travel plan using the national Modeshift STARS online portal which provides a template and resources to assist in creating their plan, and a nationally recognised accreditation. The council’s Safer Travel Team provide regular training and assistance to schools on developing their travel plans. At the present time there are 104 Surrey schools registered on the Modeshift STARS portal and 41 schools have an accredited travel plan. The same team have commissioned a School Air Quality Programme funded though contributions from Borough and District Environmental Health teams. This initiative involves theatre workshops, lessons and assemblies on air quality. It also includes children deploying diffusion tubes on the roads near the school to measure air quality and holding anti-idling events outside the school (subject to COVID-19 restrictions).

 

The Safer Travel Team also assist schools in applying for the international Eco Schools accreditation. This is achieved by the school undertaking a range of activities and practices in support of the environment and climate change. This could include tree planting, though it is for individual schools to decide what initiatives are most relevant to their site. There are 37 schools with Eco Schools “Green Flag” accreditation in Surrey.

 

This Council resolves to request that Cabinet:

 

 I.       Agrees that officers will proceed with an assessment of Bullers Road in Farnham as a potential school street pilot, subject to the caveats that central government provide the enforcement powers, residents support the proposal, and that the impact of the displacement of parking are considered carefully.

 

II.       Invites nominations for further school streets pilots from communities, highways, members and schools. To be assessed for suitability following the initial pilot at Bullers Road, Farnham.

 

III.       Agrees that the outcome of school street pilots in Surrey, along with school streets initiatives in other comparable areas, will inform the viability of school streets elsewhere in the county as part of the existing Road Safety Outside Schools policy process.

 

IV.       Officers will continue to work with schools throughout the county on developing school travel plans, will continue to oversee the Schools Air Quality Programme, and will continue to support schools in applying for Eco Schools accreditation.

 

V.       Notes the work officers are currently doing with schools throughout the county on any requests for neighbourhood zones, tree and hedge planting and air pollution projects, as part of the Schools Air Quality Programme, and continue to support schools in applying for Eco Schools accreditation.

 

Item 8 (iv)

 

Under Standing Order 12.3 the Council agreed to debate this motion.

 

Under Standing Order 12.1 Mrs Helyn Clack moved:

 

An amendment to the motion set out in the agenda for this meeting in her own name, as follows: (with additional words in bold/underlined and any deletions crossed through)

 

This Council notes: 

In Surrey, we are committed to enabling our residents, communities and local businesses to have a greater say over the issues that truly matter to them. 

Surrey has a strong track record of partnership working and innate strengths and capacity within our communities and we wish to build on this. 

This Council fully supports the enhanced local engagement work currently underway to ensure our residents have more influence over what happens in their local communities.

Therefore, resolves that:

    I.       It supports residents to have a greater role in determining the priorities for the future of their communities. 

 

   II.       It enables enhanced resident engagement through the creation of a number of Local Community Networks supported by the existing local and joint committee structure, drawing partners together - including Surrey's Boroughs and Districts and other statutory agencies with the County at a local level and giving Surrey residents and communities a greater say in the issues that affect them. 

 

 III.       Through the Local Community Networks to work in partnership with local bodies and organisations to ensure effective and joined-up local approaches to addressing local issues and service provision. 

 

 IV.       It enables residents to take greater local control by the potential devolution of local assets and services.

 

Members agreed to debate the amended motion and therefore it became a substantive motion.

 

Mrs Clack made the following points:

 

·           That as elected Members, the belief, commitment and shared responsibility to Surrey’s residents had been demonstrated throughout the pandemic as the Council delivered services in the challenging circumstances and to the most vulnerable.

·           That there had been an outpouring of community spirit and neighbourliness across the county with a multitude of volunteers, partners, council staff and elected Members; it was important to harness that force for good.

·           That the pandemic signalled a radical need to change the Council’s relationships with its residents building on the trust gained.

·           Highlighted that Surrey was a forerunner on community engagement working with its parish, town and village councils as well as its boroughs and districts through the local and joint committees.

·           The current conditions enabled the Council to work at pace and scale to ensure residents and local businesses could have a greater say on issues most salient to them through established town and neighbourhood communities.

·           That the pandemic highlighted the ease of engagement with residents through social media and digital devices, whilst ensuring engagement with those without access to or confident in technology.

·           That the cross-party and council elected Member Public Service Reform (PSR) Working Group that she chaired looked at new ways of engagement through defined and distinct natural communities that local people would recognise and have affinity with.

·           That it was the right time to commit to an approach whereby residents would have more and power influence on what happens in their local communities, ensuring that service provision would be tailored to their own needs and LCNs could provide that mechanism to ensure joined up approaches across communities.

·           That residents would be consulted on the detail of LCNs inviting their views to develop proposals.

·           Thanked Members who participated in the PSR Working Group and the Leader who commissioned it and praised the new Your Fund Surrey scheme and restructuring of Surrey’s local libraries towards community-led provision.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Mark Nuti, who made the following comments:

 

·      Noted that at the heart of the Community Vision for Surrey 2030 was community engagement, making it easier for residents to engage in matters that impact them where they live.

·      The proposed new LCNs would empower communities putting them at the heart of decision-making, different to the existing local and joint committees composed of many different partners.

·      That it was important to embrace the existing parish, village and town councils which were closest to residents, to build centres of communities being developed through the library refresh and Your Fund Surrey.

·      That the modernisation of local Government, ensuring a resident-centric approach was beneficial and flexibility in its implementation was needed.

 

Seven Members made the following points:

 

·      Supported the motion as LCNs provided a mechanism for more localised approach, the pilot in Bullers Road, Farnham was a positive example whereby a group of local residents got together to get their voices heard without the support of a Residents’ Association or ability to go through the formal local committee.

·      That there may be some concern if LCNs were seen as undercutting the role of borough, district or parish, town or village councils; however, they could enhance that role if linked in suitably.

·      That it was a shame that the second and last motion could not have been combined as they were complementary.

·      At present the two-tier system remained in which borough and district councils were important partners in jointly delivering services to residents, so enhancing resident and community engagement was vital.

·      That there was a role for LCNs and discussions going forward must focus on their powers, funding and governance so that they were not talking shops.

·      That although supportive of the general strategy concerning LCNs, there was concern that there needed to be more flexibility than suggested in the motion, for example by not having a limit of thirty LCNs and having different types of groupings - mixed, all urban or all rural.

·      That although in favour of enhanced resident engagement, the problem was the missing detail of what mandate the LCNs would have.

·      Supported the motion in principle particularly if excluded agencies from local government, such as the police, health authorities and the Environment Agency would be included.

·      That what was missing in the motion was the inclusion of annual plans for each of the LCNs - agreed by the local community.

·      Noted concern that LCNs could be seen as a fourth tier to Surrey’s local government structure, so there was a need to look at how they would be presented.

·      That it was important to look at the idea of proposed LCNs from a resident’s perspective, it was important to further harness the expertise and energy of residents. The PSR Working Group demonstrated a united commitment to delivering on the Community Vision for Surrey 2030.

·      That the idea of LCNs was left over from the Member seminar on the halted unitary bid, without funding and the democratic mandate of elected Members LCNs would become a talking shop and could be taken over by pressure groups.

·      That LCNs would not be a group involving a few streets but could be composed of thirty to forty thousand residents.

·      That LCNs were not fully thought through, it was revealing that the original motion did not mention the role of borough and district councils.

 

The Chairman asked Mrs Clack, as proposer of the original motion, to conclude the debate:

 

·         That the PSR Working Group produced a local engagement report based on the Government’s proposed Recovery and Devolution White Paper and as part of that report there were seven recommendations which provided more details to the concerns raised by Members today.

·         Stressed that Surrey was not a one-size-fits-all county and that flexibility was needed in the way in which the LCNs would be developed.

·         The LCNs needed powers to be effective and funding would have to come from those partners engaged with those communities.

·         That she was always committed to engaging with all stakeholders which did include borough and district councils, as the motion could not be merged with the second motion, explicit mention of borough and district councils was added to the amendment.

·         Looked forward to engaging with Members to develop the plans for LCNs to suit the variety of local communities.

 

The motion was put to a vote in which 50 Members voted For, 1 Against and 17 Abstentions.

 

Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:

 

This Council notes: 

In Surrey, we are committed to enabling our residents, communities and local businesses to have a greater say over the issues that truly matter to them. 

Surrey has a strong track record of partnership working and innate strengths and capacity within our communities and we wish to build on this. 

This Council fully supports the enhanced local engagement work currently underway to ensure our residents have more influence over what happens in their local communities.

Therefore, resolves that:

I.       It supports residents to have a greater role in determining the priorities for the future of their communities. 

 

II.       It enables enhanced resident engagement through the creation of a number of Local Community Networks supported by the existing local and joint committee structure, drawing partners together - including Surrey's Boroughs and Districts and other statutory agencies with the County at a local level and giving Surrey residents and communities a greater say in the issues that affect them. 

 

III.       Through the Local Community Networks to work in partnership with local bodies and organisations to ensure effective and joined-up local approaches to addressing local issues and service provision. 

 

IV.       It enables residents to take greater local control by the potential devolution of local assets and services.