Agenda item

ORIGINAL MOTIONS

Item 8 (i)

Bernie Muir (Epsom West) to move under standing order 11 asfollows:

· Surrey County Council would like to thank all public transport staff, including the frontline staff, who have all worked extremely hard on a daily basis over the last eighteen months to maintain the vital rail network across Surrey during the pandemic, and in the face of such adversity.

· It is crucial to review our public transport networks – both bus and rail – to ensure as far as we practicably can that these networks continue to support our economy and growth ambitions, meet the needs of our communities, and ensure we reach net zero in Surrey.

This Council further notes that:

· Any reduction in services across the network is contrary to national, regional and local strategies. Specifically, the County Council’s emerging Surrey Transport Plan, the Rail Strategy approved earlier this year and the Climate Change Strategy; all of which promote public transport ahead of car use, whilst providing a framework to promote the wider decarbonisation of transport.

· This Government’s Bus back better Strategy, which in tandem with Surrey County Council’s Active Travel, will transform the way in services are planned and delivered and the way in which residents use public transport.

This Council resolves to:

I. Continue to engage a constructive dialogue with railway service providers and other partners in the rail industry to help inform and shape the detail of future timetables, and to include a restoration of service frequencies through our stations across Surrey.

II. Support the Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure in writing a letter to the Secretary of State outlining this Council’s concerns regarding the impact that new timetable proposals may have on Surrey residents and to ensure adequate funding is provided to support sustainable transport provision in Surrey.

Item 8 (ii)

Marisa Heath (Englefield Green) to move under standing order 11 as follows:

This Council notes that:

Surrey County Council is committed to becoming a net zero council by 2030.

The Council has further committed to Surrey becoming a net zero county by 2050 at the latest to mitigate the impact of climate change on our residents, infrastructure, landscapes and biodiversity, and to play our part in preserving the vitality of our planet for future generations.

Surrey County Council has a crucial role to play in delivering and driving this agenda by ensuring that resources and levers that are within its control and areas of influence are utilised to the maximum.

The ambitions of the Greener Futures Climate Change Strategy require a step change in how our communities live, work and play.

This Council further notes that the Council’s role in delivering the county’s net zero target requires us to:

Lead by example with the ambition to reduce the carbon emissions of the Council’s own operations and services, recognising that elected members and officers have a significant role in leading by example in their actions and lifestyles and inspiring our colleagues, residents and communities to move to more sustainable ways of living and working in all of their decision making.

Enable and identify opportunities and projects that reduce carbon emissions across Surrey that can benefit from the Council, by the Council facilitating finance and resources to attract external investment.

Inspire by maximising opportunities to influence behaviour change and empower people and organisations to take actions that lead to real and sustainable change.

Additionally, it will be crucial for the Council to take a fourth role, by collaborating with districts and boroughs, health and other key partners to ensure every effort is maximised and joined up wherever possible.

In light of the above, this Council resolves to:

Endorse a Greener Futures Member Commitment and in doing so, agree to put greener futures at the forefront of all aspects of decision-making, in line with our refreshed organisational strategy.

Commit to working cross-party to champion the Greener Futures agenda and Climate Change delivery plan. Where Surrey County Council members also hold seats at District and Borough councils, they will support ongoing collaboration to deliver shared objectives and targets, and will, wherever possible, support local decisions and policies that deliver decarbonisation for Surrey.

Commit to act as a connector with residents, staying abreast of opportunities for residents and communities to reduce their personal carbon footprints and improve their local environments. This includes promoting schemes, initiatives and funding opportunities which will be highlighted through communications undertaken around the Greener Futures.

Commit to actively encouraging communities to take a leading role in shaping and delivering the way in which we decarbonise the county and supporting community led decarbonisation and environmental initiatives, signposting appropriate funding sources such as Your Fund Surrey.

Commit to working with partners through the Greener Futures Board to provide countywide leadership to this agenda.

Work with County Council officers to identify and support those on lower incomes and vulnerable residents to reduce their carbon footprint and energy bills, ensuring that our policies do not have unintended consequences on these groups and that no one is left behind.

Agree that the Greener Futures Member Commitment will be included as a project within the One Net Zero Public Estate Programme of the new Greener Futures Climate Change Delivery Plan, which will be taken to Cabinet for a decision in October. The carbon impact of the commitment will be monitored and included as part of the Council’s carbon reduction contribution.

Agree that the Communities, Environment & Highways Select Committee Climate Change Task Force consider other actions in the future which can be added to the Greener Futures Member Commitment.

Appoint a Greener Futures Champion to support members in their efforts and highlight relevant points to all elected members that can help them deliver on their commitment to tackling climate change.

Item 8 (iii)

Catherine Baart (Earlswood and Reigate South) to move under standing order 11 as follows:

This Council notes that:

At present it is very expensive for suppliers to provide locally generated renewable electricity to local customers.

The Local Electricity Bill would help reduce the cost of renewable electricity from community projects. It would make the supplier’s financial costs proportionate to the size of the operation and in doing so would help community energy groups get their schemes going. In turn, this would generate local revenues for the local economy, as well as reducing carbon emissions.

“Accelerating community energy projects” is part of the Council’s Climate Change Delivery Plan and the Local Electricity Bill made law would support the Council in achieving its Greener Futures goals. In Outwood (an East Surrey village with no gas supply largely dependent on oil for heating), a local community electricity project could make decarbonising heating possible for the residents.

The Local Electricity Bill would establish a “Right to Local Supply” policy.

At present, 79 councils and a cross party group of at least 264 MPs support the Local Electricity Bill, including Jeremy Hunt, MP.

This Council resolves to:

I. Support the Local Electricity Bill.

II. Write to local MPs who have not yet expressed support for the Bill.

III. Write to the organisers of the Bill, Power for the People, expressing its support.

Item 8 (iv)

Robert Evans (Stanwell and Stanwell Moor) to move under standing order 11 as follows:

This Council notes:

With great concern the on-going national and local issue regarding incidences of faulty cladding on buildings and other related defects, which have come to light since the tragic Grenfell Tower fire of 2017, which claimed seventy-two lives.

That in November 2018, the government banned the use of all combustible materials on the walls of new high rises meaning the problem has now extended beyond aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding to include fire breaks between floors and other building features, including wooden balconies and panels. However, it did not legislate for building owners to take action nor provide sufficient compensation funds to cover all situations.

This Council further notes:

That the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and the UK Council of Mortgage Lenders agreed the industry External Wall System (EWS) fire review and certification process resulting in what is known as an EWS1 form, without which many lenders are now refusing to provide mortgages, leaving many Surrey leaseholders in severe financial crisis and with homes that are dangerous and often unsaleable.

Council therefore welcomes the appointment of Surrey Heath MP, Rt Hon Michael Gove as secretary of state for Levelling up, housing and communities, charged with steering the Building Safety Bill through Parliament and urges him to recognise and address the unfairness of developers or management companies placing the cost of repair works on the shoulders of the leaseholders.

Additionally, Council is deeply concerned that this is all having a detrimental impact on the mental and physical health of many residents in Surrey, who have put considerable, personal and financial investment into becoming part of the home owning democracy, only to find that the large development companies are demanding huge repair costs and/or the cost of waking fire watches.

Furthermore, Council believes Surrey councils have a responsibility and arguably a ‘duty of care’ to its residents and therefore should not stand by and leave action to the government alone and now needs to step in and take unilateral action where legally allowed to.

This Council therefore calls on its leadership to support all those in Surrey affected by this scandal and to resolve to:

I. Formally raise the issue with H M government through Mr Gove and the County’s other MPs.

II. Support other local authorities and the LGA’s initiatives with the government in exploring ways in which local councils can be empowered to support their residents and ensure building regulations are complied with, or retrospectively repaired, at no cost to the leaseholder.

III. Ask the boroughs and districts, in conjunction with Surrey Fire and Rescue Service as a matter of urgency and if they have not already done so, to perform an audit and consultation to establish the potential scope of the cladding, EWS1 and snagging issues of all habitable buildings.

IV. Urge the County’s boroughs and districts to explore ways to delay approving planning applications where the applicant has outstanding snagging or EWS1 certification issues and include a condition to be discharged on all future planning applications to provide an EWS1 form before first occupation.

V. Sign Surrey County Council up to the End Our Cladding Scandal campaign.

Item 8 (v)

Lance Spencer (Goldsworth East and Horsell Village) to move under standing order 11 as follows:

The Council notes that:

The important Climate Summit COP26 is being held in Glasgow this November, and that it is now over two years since the Climate Emergency was recognised and declared by this Council on 9 July 2019.

The local response to the Climate Emergency, as laid out in the Greener Futures Delivery Plan, while capable of undertaking many urgent and useful actions within its powers and capacity and able to energise local people and businesses, faces critical limitations in key areas for scaling-up change, including:

Sufficient funding for the front-loaded costs of insulation schemes, replacement of carbon-intensive heating systems and installation of renewables in Surrey buildings - by residents, businesses and the public sector.
Sufficient funding to bring forward the necessary changes to motorised transport as laid out in the Local Transport Plan 4 currently out for consultation to significantly reduce the 46% of Surrey-based greenhouse gas emissions which are from this activity.
Sufficient funding and a clear strategy for the effective communications and engagement necessary to create the behavioural change that will be required in the coming years to deliver the Greener Futures Delivery Plan.

In light of the climate emergency declaration, this Council resolves to:

I. Request the Cabinet Member for Environment to write to the Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, the new Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the Rt Hon Kwasi Kwarteng MP Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and Alok Sharma, President of COP26 to urge sufficient funding and policy change to allow local government to make urgent progress in meeting its challenges meaningfully in the financial year 2022/23.

II. Request the Cabinet Member for Environment to review and update the existing communications and engagement plan, before the next meeting of the Council, to set out how we will engage with the 1.2 million residents, eighty-one Members and businesses across Surrey so they fully understand the transformation needed for Surrey to meet its carbon reduction targets.

Minutes:

Under Standing Order 11.5 using her discretion, the Chair reordered the original motions to the following:

Item 8 (iv) - Robert Evans

Item 8 (i) - Bernie Muir

Item 8 (ii) - Marisa Heath

Item 8 (iii) - Catherine Baart

Item 8 (v) - Lance Spencer

Item 8 (iv)

Having declared a pecuniary interest Hazel Watson left the room for the item

Under Standing Order 12.3 the Cabinet Member for Communities, Mark Nuti, moved a proposal. The proposal was as follows:

That the motion below by Robert Evans be referred to the Cabinet for more detailed consideration.

This Council notes:

This Council further notes:

This Council therefore calls on its leadership to support all those in Surrey affected by this scandal and to resolve to:

I. Formally raise the issue with H M government through Mr Gove and the County’s other MPs.

V. Sign Surrey County Council up to the End Our Cladding Scandal campaign.

Robert Evans made the following points:

· That since the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017 which exposed the dreadful situation affecting thousands of people in Britain and despite assurances at previous meetings of the Council, large numbers of purpose-built flats in Surrey were at risk of similar fire safety failures such as in relation to faulty cladding.

· That despite the Government’s provision of £400 million to replace faulty cladding on social housing on buildings over eighteen metres tall, there were many buildings in Surrey below that height that could not get an External Wall System (EWS) fire review or certificate.

· Urged the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to remedy the fire safety defects in buildings in his own county, noting that the £400 million provided by the Government fell short of the estimated £15 billion needed to fix the defects in residential buildings.

· Welcomed the support by the Cabinet Member for Communities and the Leader - who was in discussions with the Secretary of State.

· Highlighted the proposal for the Council to support the End Our Cladding Scandal campaign, for the Government to pay for repairs and reclaim money from responsible parties.

In speaking to his proposal the Cabinet Member for Communities:

· Welcomed the motion and in light of the White Paper on firereform due later in the month and the future Building Safety Act, proposed that the motion was referred to a future Cabinet meeting.

· Sympathised with tenants facing large bills for safety work on their properties and stressed that Government legislation was needed to remedy the situation.

· Surrey Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) worked closely with the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) who believed that serious building defect costs should not end with leaseholders and it called for the improvement in building regulations.

· Surrey was given sixty-six properties to review on the higher risk residential buildings (HRRB) list, with a further twenty-seven added to the review by SFRS and full physical audits over above the guidelines were due to be completed in November.

· Assured the Council that when required SFRS used its statutory power to make sure that safety measures were in place and where appropriate to take remedial action to keep Surrey safe.

Robert Evans confirmed that he was in support of the referral of the motion to Cabinet.

The proposal to refer the motion was put to the vote and with 61 Members voting For, 1 voting Against and 1 Abstention.

Therefore it was:

RESOLVED:

That the motion be referred to the Cabinet - specifically to the next meeting in October.

Robert Evans left the meeting at 12.32 pm

Item 8 (i)

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

Under Standing Order 12.1 Bernie Muir moved:

This Council notes that:

This Council further notes that:

This Council resolves to:

Bernie Muir made the following points:

· Noted that her motion was in response to the reduction in train services by Southern Railway and South Western Railway.

· Noted that Surrey’s roads had 66% more traffic than the national average and 46% of carbon emissions were from the transport sector. The aim was to reduce carbon emissions by 60% and that required all stakeholders working together.

· World leaders, councils, businesses and organisations were searching for solutions to tackle climate change, highlighted the Boroughs and Districts’ climate change strategies and the Council’s strategies and initiatives in response to its declaration of a climate emergency.

· That to address carbon emissions from transport, it was vital to encourage walking, cycling and the use of public transport and to have a coherent and integrated transport policy; noting the Council’s Active Travel and Government’s Bus Back Better strategies.

· That the reduction in services would impact local economies and good transport connectivity was vital for businesses, regarding Epsom and Ewell she noted concern that businesses would choose not to locate there.

· Trains were vital to transport people to hospitals and medical facilities the decision was being made prematurely at a time when people were gaining confidence in travel post-pandemic and were changing their behaviours.

· That train companies were missing the opportunity to grow their own businesses by encouraging greater rail travel through intelligent timetabling and ticket prices and easing road congestion; noting the investment in eco-friendly buses and linking into train stations.

· Urged the Government to reconsider and the Secretary of State for Transport to ensure adequate funding to support sustainable public transport provision in Surrey.

The motion was formally seconded by Tim Hall, who reserved the right to speak.

Eight Members made the following points:

· That the South Western Railway consultation to which the Council and the Boroughs and Districts responded to, was limited to principal stakeholders, going forward the onus was on South Western Railway to take account of those submissions and to revise the proposed timetable before the public consultation.

· Questioned the basis for the revision of South Western Railway’s timetable which estimated passenger levels during rush hour to be 60% of what they were pre-pandemic.

· Noted residents’ concerns over South Western Railway’s changes to the timetable concerning the Guildford via Epsom line and Bookham train station, the proposals would not meet demand - noting flexible working patterns and demand in young people travelling to school or college - nor improve performance as was the aim of the consultation.

· Welcomed the support from the Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure through the Council’s submission to South Western Railway, who did not recognise the green agenda through increasing the use of public transport.

· Noted that the proposals were condemned by local authorities whose residents were affected but noted concern that the motion was not strong enough to move the Government to enact change and provide adequate funding to the railway operators.

· Noted the Government’s encouragement of a greater use of public transport whilst being complicit in reducing transport facilities.

· Supported the motion’s call for a constructive dialogue with the railway service providers but noted the omission the Department for Transport.

· Hoped that the Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure would convey the points as raised above, firmly in his letter to the Secretary of State noting the need for adequate funding to meet the need of residents.

· Thanked public transport staff for working tirelessly during these challenging times.

· That in relation to residents in the east of the county, any reduction of services would affect residents travelling into London and for localised journeys, noting the cuts to the services by Southern Railway and on the East Grinstead line.

· A flexible and sustainable service that recognised demand and connected all communities was vital for levelling up and to meet the climate targets.

· That the proposed changes by South Western Railway would remove many stops at smaller stations, making travel by car in rural areas of the county the only viable option, more emphasis was needed from the Government to challenge the train operators.

· That the proposal by South Western Railway to halve the peak time services to two - affecting residents using Stoneleigh station and Worcester Park stations - was ridiculous when the morning rush hour was the busiest time.

· That regarding the motion’s second resolution, urged the Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure to stress upon the Government that additional funding was required for sustainable public transport.

Tim Hall, the seconder of the motion, made the following comments:

· Noted that South Western Railway’s model was misleading and outdated, in some cases there would be a 50% reduction in services in large parts of Mole Valley and Epsom and Ewell.

· Thanked the MP for Epsom and Ewell who had argued that South Western Railway had not delivered on their promises for improvement, the Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure, and the Council’s Member for Hersham for their support during South Western Railway’s consultation.

· That Surrey was dependent on rail travel to work, courts, hospitals, schools and colleges and for the visitor economy; South Western Railway was ignorant of its customer base.

The Chair asked Bernie Muir, as proposer of the motion, to conclude the debate:

· Stressed that the train operators’ proposals did not fulfil their own objectives, the evidence to support the proposed model was baseless and outdated, and worked against the national objective to build a coherent public transport policy.

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

Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:

This Council notes that:

This Council further notes that:

This Council resolves to:

Item 8 (ii)

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

Under Standing Order 12.1 Marisa Heath moved:

An amendment to the motion set out in the agenda for this meeting in her own name which had been published in the supplementary agenda (12 October 2021), which was formally seconded by Trefor Hogg.

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

This Council notes that:

· Surrey County Council is committed to becoming a net zero council by 2030.

· The Council has further committed to Surrey becoming a net zero county by 2050 at the latest to mitigate the impact of climate change on our residents, infrastructure, landscapes and biodiversity, and to play our part in preserving the vitality of our planet for future generations.

· Surrey County Council has a crucial role to play in delivering and driving this agenda by ensuring that resources and levers that are within its control and areas of influence are utilised to the maximum.

· The ambitions of the Greener Futures Climate Change Strategy require a step change in how our communities live, work and play.

This Council further notes that the Council’s role in delivering the county’s net zero target requires us to:

· Lead by example with the ambition to reduce the carbon emissions of the Council’s own operations and services, recognising that elected members and officers have a significant role in leading by example in their actions and lifestyles and inspiring our colleagues, residents and communities to move to more sustainable ways of living and working in all of their decision making.

· Enable and identify opportunities and projects that reduce carbon emissions across Surrey that can benefit from the Council, by the Council facilitating finance and resources to attract external investment.

· Inspire by maximising opportunities to influence behaviour change and empower people and organisations to take actions that lead to real and sustainable change.

In light of the above, this Council resolves to:

I. Endorse a Greener Futures Member Commitment and in doing so, agree to put greener futures at the forefront of all aspects of decision-making, in line with our refreshed organisational strategy.

II. Commit to working cross-party to champion the Greener Futures agenda and Climate Change delivery plan. Where Surrey County Council members also hold seats at District and Borough councils, they will support ongoing collaboration to deliver shared objectives and targets, and will, wherever possible, support local decisions and policies that deliver decarbonisation for Surrey.

III. Commit to act as a connector with residents, staying abreast of opportunities for residents and communities to reduce their personal carbon footprints and improve their local environments and ensure we have a strong communication strategy that gets input from members and engages residents, members and businesses across Surrey. This includes promoting schemes, initiatives and funding opportunities. ~~which will be highlighted through communications undertaken around the Greener Futures.~~

IV. Commit to actively encouraging communities to take a leading role in shaping and delivering the way in which we decarbonise the county and supporting community led decarbonisation and environmental initiatives, signposting appropriate funding sources such as Your Fund Surrey.

V. Commit to working with partners through the Greener Futures Board to provide countywide leadership to this agenda and use our wider influence and connections to obtain sufficient funding and policy change from central Government to enable us to meet the challenges set in the Delivery Plan.

VI. Work with County Council officers to identify and support those on lower incomes and vulnerable residents to reduce their carbon footprint and energy bills, ensuring that our policies do not have unintended consequences on these groups and that no one is left behind.

VII. Agree that the Greener Futures Member Commitment will be included as a project within the One Net Zero Public Estate Programme of the new Greener Futures Climate Change Delivery Plan, which will be taken to Cabinet for a decision in October. The carbon impact of the commitment will be monitored and included as part of the Council’s carbon reduction contribution.

VIII. Agree that the Communities, Environment & Highways Select Committee Climate Change Task Force consider other actions in the future which can be added to the Greener Futures Member Commitment.

IX. Appoint a Greener Futures Champions to support members in their efforts and highlight relevant points to all elected members that can help them deliver on their commitment to tackling climate change.

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

Marisa Heath made the following points:

· Highlighted the addition and deletion within the third resolution, the additions in the fifth resolution and the deletion and addition within the ninth resolution.

· That the motion complemented the new Delivery Plan and whilst building on the previously agreed ambitions to become a net zero carbon emissions county by 2050 and Council by 2030, the motion recognised that the Council needed to take action immediately by setting its own priorities, putting the Greener Futures Programme at the forefront of its work.

· That following receipt of the Delivery Plan - which was an easy to read and flexible document - by the Cabinet later in the month, the Council had to be ready to take it forward recognising that success was only possible through collective working.

· That whilst collective working was underway by Members working with the Boroughs and Districts, residents and businesses, and through the Greener Futures Member Reference Group (MRG) and Greener Futures Board; once Cabinet received the Plan it was vital for all to support it collectively.

· That whilst she would be exploring the details of the Plan further through Member input, the motion called on Members to lead, enable and inspire their communities through agreeing a Greener Futures Member commitment.

· That Members were asked to agree several measures towards delivering the Council’s climate change objectives through supporting collaboration, promoting schemes and funding opportunities, working to ensure that no one was left behind and to develop a communications and engagement strategy.

· That the established cross-party MRG would develop the Greener Futures Member Commitment going forward and Members could also submit their suggestions.

· That the motion called for Greener Futures Champions to provide updates at meetings and ensure that the Greener Futures Programme was at the forefront of the Council’s work, she welcomed Members coming forward.

· That she looked forward to Members’ views in the debate and hearing new ideas, it was vital to ensure that the Council engaged with Members and worked collaboratively to achieve the climate change targets.

· Stressed that the challenge going forward was driving the change and pushing harder to achieve the ambitious targets.

The motion was formally seconded by Trefor Hogg, who made the following comments:

· That whilst the Council’s commitment to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2030 and for the county to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050 were challenging, such ambitions were deliverable.

· The Council’s actions must be aligned to the United Nation’s seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), whilst SDG number thirteen on climate action was central to achieving the targets, the SDGs were interlinked and so the Council must take a broad view by meeting all seventeen.

· Recognised the need to review and refocus the Council’s objectives on climate change in the future, it was a climate emergency so should be addressed in a controlled way.

· That to deliver the challenging targets, the Council must put sustainable development at the heart of its work to ensure a greener future in Surrey where no one was left behind.

Fourteen Members made the following points:

· Highlighted the importance of hydrogen fuel for a green future, but that depended on its production due to high levels of carbon dioxide emissions produced, hoped the Council would call for carbon capture in the future.

· Welcomed the commitment to work cross-party, addressing climate change was a task for all and progress would be undermined if it became a bidding war between the political parties.

· That the Council’s net zero carbon emissions targets were ambitious, and the challenge would be met through the Council’s role in leading, enabling and inspiring the county.

· That greater collaboration was vital to address climate change, with the Council working with the Boroughs and Districts and other stakeholders to ensure a joined-up approach through the Delivery Plan.

· That whilst the cross-party MRG’s recommendations to the Cabinet in October and the motion were important, going forward embodying the commitments into reality was vital.

· That Surrey was dependent on cars, behaviour change was vital.

· Contested the meeting of select committees in person as that was contrary to reducing travel and pollution.

· Commended the inspiring cross-party work undertaken by the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee on policies to achieve the county’s net zero targets which would be a huge challenge.

· Noted an instance of leading by example through a personal commitment to use an e-bike as a primary mode of transport in 2022 rather than a car.

· That Members and officers should not wait for a mandate but should change their behaviours now.

· Quoted from Chatham House’s Climate change risk assessment 2021, noting the importance of addressing the rising global average temperature - already 1.1-1.2 degrees Celsius rise - at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) following on from the commitment in the 2015 Paris Agreement to limit globalwarming to well below 2°C, compared to pre-industrial levels.

· Noted surprise that since the Council declared a climate emergency in July 2019 there had been no further motions since, until today where there were three so hoped that reflected that the Council was taking the issue seriously.

· That even with the amendments, the motion failed to lead, enable and inspire, however supported the motion’s proposals and hoped it was supported cross-party.

· Acknowledged that to reach the Council’s net zero targets, partnership work was vital between all government levels and stakeholders.

· That local communities, residents and businesses were key to enact change and the Council must maintain and develop its infrastructure to support the behavioural change needed, such as a shift to walking, cycling and public transport.

· Urged the Council to work with the Boroughs and Districts and partners to avoid another year of blocked footpaths and cycleways.

· That the eighth resolution should reflect the change from a Task Force to the Member Refence Group - which could make recommendations to the Cabinet.

· That it was clear that Members and officers on the cross-party MRG - minus the Labour Group - were committed to the Delivery Plan.

· Highlighted Surrey Heath Borough Council’s appointment of a dedicated climate change officer that worked closely with the Council.

· Referring to an example at Surrey Heath Borough Council, the Council needed to be robust in dealing with building developers so that they reflected the Council’s green agenda and provision of affordable homes; noted discussions with Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to ensure the matter was addressed in the planning White Paper.

· That the motion recognised the centrality of climate change and welcomed the amendment to the fifth resolution which reflected one of the points in item 8: Original Motions, 8 (v).

· Noted confidence in the Cabinet Member for Environment’s commitment to delivering the work outlined in the motion, however despite the Council’s ambitions in some areas the Council’s actions were lacking.

· Volunteered to be a Greener Futures Champion, working as a ‘critical friend’.

· Praised the Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure’s on the work on an enhanced partnership with buses.

· Noted that many homes in the UK were not equipped to deal with extreme seasonal changes such as heatwaves, the response from some was the purchase of air conditioning units.

· That many of the tools needed to address the issues were not available to the Boroughs and Districts, welcomed therefore the Council’s role to lead and enable through collaborative working.

· Highlighted that a fundamental problem facing Boroughs and Districts to be able to deliver on their ambitious plans was the need for officers with specialist skills, suggested that the Council establish a joint climate unit providing specialist climate officers across the county.

· Welcomed the Cabinet Member for Environment’s defence of the Council’s policies at a local Boroughs and Districts meeting, and the Council’s ambition to reach its 2030 target which was beneficial to future generations.

· Welcomed the tone of the debate on the motion with Members being critical friends, hoped that the Council was committed to fulfilling its objectives rather than virtue-signalling.

· Looked forward to integrating the Social Value Act within the Council’s procurement strategy and welcomed the review of the mineral planning policy.

· That annual reports were needed and noted that it was encouraging to see the Cabinet Member for the Environment leading on disseminating information on the Greener Futures Programme to residents.

· Noted the importance of the Council’s collaboration with the Boroughs and Districts, noted local examples between the Council and Reigate and Banstead Borough Council around the Solar Together scheme, the LCWIP and green home grants.

· Highlighted that young people were often overlooked by councillors, noted a local example of regular debates held for young people on key issues; and had engaged with the Cabinet Member for Environment to introduce climate workshops in schools and colleges.

· That working with residents, businesses and community groups to provide a financially viable plan was vital, noted an upcoming Reigate Business Guild with a presentation on climate change.

· Highlighted the significant threat posed by climate change.

· Referring to Spelthorne, highlighted the large number of high rise buildings which used more energy and emitted more carbon dioxide, that it was located close to Heathrow Airport which emitted a large amount of carbon dioxide, residents were committed to protecting the many green spaces, cycling was being promoted as part of the active travel plan and other green transport measures were in place, had formed a youth group to debate climate change issues and worked with local businesses to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

· That young people were leading on the net zero ambition and would hold policy makers to account.

· Supported the Delivery Plan and would hold the Cabinet to account in fulfilling its targets and supported the cross-party approach and partnership work outlined in the motion; but could not support the motion as it imposed an obligation for Members to act in a certain way so would abstain.

The Chair asked Marisa Heath, as proposer of the motion, to conclude the debate:

· Rather than preparing an arbitrary list for Members to follow, the motion was intended to be Member-led, to lead, inspire and enable residents to meet the Council’s and country’s climate change objectives.

· Welcomed the offer from the Member for Guildford East to become a Member Champion.

· Supported the sharing of resources such as specialist officers in climate change between the Council and the Boroughs and Districts, the Council was looking to scale up its existing nine climate change officers.

· Recognised the importance of a joined-up approach such as through using the ‘green lens’ when considering the Council’s other strategic plans.

· Confirmed that officers and Members leading the Greener Futures Programme were committed and she hoped that all Members were too.

The motion was put to the vote in which 64 Members voted For, 0 Against and 2 Abstentions.

Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:

This Council notes that:

· Surrey County Council is committed to becoming a net zero council by 2030.

· The ambitions of the Greener Futures Climate Change Strategy require a step change in how our communities live, work and play.

This Council further notes that the Council’s role in delivering the county’s net zero target requires us to:

· Inspire by maximising opportunities to influence behaviour change and empower people and organisations to take actions that lead to real and sustainable change.

In light of the above, this Council resolves to:

I. Endorse a Greener Futures Member Commitment and in doing so, agree to put greener futures at the forefront of all aspects of decision-making, in line with our refreshed organisational strategy.

III. Commit to act as a connector with residents, staying abreast of opportunities for residents and communities to reduce their personal carbon footprints and improve their local environments and ensure we have a strong communication strategy that gets input from members and engages residents, members and businesses across Surrey. This includes promotingschemes, initiatives and funding opportunities.

V. Commit to working with partners through the Greener Futures Board to provide countywide leadership to this agenda and use our wider influence and connections to obtain sufficient funding and policy change from central Government to enable us to meet the challenges set in the Delivery Plan.

VIII. Agree that the Communities, Environment & Highways Select Committee Climate Change Task Force consider other actions in the future which can be added to the Greener Futures Member Commitment.

IX. Appoint Greener Futures Champions to support members in their efforts and highlight relevant points to all elected members that can help them deliver on their commitment to tackling climate change.

Item 8 (iii)

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

Under Standing Order 12.1 Catherine Baart moved:

This Council notes that:

At present it is very expensive for suppliers to provide locally generated renewable electricity to local customers.

The Local Electricity Bill would establish a “Right to Local Supply” policy.

At present, 79 councils and a cross party group of at least 264 MPs support the Local Electricity Bill, including Jeremy Hunt, MP.

This Council resolves to:

I. Support the Local Electricity Bill.

II. Write to local MPs who have not yet expressed support for the Bill.

III. Write to the organisers of the Bill, Power for the People, expressing its support.

Catherine Baart made the following comments:

· That the UK needed to increase its electricity production for the transition to electric transport and heating to meet its climate change targets.

· That currently only 11% of all energy produced in the UK was from renewable sources.

· That community scale renewable energy had the potential to help meet the challenge but community energy groups in the UK unlike in Germany for example, faced disproportionate costs to the amount of energy produced due to the current energy market legislation and licensing rules.

· That community energy groups benefitted local economies by creating jobs and skills and encouraged local support for schemes such as solar farms.

· That the Local Electricity Bill (the Bill) would support the Council’s Greener Futures Programme through decarbonisation as Surrey’s councils could sell energy generated at council owned solar farms to local people and businesses.

· That the Bill would remove barriers faced by community energy groups by re-regulating the energy market through Ofgem.

· That the Bill had cross-party support in Parliament, was supported by the MP for South West Surrey and by many councils.

The motion was formally seconded by Robert King, who reserved the right to speak.

Three Members made the following points:

· Supported the motion and noted that it would be helpful as well as writing to MPs and the Bill’s organisers, that work be undertaken by the Council through the Communities, Environment and Health Select Committee and Greener Futures Board to understand the practicalities around the Bill.

· Acknowledged the cross-party support for the Bill, support from MPs and councils including Surrey Heath Borough Council, which would accelerate the transition to green energy and so was critical to the Council’s climate change work.

· Recognised the benefits of empowering community energy groups to generate energy which they could sell locally and strengthen local economies which was vital after the challenges brought by Covid-19.

· That as Cabinet Member for Environment, would work to make the Council’s support of the Bill known to MPs more widely and would ask officers to look into the delivery of the Bill across Surrey.

· That in the past energy generation was local until the Electricity (Supply) Act 1926 established the National Grid and introduced regulations and financial barriers that distorted the market, supported the Bill with the removal of those barriers that discriminated against local energy suppliers and would help in the journey to be a carbon zero Surrey where no community was left behind.

Robert King, the seconder of the motion, made the following comments:

· That the Bill enabled the market to work for local communities, cooperatives such as the MaidEnergy Cooperative in Egham were blocked from re-investing revenue back into capital due to the costs they faced - those costs also affected the Council and the Boroughs and Districts.

The Chair asked Catherine Baart, as proposer of the motion, to conclude the debate:

· Thanked Members for their support and noted that she had no further comments to add.

The motion was put to the vote and was carried with 1 Abstention.

Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:

This Council notes that:

At present it is very expensive for suppliers to provide locally generated renewable electricity to local customers.

The Local Electricity Bill would establish a “Right to Local Supply” policy.

At present, 79 councils and a cross party group of at least 264 MPs support the Local Electricity Bill, including Jeremy Hunt, MP.

This Council resolves to:

I. Support the Local Electricity Bill.

II. Write to local MPs who have not yet expressed support for the Bill.

III. Write to the organisers of the Bill, Power for the People, expressing its support.

Item 8 (v)

Under Standing Order 12.3 the Leader of the Council, Tim Oliver, moved a proposal. The proposal was as follows:

That the motion below by Lance Spencer be referred to the Cabinet for more detailed consideration.

The Council notes that:

The important Climate Summit COP26 is being held in Glasgow this November, and that it is now over two years since the Climate Emergency was recognised and declared by this Council on 9 July 2019.

· Sufficient funding for the front-loaded costs of insulation schemes, replacement of carbon-intensive heating systems and installation of renewables in Surrey buildings - by residents, businesses and the public sector.

· Sufficient funding to bring forward the necessary changes to motorised transport as laid out in the Local Transport Plan 4 currently out for consultation to significantly reduce the 46% of Surrey-based greenhouse gas emissions which are from this activity.

· Sufficient funding and a clear strategy for the effective communications and engagement necessary to create the behavioural change that will be required in the coming years to deliver the Greener Futures Delivery Plan.

· Sufficient workforce, trained and employed to deliver the above.

In light of the climate emergency declaration, this Council resolves to:

In speaking to his proposal the Leader of the Council:

· That there had been a constructive debate on the matter concerning item 8: Original Motions, 8 (ii) which had been amended to include the reflect the motion, so proposed that the motion be referred to the Cabinet and picked up as part of the wider work around the Greener Futures Programme.

· That it was too early to discuss the finances, the Greener Futures Board would receive a presentation at the next Board on the finances around the Delivery Plan.

Lance Spencer made the following points:

· Agreed that there had been a good debate on the earlier motion and would take his supporting points on the motion to the Cabinet for consideration.

Lance Spencer confirmed that he was in support of the referral of the motion to Cabinet.

The proposal to refer the motion was put to the vote and received unanimous support.

Therefore it was:

RESOLVED:

That the motion be referred to the Cabinet - specifically to the next meeting in October.

Supporting documents:

AMENDMENT to Motion 2 - Marisa Heath - 12 October 2021, item 62/21 PDF 210 KB