Agenda item

Purpose of report:

The purpose of this report is to provide the Communities, Environment & Highways Select Committee with performance information on the Environment, Transport & Infrastructure directorate, and respond to questions and feedback of the content therein.

Witnesses:

Matt Furniss, Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure

Marissa Heath, Cabinet Member for Environment

Katie Stewart, Executive Director, Environment, Transport and Infrastructure

Natalie Fisken, Chief of Staff I Environment, Transport and Infrastructure

Jo Diggens, Planning, Performance and Improvement Manager

Key points raised during the discussion:

1. The Chairman thanked the officers for this important report. He noted the absence of a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) for carriageways in either red or amber condition and asked why performance was not rated higher considering the additional capital expenditure given to highways. The Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure explained that there was a backlog of £300 million and said that £40 million would need to be spent solely on roads to clear the backlog and maintain what has been achieved in recent years. The backlog was being actively addressed, and although the £50 million brought forward is dedicated to roads, the original highways funding included structures such as the drainage network and street columns in addition to roads and pavements. The Planning, Performance and Improvement Manager explained that the aim was to achieve a steady state and noted that the 35 per cent achieved was in line with the rest of the country.

2. The Chairman asked why Surrey County Council was aiming for a steady state rather than improvement. The Cabinet Member for Transport & Infrastructure clarified that with the latest increases in capital funding being made available for highways, SCC was looking to improve.

3. The Chairman asked if a limited addition of KPIs more specific to Surrey could be considered rather than relying on the national picture to reflect that Surrey County Council is achieving a steady state for roads and pavements. The Planning, Performance and Improvement Manager said that this could be broken down and there was potential for a target to be set to provide further information on how much of the road network is rated red.

4. A Member said that in a recent meeting of the Greener Futures Reference Group, it was reported that targets to achieve the overall programme had an amber rating. The Member noted the detailed suite of KPIs for the Greener futures activity would not be available until early 2023 and asked if this reflected the urgency required by the climate emergency passed almost three years ago. The Chief of Staff, Environment, Transport and Infrastructure explained that since publication of the report, data had recently been superseded and Members that attended the recent Greener Future Member Reference Group would have seen more up to date 2030 target data which became available last week. These latest figures show that Surrey County Council's organisational emissions have reduced by 27 per cent since the original baseline year of 2019/2020 when the aim had been a 33 per cent reduction, and that did not mean that net zero would not be met by 2030 but a five to six per cent deviation was expected. The amber rating reflected that the programme was slightly behind the trajectory but remained achievable.

5. A Member asked if a KPI could be added to reflect the success of programmes to ensure successful communications and engagement with residents and communities. The Chief of Staff, Environment, Transport and Infrastructure invited suggestions for additional KPIs, particularly around the improvement and development of work planned around customers and engagement and the possible development of Greener Futures engagement to be included on the forward work plan with input from the Greener Future reference group if appropriate.

6. A Member noted that residents preferred that projects were completed before new ones began and asked when information regarding the next set of work rounds planned specifically through the Horizon programme would be available to share with residents. The Cabinet Member for Transport & Infrastructure confirmed that Horizon’s future considerations were available by district through the interactive map on the Surrey County Council website

7. A Member asked if SCC should be making representations to the government regarding a possible shortfall in electricity generation due to the implementation of climate change objectives. The Cabinet Member for Transport & Infrastructure confirmed that discussions were already taking place with UK Power Networks due to Electric Vehicle Chargepoint roll-out as a country wide limitation for the delivery of such infrastructure has been identified.

8. A Member noted the 11 per cent increase in people killed or seriously injured on Surrey’s roads due to an increase in vehicle speeds and suggested a KPI pointing to the strategic change required in terms of speeds on roads. The Cabinet Member for Transport & Infrastructure drew the committee’s attention to the comments and trends on slide 11 of the report and noted that an increase in vehicle speeds had been identified during the pandemic when traffic was freer flowing and whilst the figure had increased in 2021 it was lower than 2019. The Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure considered the inclusion of a multi-year view as year-on-year reporting could be misleading. The Planning, Performance and Improvement Manager confirmed that a further breakdown of these figures could be provided if required.

9. A Member, in noting the report’s reference to 11 per cent of materials collected for dry or mixed recycling not being recycled asked if recycling rates reported to the public could reflect the amount of waste recycled, not collected. The Executive Director, Environment, Transport and Infrastructure agreed that the overall picture was key to SCC’s objective of reducing waste, and that this could be picked up as part of the Directorate’s Rethinking Waste transformation programme. Clarity around that would be useful in addition to fully understanding what was being collected and how it could be reduced.

10. A Member said that the KPIs should include the amount of residual waste disposed of, regardless of it being incinerated or going to landfill. The Planning, Performance and Improvement Manager explained said that numerous measurements could be provided and agreed to provide Members with a variety of waste metrics if that was considered useful.

11. A Member, in referring to highways KPIs, said that the deterioration of road surfaces was often due to repeated utility works and suggested a KPI around conversations with the utilities companies to form a plan to reduce the number of times roads are dug up, thereby providing a coordinated data/KPI and prolonging the life of the surface.

12. A Member noted the reported number of trees planted and queried how the cutting down of trees had been factored in. The Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure confirmed that only diseased, dying or dangerous trees were cut down from the highway adding that over 1000 trees were lost due to storm damage resulting in a slight deficit. The Planning, Performance and Improvement Manager said that detailed net figures were being counted and could be provided if required. A Member requested a representative net figure was reported publicly so that it is meaningful. The Planning, Performance and Improvement Manager confirmed this would be possible.

13. A Member asked if the data provided in isolation, or the actions to be considered were to be scrutinised by the Committee. The Cabinet Member for Transport & Infrastructure said that it was for the Committee to decide if the suggested KPIs included in the report were useful, to decide which they would like regular reports to be measured against and to make suggestions for any new ones to be included. 

14. A Vice-Chairman queried the red rating for workforce and customers on page 46 of the report linked to the National Highways and Transport Survey. The Planning, Performance and Improvement Manager agreed that the figure could be improved upon and a customer enquiry improvement programme was underway. As part of this programme, positive feedback had been received from residents regarding works being carried out outside of properties and the level of response to defects reported.

15. A Vice-Chairman said that highways concerns were at the top of residents’ complaints to elected members. As last year saw a major restructuring within the service, how were complaints now being measured and assessed. The Planning, Performance and Improvement Manager confirmed that as a result of the recent restructure, the focus was on the resources available with consistency being key. Information from the two stage complaints system was being analysed to better understand the reasons for complaints and response times to complaints. An Environment, Transport and Infrastructure customer dashboard was currently being designed to aid and improve the experience.

16. A Member, in referencing the financial sustainability quote on page 46 ‘we are expecting that only £1 million of the £3 million Green Homes Grant Local Authority Delivery (GHLAD) funding will be spent due to delays etc.’ asked if the unspent £2 million would be lost. The Chief of Staff, Environment, Transport and Infrastructure confirmed that the un-spent £2 million would likely have to be returned. SCC identified that The South East Energy Hub had failed to procure a partner in time to deliver phase 2 at which point SCC put together a consortium bid directly to Action Surrey to spend the £1 million that is currently in the process of delivery. To prevent this occurring again, however, there is a plan to tender for a partner to manage all three-to-five-year contracts for future phases. 

17. A Member said that despite repeated reassurances, several Community Recycling Centres (CRCs) still have very limited opening hours and asked what the programme was doing to address that. The Executive Director, Environment, Transport and Infrastructure confirmed that previous commitments around the consideration of opening hours were agreed to be picked up as part of the re-procurement process. The current integrated waste contract was due to end in in September 2024 and further information would be brought back to the Select Committee as and when the re-procurement progressed.

18. A Member asked how the service was avoiding working in silos and ensuring a more holistic approach. The Cabinet Member for Transport and Highways confirmed that services were currently working together with planning, placemaking, highways and flooding.  

19. A Member asked if a KPI around technology could be considered as this was a way forward for Surrey as an ambitious County Council. The Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure said that a KPI around technology or innovation could be investigated.  

20. A Vice-Chairman queried if pavements were classified as a separate category for performance and asked what was being done to improve pavements in the county, considering the Surrey County Councils priorities on active travel, health and wellbeing, and environmental factors. The Planning, Performance and Improvement Manager confirmed that pavements were measured separately to the carriageway. There were two programmes for pavements, preventative and reconstruction and more detailed information regarding these could be shared if Members would find it useful.

21. A Vice-Chairman asked what indicators were there to source appropriate funding to identify and target the most easily achieved set of tasks as soon as possible. The Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure said that meetings with the districts and boroughs were being organised to discuss joint strategic priorities for Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) bids from the County Council. These regular meetings would ensure bids were ready for the funding rounds. The Executive Director, Environment, Transport and Infrastructure added that attracting external funding was critical to SCC’s plans, hence two indicators that were already being developed and were included under the financial sustainability theme and priority header. The Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure encouraged Members to identify where improvements can be delivered more quickly.

22. A Member noted that the £100,000 Member Fund could not be spent on pavements because apparently there was no resource to do the work.

23. A Member asked if there would be a carbon budget for the next financial year and would there be a budget item for carbon that was measured monthly or quarterly in the same area. The Executive Director, Environment, Transport and Infrastructure confirmed that a carbon budget was being developed and would be made available alongside the development of the Council’s 23/24 budget with the aim of being a council wide target and monitored by the directorate.

24. A Member noted that some of the climate change KPIs were not available until recently and queried when they would be scrutinised. The Chief of Staff, Environment, Transport and Infrastructure confirmed that the report being prepared for Cabinet in October would come back to the Select Committee, containing more detailed metrics and actions.

25. A Member, in referring to the two climate change deadlines of 2030 and 2050 noted the high level of detail to scrutinise and asked if targets around both with reports would be possible. The Chief of Staff, Environment, Transport and Infrastructure agreed to work with Members to provide the information required. 

26. The Chairman asked if SCC could have acted earlier to prevent the loss of the £2 million GHLAD funding. The Chief of Staff, Environment, Transport and Infrastructure said that SCC had allowed South Eastern Energy Hub to do what they had set out to do and action was taken as soon as indication of the non-procurement was realised, the short funding window exacerbated the situation. Action to implement a three to five year more stable position would avoid a repeat of this. The Executive Director, Environment, Transport and Infrastructure noted that as part of an innovative approach to accessing funding and procuring different services, new territories were being encountered and to innovate, lessons would have to be learnt along the way. 

Resolved:

The Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee:

1.   Welcomes the broad and credible KPIs produced by Environment, Transport and Infrastructure (ETI) Directorate as valuable tools for elected members and residents to monitor performance.

2.   Shares the concerns, specifically on funding, waste and customer satisfaction, marked as red and to be confirmed (TBC) and expects an even greater focus on improvement in these areas. Notes that the greener futures/climate indicators will be brought back to the full committee in October 2022 as part of climate change delivery plan report and the carbon budget to sit alongside the council’s budget.

3.   Requests a performance update report on an annual basis be provided to the CEH Select Committee with the waste metrics aligned with national statistics in the next update.

4.   Urges the service to explore more ways to tap into local knowledge whilst – where possible – learning from similar work undertake by other authorities to promptly deliver on relatively easily achieved tasks first.

5.   Asks that, if not already in place, relevant KPIs and targets be developed to reflect the urgency on climate emergency and other comments made by Members of the Select Committee, e.g., KPI around innovation and technology; targets for carriageways; road safety; communication and engagement under Greener Futures; in Highways, transport and other service areas to ensure implementation of Local Transport Plan 4 as quickly as possible. Also, information be provided about net trees planted; utilities/maintenance work undertaken; progress on carbon budget, CIL and other funding sources. Notes that in some cases, presentation of multi-year data would be more useful.

6.   Expresses concern on the loss of 2/3 of the £3 million GHLAD grant to retrofit low-income homes but notes that three-to-five-year strategic procurement arrangements have been established to avoid this happening again, and that a new £12.2 million grant to retrofit low-income housing across Surrey will be starting soon.

7.   Suggests that in future the Directorate set out what is being put in place to address concerns raised to improve performance across the directorate in these different areas.