Item 9 (i)
John O’Reilly (Hersham) to move under standing order 11 as follows:
This Council notes that:
Surrey County Council has a significant role in the design and implementation of new development, particularly in respect of streets and transportation in general. As such, the County Council as the local Highway Authority advises the county’s district and borough councils on the transportation implications of applications for planning permission.
The Healthy Streets for Surrey guide, adopted by the Cabinet on 25 October 2022, established the standards that the County Council would expect newly designed streets to meet.
It builds on national guidance but is more detailed and takes into account the existing policies of the County Council. Such policies enable the creation of places that improve the physical and mental health of Surrey residents and reduce their environmental footprint by encouraging cycling and walking more often; streets in which children can play safely; improved air quality; re-greened streets and public spaces; a reduction in residents’ transport carbon footprint; and the creation of beautiful, resilient and popular streets that will ultimately require less long-term maintenance.
This Council resolves to:
I. Request that the Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growth writes to all district and borough councillors to request they adopt the Healthy Streets Guide, in order to give the guidance additional weight in the planning process. The County Council will support them to adopt it as a supplementary planning document or to incorporate it into their own design guidance/design codes.
II. Renew its regular offer of transportation development planning training to district and borough councils’ planning committee members and this will be expanded to include training on the Healthy Streets guidance and approach.
Item 9 (ii)
Will Forster (Woking South) to move under standing order 11 as follows:
This Council notes that:
This Council further notes that:
This Council calls on the Cabinet to:
I. Adopt a Vision Zero “Safe System” approach to road danger reduction.
II. Work closely with partners and stakeholders to take a whole system approach, working together on infrastructure, behaviour, technology and legislation to achieve this change.
III. Set a target date for there to be zero fatalities and severe injuries on Surrey’s roads.
IV. Embed Vision Zero in all relevant Surrey County Council policies, including, but not limited to, implementing the fourth Local Transport Plan (LTP4).
V. Instruct officers to bring a paper to Cabinet within six months to address how these points will be achieved.
Item 9 (iii)
Catherine Baart (Earlswood and Reigate South) to move under standing order 11 as follows:
This Council notes that:
This Council believes that:
This Council resolves to call on the Cabinet to:
Minutes:
Item 9 (i)
Under Standing Order 12.3 the Council agreed to debate this motion.
Under Standing Order 12.1 John O’Reilly moved:
This Council notes that:
Surrey County Council has a significant role in the design and implementation of new development, particularly in respect of streets and transportation in general. As such, the County Council as the local Highway Authority advises the county’s district and borough councils on the transportation implications of applications for planning permission.
The Healthy Streets for Surrey guide, adopted by the Cabinet on 25 October 2022, established the standards that the County Council would expect newly designed streets to meet.
It builds on national guidance but is more detailed and takes into account the existing policies of the County Council. Such policies enable the creation of places that improve the physical and mental health of Surrey residents and reduce their environmental footprint by encouraging cycling and walking more often; streets in which children can play safely; improved air quality; re-greened streets and public spaces; a reduction in residents’ transport carbon footprint; and the creation of beautiful, resilient and popular streets that will ultimately require less long-term maintenance.
This Council resolves to:
I. Request that the Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growth writes to all district and borough councillors to request they adopt the Healthy Streets Guide, in order to give the guidance additional weight in the planning process. The County Council will support them to adopt it as a supplementary planning document or to incorporate it into their own design guidance/design codes.
II. Renew its regular offer of transportation development planning training to district and borough councils’ planning committee members and this will be expanded to include training on the Healthy Streets guidance and approach.
John O’Reilly made the following points:
· Thanked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Communities and Community Safety and Liz Townsend for agreeing to amalgamate some parts of the amendment to the motion.
· Quoted from the introduction of the new Healthy Streets for Surrey design guide which encapsulated the need for change and why the new guide was a step forward, regarding streets as places as opposed to simply facilitating movement between places.
· Highlighted the frustration of those who served on a planning committee at borough and district council level when the Council as the highways authority expressed no objection to some planning applications, not taking into account the issues that the revised Guide stipulated.
· Summarised what the Guide intended to achieve: streets in which it was easy for everyone to move, streets in which it was safe, enjoyable and easy to walk for everyone, green streets that enriched Surrey's diverse biodiversity, enhanced environment and improved air quality, Streets that connected seamlessly to existing places, allowing natural movement, streets that were beautiful, and streets that supported happy, healthy and sustainable lives for all.
· Noted that the new Guide expanded the information to be considered by the Council when it commented on planning applications and by the planning authorities when making decisions - the borough and district councils
· Hoped that since the new Guide was endorsed by the Cabinet in October that members of the planning committees, community groups and residents were already seeing the benefits.
· Noted that the Guide emphasised the importance of transparency and consultation with residents, ensuring that residents participate in the process and noted that the Council’s officers were willing to help participate in any way as part of that consultative process.
· Noted that the Guide sought to improve the environment and residents’ quality of life and it was vital for the Council to use its ability to assist and promote that.
The motion was formally seconded by Trefor Hogg, who made the following comments:
· Noted that the motion was about improving and redefining the relationship between people, cars and streets; for streets to be comfortable with clean air, spacious with trees and green spaces and a place where people can keep healthy mentally and physically.
· Stressed the need for real change in Surrey’s streets for health, life and happiness.
· Noted that the healthy new Guide was a key contribution towards making that change, it was vital for the Council to ensure that it would be used across Surrey by putting the effort needed into helping the borough and district councils adopt it as planning policy.
Liz Townsend moved an amendment which had been published in the supplementary agenda (items 7 and 9) on 20 March 2023, which was formally seconded by Lance Spencer. She noted that after discussions with the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Communities and Community Safety, she agreed to withdraw resolutions two, four and five of her amendment (II, IV and V).
The amendment was as follows (with additional words in bold/underlined and deletions crossed through):
This Council notes that:
Surrey County Council has a significant role in the design and implementation of new development, particularly in respect of streets and transportation in general. As such, the County Council as the local Highway Authority advises the county’s district and borough councils on the transportation implications of applications for planning permission.
The Healthy Streets for Surrey guide, adopted by the Cabinet on 25 October 2022, established the standards that the County Council would expect newly designed streets to meet.
It builds on national guidance but is more detailed and takes into account the existing policies of the County Council. Such policies enable the creation of places that improve the physical and mental health of Surrey residents and reduce their environmental footprint by encouraging cycling and walking more often; streets in which children can play safely; improved air quality; re-greened streets and public spaces; a reduction in residents’ transport carbon footprint; and the creation of beautiful, resilient and popular streets that will ultimately require less long-term maintenance.
This Council resolves
to:
I.
Rrequest that the Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and
Growth: writes to all district and borough councillors to
request they adopt the Healthy Streets Guide, in order to give the
guidance additional weight in the planning process. The County
Council will support them to adopt it as a supplementary planning
document or to incorporate it into their own design guidance/design
codes.
II.
Renew its regular offer of transportation
development planning training to district and borough
councils’ planning committee members and this will be
expanded to include training on the Healthy Streets guidance and
approach.
I. Implements the existing Street Design Guidance including principles for healthy streets as adopted by the Cabinet on 25 October 2022.
II.
Directs Highways officers to assist and
encourage developers with regard to the design and implementation
of streets and transport in accordance with the Healthy Streets
Guide.
III. Consults with districts and boroughs to seek their consideration for incorporating in borough/district wide Design Codes or as a material consideration subject to public consultation.
IV.
Ensures Highways officers are incorporating
the Healthy Streets Guide in their comments against planning
applications and local plans.
V.
Ensures Highways officers facilitate training
on transportation development planning to district and borough
councils’ planning committee members, including training on
the Healthy Streets guidance and approach, where
required.
Liz Townsend spoke to her amendment, making the following points:
· Noted that she agreed to withdraw resolutions 2, 4 and 5 of her amendment as she had received assurances that officers were already carrying those duties out, she welcomed seeing more evidence of that, especially in future planning applications across her own borough of Waverley.
· Stressed that the Council was the statutory consultee for planning regarding highways matters on new developments and as such provided comments and could object to planning applications on highways grounds.
· Noted that when the Cabinet agreed the draft Guide it was clear that it was being produced to assist developers, the borough and district councils and the communities to understand what the Council would be seeking when it was considering new development proposals; she hoped that was the case.
· Noted that she would like to see Surrey securing roads on new developments that would be built to adoptable standards and using the guide, currently there were many new developments being built with private roads that did not meet technical standards and that residents themselves were having to maintain.
· Noted that she was sure that most Members and local planning authorities would like to see the aspirations of the Guide being implemented, encouraging slower speeds, high quality paving, promoting Active Travel and including the newly planted street trees and maintenance of existing street trees.
· Noted that the aspirations should be sought now by the Council from developers, particularly in the pre-application stage to ensure that highways infrastructure would be built to the standard outlined in the Guide. More roads needed to be built to that adoptable standard, that was difficult to see as more private developers wanted to build to higher densities and viability arguments overruled adopted material considerations by local planning authorities.
· Noted that the reason for her amendments was that the Guide could not simply be adopted by the borough and district councils, as the Guide needed to go through a rigorous inspection by professional planning officers against national and local planning policies and documents, followed by a public consultation stage with a range of stakeholders and developers. After that consultation, the Guide might need minor or major modifications before formal adoption.
· Noted that therefore the Council must consult with borough and district councils before they assigned their resources and finances to complete that task, she was grateful that had been recognised in the acceptance of her amendments.
The amendment was formally seconded by Lance Spencer, who reserved the right to speak.
John O’Reilly accepted the amendment and therefore it became the substantive motion.
Three Members spoke on the motion and made the following comments:
· In representing a largely rural division, resonated with the overarching principles of the Guide. The villages of Shere and West Clandon suffered from too many cars and oversized lorries in narrow roads, damaging historic buildings.
· Noted that parish councils were a key agency as part of the solution, the Guide stated that communities were more likely to positively engage when they were involved early on.
· Noted that to have healthy streets that were safe, enjoyable and efficient to walk on with pleasant pavements and safe cycle routes, size restrictions were needed for large lorries and traffic calming measures needed to be brought in and local villagers must be listened to.
· Highlighted the Americanisation used interchangeably in the motion, suggested that ‘transportation’ be removed and ‘transport’ be used consistently.
· Noted that having been a member of the borough - Chairman for eleven years - and Council planning committees, recognised the challenge posed to borough planning committee by the Council’s immovable advice, members of the planning committee found it frustrating that they could not refuse an application when the Council had not supported them.
· Liked street furniture and had seen designs change over the years, for example supported the use of grey water and making more use of the local environment.
· Noted that whilst not compulsory, the borough and district councils as the planning authorities would work with the Council, acknowledging the Guide.
· Noted that the Guide would be absorbed into the local plans and with the changes to planning committees following the local elections in May, it would be vital to train the councillors of the future who would be making far reaching decisions on their environment, of the importance of the Guide in the decision-making process alongside the other planning documents.
The Chair suggested that there be a joint briefing session on the Guide in the new administrative year following the elections between Members of the Council and borough and district councillors, to understand the differing points of view.
The Chair asked John O’Reilly, as proposer of the motion to conclude the debate, he made the following comments:
· Noted that he was happy to remove the Americanisation of ‘transportation’, replacing it consistently with ‘transport’.
· Supported the comments made by Members.
The motion was put to the vote and received unanimous support.
Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:
This Council notes that:
Surrey County Council has a significant role in the design and implementation of new development, particularly in respect of streets and transport in general. As such, the County Council as the local Highway Authority advises the county’s district and borough councils on the transport implications of applications for planning permission.
The Healthy Streets for Surrey guide, adopted by the Cabinet on 25 October 2022, established the standards that the County Council would expect newly designed streets to meet.
It builds on national guidance but is more detailed and takes into account the existing policies of the County Council. Such policies enable the creation of places that improve the physical and mental health of Surrey residents and reduce their environmental footprint by encouraging cycling and walking more often; streets in which children can play safely; improved air quality; re-greened streets and public spaces; a reduction in residents’ transport carbon footprint; and the creation of beautiful, resilient and popular streets that will ultimately require less long-term maintenance.
This Council resolves to request that the Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growth:
I. Implements the existing Street Design Guidance including principles for healthy streets as adopted by the Cabinet on 25 October 2022.
II. Consults with districts and boroughs to seek their consideration for incorporating in borough/district wide Design Codes or as a material consideration subject to public consultation.
Item 9 (ii)
Under Standing Order 12.3 the Cabinet Member for Highways and Community Resilience, Kevin Deanus, moved a proposal. The proposal was as follows:
That the motion below by Will Forster be referred to the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee for the purpose of consideration and making recommendations to the Cabinet or the Council for decision.
This Council notes that:
· Road collision statistics in Surrey have hardly changed over the last ten years.
· In 2021 24 people were killed and 647 were seriously injured.
· The effects of a road traffic collision can have a physical, emotional, social and economic impact on everyone involved.
· In financial terms the cost of road collisions in Surrey was approximately £250 million in 2021.
This Council further notes that:
· Vision Zero is a set of principles and policies aimed at eliminating serious injuries and fatalities involving road traffic. It shifts responsibility for crashes from road users to the designers of the road system - if one occurs, it is up to authorities to ensure that it does not happen again.
· Vision Zero ambition has already been adopted by comparable authorities such as Essex, Kent and Oxfordshire County Councils.
This Council calls on the Cabinet to:
I. Adopt a Vision Zero “Safe System” approach to road danger reduction.
II. Work closely with partners and stakeholders to take a whole system approach, working together on infrastructure, behaviour, technology and legislation to achieve this change.
III. Set a target date for there to be zero fatalities and severe injuries on Surrey’s roads.
IV. Embed Vision Zero in all relevant Surrey County Council policies, including, but not limited to, implementing the fourth Local Transport Plan (LTP4).
V. Instruct officers to bring a paper to Cabinet within six months to address how these points will be achieved.
Will Forster made the following points:
· Noted that the motion sought for the Council to commit to agreeing that one day it would have a road safety policy where no one is killed or seriously injured on Surrey’s roads, following in the footsteps of other local authorities.
· Questioned why in the twenty-first century, in the UK, in Surrey a huge number of people were killed or seriously injured on Surrey’s roads, that number had largely been unchanged for ten years.
· Stressed that the Council needed to agree that it was unacceptable and would have such a policy, designing out accident black spots.
· Noted that in referring the motion to the select committee, it would not look at whether such a policy should be enacted, but it would look at the detail of how to enact such a policy, the exact timetable and resource needed to meet that ambition.
In speaking to his proposal, the Cabinet Member for Highways and Community Resilience:
· Noted that Vision Zero followed the principle that it was neither inevitable nor acceptable that anyone should be killed or seriously injured when travelling; he was sure that every Member would support that principle.
· Noted that the aim of Vision Zero was to achieve a highways system with no fatalities or serious injuries involving road traffic, that approach started in the 1990s in Sweden and had been adopted across the UK; those local authorities had set different targets of achieving that for example, 2041 in London and 2050 in Kent.
· Noted that in Surrey 53.4% of those tragically killed or seriously injured were from the county, that showed that a partnership approach of all partners at the regional, national, and international levels was vital.
· Highlighted that the Council’s Chief Fire Officer on 1 March 2023 became the Road Safety Lead for the National Fire Chiefs Council.
Will Forster confirmed that he was in support of the referral of the motion to the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee.
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 Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee for the purpose of consideration and making recommendations to the Cabinet or the Council for decision.
Item 9 (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:
· Food production has a high impact on climate and the environment. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on climate change and land estimates that 21-27% of total greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) are attributable to the food system (Special Report on Climate Change and Land, IPCC, 2019). Local, organic and animal friendly food production systems reduce these emissions.
· What we eat has a significant impact on our climate impact in the UK. This is explored by the Centre for Alternative Technology (Zero Carbon: Rethinking the Future - Centre for Alternative Technology)
· What we eat has a strong role to play in our public health, including through Surrey’s Health and Wellbeing Strategy.
This Council believes that:
· Surrey County Council has a significant role to play in leadership in this area - including through our procurement of food, addressing food waste and through our farm ownership.
· Implementing Surrey’s Climate Change Strategy will have a positive impact on our land-use in Surrey.
· Surrey County Councillors can play an active role in advocating for what is needed in this area.
This Council resolves to call on the Cabinet to:
I. Ensure that the forthcoming Surrey Food Strategy and Local Nature Recovery Strategy are both fully aligned to Surrey’s Climate Change Strategy.
II. Engage an appropriate range of Surrey stakeholders and in particular Members in the production of these strategies through the Greener Futures Reference Group.
Catherine Baart made the following points:
· Highlighted the global context surrounding the motion, noting that food security was threatened by climate change: changing weather patterns, extreme weather events, increasing pests and diseases.
· Noted that in a vicious circle, the current food system made climate change worse, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that between 20 and 30% of greenhouse gas emissions was caused by the global food system, which included food waste.
· Noted that although not by intention, the current farming practices in the UK had contributed to a fall in natural capital, such as biodiversity and flood mitigation.
· Noted that health outcomes and therefore healthcare costs were affected by the type of food eaten.
· Noted that the Council had a significant leadership role on food, it procured food for about 16,000 school children, it processed food waste and owned around 100 farms involved in food production; and had systems to communicate effectively with its residents, allowing Members to advocate for change.
· Was encouraged to read the plans for the Norbury Park pilot mentioned in the Deputy Cabinet Member for Environment’s Briefing, it set out how local farming practices would be aligned with the Council’s climate change policy to enhance biodiversity and natural capital, to start reversing the losses in those areas and to provide recreational benefits to residents, which would have health benefits while still producing quality food.
· Noted that the motion called for the county’s developing strategies for land use and for food to align with the Council’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, Members’ support and interest would be crucial in ensuring that the strategies lead to meaningful change.
The motion was formally seconded by Marisa Heath, who made the following comments:
· Thanked the motion’s proposer for the pragmatic way in which she put the motion forward and thanked both Green Party Members for their work on Greener Futures.
· Noted that she and the motion’s proposer wanted to have a meaningful motion that could support Surrey’s farmers, businesses, residents and the countryside.
· Noted that food production and access to healthy and sustainable food was central to how the Council tackles issues around health inequality, environmental damage and animal welfare.
· Noted that the issues relating to food access as seen through Covid-19 and the Ukraine invasion had touched the surface of potential problems all could face concerning food chains in the future; preparation for future unknowns was crucial.
· Noted that in Surrey and more widely, soil degradation, the threat of disease spreading through animals, water pollution and use of antibiotics could pose significant risks to the population.
· Noted that working across both livestock production and protein alternatives, highlighted that the biggest challenge was intensive farming and being able to provide affordable food, but the costs to health had been immense, with huge NHS waiting lists, poor animal welfare and the farmers producing the food had been impacted.
· Noted that the consolidation of the food system to a few organisations had been disastrous, meaning that they controlled the profit and the farmers were often left at break-even; many relied solely on the former Common Agricultural Policy funding.
· Noted that the motion was not about telling people what they should or should not eat, it was focused on ensuring better systems and moving away from those large consolidated food chains into local systems; and organic systems too.
· Concerning local systems, the Council could support Surrey’s farmers more directly, working with small businesses, retailers and communities; maybe even enacting a change on Surrey’s high streets to create vibrancy and a break from chain retailers.
· Recognised that there were challenges around how good, sustainable and healthy food could be made accessible, particularly to lower income families; public procurement and working closely with farmers and food producers would be vital to finding ways of providing security to them whilst getting the price right for consumers.
· Noted the importance of directly involving communities in the production of food and engagement needed to be undertaken on that, also addressing the mental and physical health challenges faced.
· Emphasised that it was the Council’s responsibility, it was drafting a Land Management Policy and would be leading on preparing the Local Nature Recovery Strategy, the Council was supporting farmers ensuring that they could make the most of the land, it brought together the Wildlife Trust, the Surrey Hills Enterprises, the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), businesses, schools and universities to make a plan that could change things.
No comments were made by Members.
The proposer of the motion, Catherine Baart, made no further comments to conclude the debate.
The motion was put to the vote and received unanimous support.
Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:
This Council notes that:
· Food production has a high impact on climate and the environment. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on climate change and land estimates that 21-27% of total greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) are attributable to the food system (Special Report on Climate Change and Land, IPCC, 2019). Local, organic and animal friendly food production systems reduce these emissions.
· What we eat has a significant impact on our climate impact in the UK. This is explored by the Centre for Alternative Technology (Zero Carbon: Rethinking the Future - Centre for Alternative Technology)
· What we eat has a strong role to play in our public health, including through Surrey’s Health and Wellbeing Strategy.
This Council believes that:
· Surrey County Council has a significant role to play in leadership in this area - including through our procurement of food, addressing food waste and through our farm ownership.
· Implementing Surrey’s Climate Change Strategy will have a positive impact on our land-use in Surrey.
· Surrey County Councillors can play an active role in advocating for what is needed in this area.
This Council resolves to call on the Cabinet to:
I. Ensure that the forthcoming Surrey Food Strategy and Local Nature Recovery Strategy are both fully aligned to Surrey’s Climate Change Strategy.
II. Engage an appropriate range of Surrey stakeholders and in particular Members in the production of these strategies through the Greener Futures Reference Group.