Agenda item

The Leader of the Council or the appropriate Member of the Cabinet or the Chairman of a Committee to answer any questions on any matter relating to the powers and duties of the County Council, or which affects the county.

 

(Note: Notice of questions in respect of the above item on the agenda must be given in writing, preferably by e-mail, to Democratic Services by 12 noon on Wednesday 17 May 2023).

 

Questions:

 

Notice of twenty-one questions had been received. The questions and replies were published in the supplementary agenda on 22 May 2023.

 

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

 

(Q1) Ernest Mallett MBE had no supplementary question.

 

Steve Bax welcomed the question and response which would be appreciated by residents. He noted that he had attended meetings regarding Mole Bridge since 2015 and that it needed replacing as soon as possible. He asked whether the administration could commit to delivering the new bridge by 2025 and to commit that the public would be involved in consultation as much as possible.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways and Community Resilienceresponded that there were issues regarding the utilities companies, the design and reaching a legal agreement with Elmbridge Borough Council. He committed that the Council would work continuously to resolve the issue as quickly as possible.

 

(Q2) Catherine Powell welcomed the Leader’s acknowledgement that prevention must be central, but she noted that the services lost by the funding gap created by the decisions made would not be filled by the additional grant. She sought confirmation from the Cabinet Member as to whether the gap would continue and whether she would not consider releasing reserves to fill the gap. She asked the Cabinet Member to confirm that she would identify the number of families that were affected by the loss of those services and the number of children that were on the waiting list, to ascertain the number of children who would be left behind.

 

The Cabinet Member for Children and Familiesnoted that regarding whether she would reconsider the funding for the critical support, as stated in the response the budget would be reviewed for short breaks services for 2024/25. In the current year the Council had managed to bridge the gap and it was reviewing what it could do for forthcoming years. She would provide a written response regarding the details around children on the waiting list.

 

(Q4) Joanne Sexton asked whether the Cabinet Member would agree that the unilateral decision taken by the Cabinet without any consultation with the district and borough councils was a huge mistake, and many residents did not feel heard. She asked the Cabinet Member to contact all the district and borough councils to understand what feedback they had received and to address their issues as soon as possible.She asked the Cabinet Member to send out a clear communication to all residents and councillors county-wide covering frequently asked questions (FAQs), setting out items including the frequency of visits from NSL, new parking enforcement Service Level Agreements (SLAs), Key Performance Indicators, working hours and communication channels.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways and Community Resiliencedisagreed that the decision taken was a mistake. He noted that there was a large volume of communications with the district and borough councils via correspondence and newsletters. Regarding the FAQs and SLAs he noted that performance information would hopefully be available in June via the highways Task and Finish Groups.

 

Julia McShane rejoined the meeting at 11.49 am.

 

(Q6) Catherine Baart askedhow the Cabinet Member planned to demonstrate to Members and the public that the new verge management regime was achieving the significant opportunity for increasing biodiversity as quoted on the Council’s website.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways and Community Resilience would provide a written response.

 

(Q7) Robert Evans OBE referred to the section in the response around mitigation for residents and businesses in Surrey, however asked whether the Cabinet Member was aware that in every other city in England where a ULEZ type scheme had been introduced, the Government had funded more generous and sophisticated scrappage schemes for surrounding areas; regarding London that would include Surrey.

 

George Potter asked whether the Cabinet Member could explain why the administration continued to be angry about the lack of consultation over ULEZ when it did not practise what it preached regarding consultation with residents or the district and borough councils.

 

The Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growth in responding to Robert Evans OBE noted that it had been clear in all the Council’s responses to the Mayor of London’s Office and Transport for London (TfL), that they needed to consider the impact on residents outside of London. That was one of the reasons that the Council was taking legal action against the ULEZ expansion. He noted that he was aware that in large ULEZ schemes the Government had been engaged by the areas wanting to implement them for a wider scrappage scheme, that had not been done in all cases across cities in the UK. He urged the Member to work with his colleagues in London, for them to halt the current scheme until sufficient mitigation would be provided to Surrey residents and the other surrounding counties.

 

(Q8) Steve Bax had no supplementary question.

 

Ernest Mallett MBE asked whether the Cabinet Member was aware that there were two other equally isolated walking routes to Heathside Walton-on-Thames School, concerning Hurst Road and the towpath. He noted that parents were concerned and asked whether the Cabinet Member would take safeguarding issues into serious consideration regarding providing a bus service for the Molesey children. He asked whether the Cabinet Member was aware that the reason given for the refusal of providing a pickup and drop off area for the school was that Waterside Drive was wide enough for parent parking - however it was yellow lined - and that the nearby Elmbridge sports centre car park could be used - it was busy.

 

The Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growth noted that the question covered multiple portfolios and so he would arrange a site visit with the relevant officers to discuss the matter. He noted that the Council took safeguarding and children's safety seriously and he was constantly looking to expand bus provision and routes, which was why the Council was introducing the half price fare for those aged under twenty-one years old.

 

(Q9) Jonathan Essex asked the Cabinet Member to consider that the Council calls for a meeting to discuss ULEZ to be attended by representatives of both the Mayor of London’s Office and the Government at the same time so each cannot blame the other for not working with the Council to make it happen. He asked for non-attendance by either party to be highlighted to the public.

 

The Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growth noted that the Council had asked for a meeting with the Mayor of London's Office and reiterated that the Council was in legal proceedings against ULEZ expansion. He was happy to extend that invitation also to either the Minister for London and Parliamentary Under Secretary of State or a representative of the Department for Transport.

 

(Q10) Ernest Mallett MBE had no supplementary question.

 

Steven McCormick asked the Cabinet Member if Members could see the AI strategic road map in development reflected in the Council's Data Strategy framework.

 

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resourcesexplained that the road map was in development and it was anticipated that it would take the rest of the municipal year to complete, once completed it would be shared with Members.

 

(Q11) Catherine Powell noted that there was no mention of the consultations in the letter sent to current permit holders and councillors in those areas were not advised. She asked the Cabinet Member to advise how people were informed about the consultations and could he confirm that the responses from the consultations would be taken into consideration through the highways Task and Finish Groups.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways and Community Resilience noted that there was a list available of the consultation undertaken and he was happy to have a conversation with the Member to provide the information requested. 

 

(Q13) Catherine Baart asked whether the Cabinet Member could confirm that the end target when processes have been improved and fully staffed would be for 100% of EHCPs to be turned around within the legal time limits.

 

The Cabinet Member for Education and Learning noted that the Council did not have to publish such targets, however she noted that in the past the Council had hoped to get to around 60% by spring, that had not yet been achieved despite the hard work. She agreed that the Council’s goal was for all assessments to be completed within the statutory timescale and for all children to have their reviews completed on time.

 

(Q14) Robert Evans OBE asked whether the Cabinet Member would agree that there was a dichotomy in that Surrey was saying to London that it does not like the ULEZ scheme, but it wants to be part of the Travelcard scheme. He reiterated the Member’s ask in Q9 of the need for the Council to set up a joint meeting to discuss issues; ultimately funding would be from the Department for Transport, not TfL or the Council.

 

The Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growth noted that the Council had not been notified of the consultation and he noted disappointment in response to TfL. He noted that he was happy to arrange a meeting with the Minister of London to discuss the issues raised. He noted that London was putting walls up between itself and its surrounding authorities, indicating that cross-border public transport was not wanted unless Surrey and the other counties were willing to pay more or drive their car, which was counterproductive in terms of improving air quality. He noted that the matter required support from partners, that was not currently the case hence the Council was taking legal action.

 

(Q15) Jonathan Essex noted residents’ feedback around P3 potholes which were not deep enough to be repaired in a week unlike P2 potholes so were highlighted by a red ring and were not repaired in many weeks. He asked whether there was a better way to review the whole system for example through the highways Task and Finish Groups ensuring cross-party scrutiny, rather than just using the standard national matrix; recognising that there might be some dangerous potholes that need to be better prioritised to be repaired more quickly ensuring a less dangerous road for all users, especially in light of worsening weather in the years ahead.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways and Community Resilience referred to the response which outlined the different priorities and how they were addressed. He highlighted that there were 15,000 P2 reports, that involved a large amount of work in terms of reviewing each one. He noted that the Task and Finish Group would look at the matter and findings would go to the select committee for potential policy changes to be identified, that process would continue over the next four to six weeks.

 

(Q16) Catherine Powell noted thatthe Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member might not be aware that Defra had taken two dead birds away from Tice's Meadow Nature Reserve and bird flu had been confirmed. She noted that the group of volunteers who run Tice's Meadow contacted the Council’s Countryside team on 10 May regarding what to do about bird flu, they had yet to receive a response. They sent a follow up email today copying in senior members of the organisation and she requested that the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member work with those officers to provide a response, and that she reviews why the query had taken so long to respond to.

 

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Communities and Community Safety confirmed that those birds were removed for testing and one had been confirmed as positive for bird flu. Buckinghamshire and Surrey Trading Standards was working closely with the Animal and Plant Health Agency, and Defra; that communication would take place to the Member’s residents.

 

(Q17) Steven McCormick referring to the response in that the Council’s online reporting tool had been developed over the past ten years, asked the Cabinet Member whether it would make sense to use other apps that would help residents report potholes and other issues. That would improve the Council’s move towards greater digital inclusion and would help Members’ with the service provided to residents. He asked for the Cabinet Member to consider revisiting the improved integration with FixMyStreet and similar apps on the iOS and Android platforms.

 

Jonathan Essex asked whether it was possible to look at the number of requests that were being received via the different routes in order to review the level of demand for these routes.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways and Community Resilience highlighted the response which stated that there were limitations to FixMyStreet. He was happy to review whether technical advancements allowed it to be revisited and improved, however there were restrictions and it did not quite do what was wanted.

 

(Q19) Robert Evans OBE asked whether the Cabinet Member was aware that any extension of Zone 6 to parts of Surrey was not dependent on TfL, in fact TfL and South Western Railways supported that enlargement, an obstacle to that was the Department for Transport. He asked for the Secretary of State for Transport to be included in the meeting to be arranged to see if the Department for Transport could underwrite the extension.

 

The Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growth noted that he was aware that the extension into Zone 6 by parts of Surrey was dependent on the Department for Transport’s engagement and funding, along with another Member and residents he had sought engagement with them on the matter. He was happy to engage with the Department for Transport to see whether that could be extended.

(Q20) Jonathan Essex noted the need to ensure that the highways Task and Finish Groups involve Members in setting the terms of reference rather than just reviewing the outputs. He asked for there to be some comparison of the performance of the parking contract over its first couple of months of operation, rather than only comparing performance after twelve months of operation. He noted that some feedback had been positive and it would be important to measure the improvement, as well as to understand where it was not working well. 

The Cabinet Member for Highways and Community Resilience explained that one of the issues was that the daily, weekly and monthly staffing level for example in the district and borough councils, had not been provided to the Council on all areas, nor had enforcement data for 2022/23. He was happy to undertake comparisons once the data has been provided. He estimated that there were approximately 40 Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) across Surrey, that figure did not include vacancies. There were three base managers, supervisors and an analyst. Looking at performance for the first month there were 3,423 Penalty Charge Notices issued.

David Harmer, Robert Evans OBE and Robert King left the meeting at 12.14 pm.

(Q21) Steven McCormick had no supplementary question.

Bernie Muir noted that she had been involved in the Chalk Pit issue for many years; the noise and dust from the site affected 1,000 people and at least 400 children went to school nearby. She asked the Cabinet Member to revisit the site to see the current situation as the focus seemed to be on the trommel machine having been silenced, however she noted that there were ongoing problems connected with the movement of the vehicles and skips. She asked for the Cabinet Member to ensure that alongside the Council, the other agencies - Environment Agency and Epsom and Ewell Borough Council - provide a detailed commitment of actions and how quickly they would act, explaining to residents what they could expect.

 

The Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growth thanked Bernie Muir for organising that meeting with residents where he and the Leader obtained their feedback on the matter. He was happy to visit the site with local Members and Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP. He noted that following a visit from the Council’s enforcement team and the Environment Agency stopped mechanical picking and the trommel; he was happy to arrange another enforcement visit. He urged for the Community Liaison Group to be stood up so that issues could be fully resolved.