Agenda item

Purpose of report:To seek the views of the Select Committee on the scope, content and structure of a proposed Delivery Plan for the Surrey Transport Plan. This insight will help to shape the drafting of a Delivery Plan this year, which will be presented to the Select Committee in 2024 for review and scrutiny.

Witnesses:

Matt Furniss, Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growth

Katie Stewart, Executive Director – Environment, Transport & Infrastructure

Paul Millin, Assistant Director, Strategic Transport

Lucy Monie, Director, Highways and Transport

Steve Howard, Transport Strategy Manager, Environment, Transport & Infrastructure

Key points made in the discussion:

General

1. The Chairman asked a question on the impact of delays in the development of the Surrey Transport Plan. The Transport Strategy Manager, Environment, Transport & Infrastructure said that the Council had been waiting 18 months for the Department for Transport to issue guidance and an associated carbon reduction toolkit . The Cabinet Member had written to the Secretary of State. The response would be shared with the Committee.

2. A Member asked how national attitudes would affect motivations for delivery. The Cabinet Member emphasised that the service was offering residents as many sustainable transport options as possible. The Member noted that some residents had encountered issues with EV cables running over pavements. This was considered an obstruction. The Cabinet Member explained that the Trojan Trial Project which allowed residents to charge their vehicles by way of a gulley laid across the pavement. A trial was underway. The Cabinet Member agreed to revert to the Member with the cost to resident of implementing this approach.

Delivery Plan Approach

3. A Member asked a question about pace of delivery of the Transport Plan – numbers of car movements in Surrey had increased not decreased. The Cabinet Member said that progress was being made where there was public support for example for walking and electric biking schemes. The Executive Director for Environment, Transport and Infrastructure noted that even though there was no formal delivery plan yet in place, delivery was nonetheless taking place.

4. A Member asked if the Council would bid for additional funding for the Transport Plan. The Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growth answered that HS2 diverted funds would be bid for by the Council for major infrastructure improvements. Additionally, the Council had recently been awarded £3.9 billion for bus services in Surrey and the £2 bus cap fare remained in place.

Engagement

5. A Member asked how consultation could be managed in the context of residents feeling that car ownership was under attack. The Cabinet Member stressed that motorists were not being attacked.  A new and slower co-design process was being adopted. This involved longer and more thorough consultation to make sure residents were on board with any plans.

Governance, Monitoring & Measuring Success

6. A Member asked a question on what measures might be considered to make short car journeys less attractive. A range of possible options were flagged including reducing parking, traffic calming and management measures and road user charging. The Cabinet Member emphasised that this was not currently under consideration. The Member also asked how the Council would define the acceptable level of public support from residents for any new measures. The Cabinet Member answered that Councillors had an important role in deciding what was acceptable in their division.  An effective codesign process was critical.

7. A Member asked a question on the timeline of the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs) for all districts and boroughs. The Transport Strategy Manager said that the plan would be completed by 2024 as there was a 5 stage Department for Transport process. The Member noted that most of these plans were centred around town centres and asked about cycling infrastructures in those areas. The Transport Policy Team Manager noted that the Local Cycling and Walking Improvement Plan addressed the issue. Local street improvements would improve connectivity from people’s front door to their destination. Connectivity across surrey was the biggest consideration. The Cabinet Member noted that space was an issue, but allocation of space was still being considered between motorists, walkers, and cyclists.

8. A Member asked a question on cycling lanes. The Cabinet Member stressed the importance of providing infrastructure for residents to have the option to choose their mode of transport.

Delivery Progress

9. A Member asked if the EV rollout was too ambitious considering the lack of progress. The Cabinet Member noted that non-EV vehicles could park in EV spaces in some town centre and residential locations. The Transport Policy Team Manager noted that the original pilot EV scheme had issues, but the service had developed a road map with government bodies that laid out how to deliver infrastructure. The Member asked if the plan was being developed in Tandridge and pushed for a rollout in rural locations. The Cabinet Member said less commercially viable areas like rural locations were targeted by the Council through subsidised funding.

10. The Cabinet Member answered a question to a Member regarding transport measures in residential areas. Measures were being put in place in residential areas only with resident’s support and measures including lower speeds in school and residential areas, healthy streets – planting trees, minimal impact on motorists but high impact on walkers and cyclists. The Transport Strategy Manager answered the Member’s question on Key Performance Indicators and said that local data monitoring would need to take place.

11. A Member asked a question on public support for liveable neighbourhoods. The Cabinet Member said that it would depend on area to area and stressed the importance of addressing the root issues and creating solutions. The Member asked a question on the compatibility of the Carbon Assessment Tool from the DfT. The Transport Strategy Manager noted that based on draft forms seen, the service was hopeful on compatibility.

12. A Member asked a question on the adaptability of on demand bus services. Could local intelligence be fed into the design of services. The Assistant Director, Strategic Transport said that the busses were designed to meet the needs of the community and had built in flexibility to meet requirements. Local bus services were less flexible, but where there was a notable change in demand, bus services could be adapted through operator and Council collaboration to meet the demand.

13. A member asked a question on road safety outside of schools. The Assistant Director, Strategic Transport said just under 10% of schools had been earmarked for improvement, funded from a £3 million Council investment over three years. The Member noted that parent parking was a major issue for children walking in and out of schools and asked if drop off area’s being banned was still the Council’s policy. The Assistant Director, Strategic Transport said drop off points at schools could create large traffic lines and congestion. The Service preferred to identify ‘Park and Stride’ sites a short distance from the school, which decentralised the issue of congestion.

14. A Member asked a question on the process of safety routes to schools. The Assistant Director, Strategic Transport Group Manager answered that the Safer Travel Team assess the safety of routes to schools to identify issues, making recommendations for improvements .

15. A Member raised concerns over Danetree Primary School’s road safety. The Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growth offered to hold a conversation with Cllr Mason.

16. The Chairman asked a question on Highway Maintenance policies and if there was appetite to align the Highway Maintenance with cycling routes. The Director of Highways and Transport answered that there were currently many footways that were being assessed and the aim was to create more footways that could be categorised highly. Cycleways were also being assessed. The team had also been identifying areas for increasing the number of bus stops.

17. A Member asked when the report on footways would be shared. The Director answered that the aim was for the end of 2023.

Actions/requests for further information:

1. The Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growth would share the response regarding guidance and the carbon reduction toolkit from the Secretary of State and the Transport Minister when received.

2. The Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growth to share with the Committee the cost to residents of EV charging pavement gulleys currently being piloted under project Trojan.

3. The Assistant Director, Strategic Transport to hold a conversation with Cllr Richard Tear on on-demand busses.

4. The Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growth to advise Cllr Jan Mason on actions to improve road safety for Danetree Primary School.

Recommendations:

That the Communities Environment and Highways Select Committee:

1. Endorses the proposed approach to developing the plan, specifically that it would include a prioritised programme of measures and interventions supported by a clear prioritisation process and funding strategy. These would be vital in maximising the effectiveness of spend and ensuring carbon reductions can be maximised in a resource constrained environment.

2. Supports the proposed annual progress report and ongoing involvement of the Select Committee and the alignment of the Surrey Transport Plan Delivery Plan cycle to the Climate Change Delivery Plan (noting that the former was the single most critical component of the latter and that if it fails, so too does the Climate plan).

3. Recommends that an update was provided to members on progress aligning Highways Maintenance and Inspection policies and procedures with LTP4 by end 2023; and that this be combined with the update that the Cabinet Member had already committed to provide Council members on the Task & Finish Programme (Streets and Environment Services) if appropriate.