Agenda item

Purpose of report:  To seek the views of the Select Committee on the developing Land Management Framework and the new draft Land Management Policy for Surrey County Council owned land.

Witnesses

Natalie Bramhall, Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure

Marisa Heath, Cabinet Member for Environment

Katie Stewart, Executive Director for Environment, Infrastructure & Growth (EIG)

Carolyn McKenzie, Director for Environment

Colin Galletly, Assistant Director for Estates Management

1. The Chairman asked if the work to develop the Land Management Framework and Land Management policy suggested any major change in direction in how the council managed its land-based assets. The Director for Environment explained there were several areas being reviewed such as the way land-based assets were managed from an environment agency point of view. Potential for using council owned land was being reviewed to provide Biodiversity net gain (BNG) for the Council’s own developments. Potential for adaptation and flood-risk management was being reviewed, to see how sites could be used to mitigate impacts in flood-risk areas. A lot of the Council’s sites had a lot of footfalls, which meant looking at other sites to develop. Renewables would also be reviewed.

2. A Member referred to the report’s description of the Land Management Framework as a tool to aid decision making on how land-based assets and risks were managed, and asked what early decisions this was expected to influence. The Member also asked how the framework integrated environmental, social, and economic consideration into initial planning and development stages to align the broader sustainability and community goals. The Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure explained that the Wray Park estate was currently being reviewed for opportunities that could be realised in terms of improved farming, release of land, buildings for disposal and get land designated as BNG. The Assistant Director for Estates added that West Park estate was 3 farms with some other land. It was not an ideal commercial or operational set up from a farming aspect. Work was being done with farmers and colleagues in natural capital to see how the farms could be consolidated into better and more sustainable businesses. This would release land for disposal and BNG.

3. A Member asked what the main opportunities were for the Council’s income generation, and how the council balanced those opportunities against its duties as a landlord and guardian of the natural environment. The Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure provided the example of the letting of Kinnersley Farm. Estates and Natural Capital agreed a set of terms that enabled the farm to be marketed for regenerative farming, while ensuring that tenants provided a strong business case. The farm had new tenants that paid an increased rent with innovative farming methods and grant funding. Some land was released for BNG. This model could be used elsewhere.

4. The Member asked what the annual income for rents was, received by the council. The Assistant Director for Estates Management could not provide the exact figure. A review was currently being completed on the rents.

5. A Member asked about the opportunities to sell land to developers, and if the Council coordinated with borough and districts and their local plans to ensure appropriate infrastructure was provided and extra school places. The Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure explained that Coxbridge farm was sold in Waverly, which took years to get it through Waverley planning. A substantial capital receipt for the council was received and it was also providing 190 homes on the land, 80 of which were social/ affordable houses. Boroughs and districts were worked with, for example some land was recently sold to Tandridge council to be used for social rent homes.

6. A Member asked how the land management policy would influence decisions around the disposal of land and use of greenbelt, such as for school builds. The Member also asked about one storey school buildings. The Assistant Director for Estates Management explained that within Land and Property, there was a strategy and planning function that reviewed surplus land available, and if there was an alternative use for the land. The council would try to recycle properties. The reason for one storey schools was possibly due to the largest special educational needs schools that were preferred to be a single storey building but needed to confirm.

7. A Member asked about what extent the Council was taking advantage of new government Environmental Land Management grants or other environment-based funding streams. The Director for Environment explained the Council already had a lot of grants from existing schemes. The new Environmental Land Management (ELM) scheme was still in development but would be a future focus to maximise grants.

8. A Member asked to what extent the Council maximised the potential of the land it owned or managed for environmental ends, such as flood storage and biodiversity recovery. The Member also asked if there was an example of any strategic initiative or projects that had been implemented to enhance environmental objectives. The Cabinet Member for Environment explained it was early days in how the Council would achieve the environmental objects. Potential flood storage was looked at as well as natural flood management in the Mole Valley area. The land management policy was about identifying the opportunities. Flood storage could sit alongside new development. Water pollution related to nitrates from farms and different businesses, as well as sewage. The policy involved how these problems could be solved in a holistically. The Council worked with communities such as the Surrey Hills National Landscapes Board and farmers to see how things could be done in the same way and projects were already taking place.

9. The Director for Environment added that the policy looked at all the opportunities and how things could be mixed, such as putting biodiversity with flooding to get the most value of the land. Focus had currently been around access, getting people into countryside and tree planting. The council was in the process of developing an orchard at Norbury Park for the community. Horsell Common, a flood storage scheme, was an example of partnership work, which had a sustainable access route for schools and other amenities.

10. The Member asked how the Council planned to engage with local community groups and organisations. The Cabinet Member for Environment Heath explained there was this engagement was already happening, such as with farming groups, residents’ associations, and parish councils. This was happening through the Surrey Association of Local Councils. There was still more to do to get to the lower grassroot groups. Some webinars were likely to be held. There was engagement with a range of people such as cyclist groups and walkers regarding transport routes.

11. The Member asked how engagement was done with the district and borough councils. The Cabinet Member for Environment noted there was a greener futures partnership group which met once every two months, and conversations were had on all the workstreams. Officers were also working closely with the partner officers in the district and boroughs.

12. The Director for Environment added that work was being done at a delivery operational level through the number of partnerships that were around climate change, BNG and tree planting. A conversation at a higher level had started with the directors of place in Surrey, looking at green infrastructure and how collective work could be done to get better outcomes.

13. A Member asked about how Council owned land could be used for home to school transport. The Member also asked if finding a way to compare the different environmental options in terms of carbon was getting closer. The Director for Environment explained the council was getting closer to compare the environmental options. Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping was being done, and a piece of work was done around natural capital accounting which started to give the carbon value. There was not currently a standard metric. Work was being done with other authorities, Defra, natural England, Environment Agency, and Forestry Commission to look at how the carbon could be quantified. One area the council would lobby the government to get clearer metrics and information on this.

14. In terms of rights of way, the Cabinet Member for Environment explained the recently completed rights of way consultation received a large engagement. It was also something Parish councils were interested in. The access points needed to be reviewed, such as cut throughs in the land to get people to towns or train stations. One of the biggest blocks to the carbon agenda was the transport issue. The paths that people wanted to use needed to be identified. Local knowledge would be important to find the key areas.

15. A Member asked if the principle would be to put solar panels on buildings first. The Cabinet Member for Environment confirmed it was.

16. In reference to the report noting that a ten-week consultation would follow the cabinet approval of the draft framework, a Member asked which key stakeholders would be involved and if any challenge was expected. The Cabinet Member for Environment outlined stakeholder groups such as the farming community, private landowners, tenants and groups such as the rambler’s association and those using the council’s networks across the land would be involved.

17. The Director for Environment added that the local nature recovery strategy was being developed simultaneously to the consultation, which had an extensive stakeholder network which covered a variety of groups which could be utilised. Having conversations with residents in sensitive estates such as Norbury Park could also be done. There was always a challenge between access, biodiversity, nature and nature conversation, with Surrey having a large footfall. There were additional challenges over Cycling versus environment and illegal activity around four-by-fours and motorbikes. There would be challenges around people wanting to use the land opposed to wanting to preserve the land. By looking at the GSI data and mapping, areas could hopefully be identified that needed to be protected and look at ways to divert paths, protect them further or look at new sites to reduce footfall.

18. A Member asked how the internal working within the Council across various teams was affected by the framework, such as Environment, Estates and Rights of Way. The Member also asked for clarification on responsibilities and how different teams communicated and collaborated. The Director for Environment noted that the different teams worked together well. Communication had been on a more informal basis in the past. The land management framework policy would allow teams to communicate and collaborate more formally and introduce more of a structure for officers input on management decisions. The framework would also help clarify officer roles.

19. The Member asked if it could be made clearer for the public who the relevant point of contact for different issues would be to ease communications. The Member also asked if there were any other sections that came into the remit of the land management policy. The Executive Director for EIG explained that work was being done with the Strategic Director for Customer Service Transformation to provide a clearer and more seamless experience for customers. Regarding other sections that fell into the policies remit, there was the natural capital team, colleagues in Land and Property and other teams such as highways, transport and the flood team. More widely, there was the town and village approach, and coordination beyond the remit of EIG with colleagues in the Childrens Families and Lifelong Learning directorate.

20. The Cabinet Member for Environment raised that openness with partners such as charity and voluntary groups was important, to ensure there was coherent messaging, working together as one team.

Actions:

1. The Assistant Director of Estates Management to provide figures for SCC’s annual income from rents.

2. The Assistant Director for Estates Management to confirm the reason for one-storey school buildings.

3. Environment Directorate to provide a list of grants obtained by SCC over the past year, in relation to the Council’s land management policy.

Resolved:

That the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee:

     I.                Welcomes the Land Management Policy and Framework and the greater focus this brings on Surrey County Council’s land-based assets and the opportunities these present for furthering strategic outcomes including to support the local economy and achieve climate change and biodiversity targets.

    II.                Notes the extent and richness of Surrey County Council’s land-based estate comprising over 10,000 acres of countryside and 3,000 kilometres of public rights of way and supports continued work to optimise this estate to deliver benefits to the residents of Surrey, including through leisure and recreation, mental and physical health, sequestering carbon and supporting biodiversity.