Agenda item

1.      The Leader of the Council, the Deputy Leader 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 6 December 2023).

 

2.      Cabinet Member and Deputy Cabinet Member Briefings on their portfolios.

 

These will be circulated by email to all Members prior to the County Council meeting, together with the Members’ questions and responses.

 

There will be an opportunity for Members to ask questions.

 

Questions:

 

Notice of twenty-four questions had been received. The questions and replies were

published in the supplementary agenda (item 8) on 11 December 2023.

 

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

 

(Q1) Robert Evans OBE hoped that the Cabinet Member was aware that there were other buildings in Surrey with Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (RAAC) such as Frimley Park Hospital, three more schools highlighted by the BBC on 21 October, Harlequin Theatre and Cinema in Redhill and Reigate Police Station. He asked why those buildings were not included, even if not the direct responsibility of the Council it should be concerned. He asked what the plans were for the Leatherhead and Walton-on-Thames Fire Stations which contained RAAC.

 

The Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure noted that Frimley Park Hospital, Reigate Police Station and those three schools were not the Council’s responsibility; yet the Council had offered help to Reigate Police Station which was relocating part of its service to Reigate Fire Station. She was aware of the RAAC in Harlequin Theatre and Cinema and in Redhill Library. Desktop surveys and visual inspections of all the Council’s properties had been undertaken, intrusive investigations were underway. RAAC had worked well for several decades, it was the Government that called for investigations to be carried out. It was expected that Redhill Library would reopen in January. She noted that those two fire stations were operational and management plans had been developed.

 

(Q3) Joanne Sexton asked whether the Council had considered that the number of visits undertaken in the permit areas was disproportionate compared to the visits to the borough in general. Regarding access routes to resident parking zones C, E, H and Fairfield Avenue, it appeared that NSL focused on permit areas neglecting other hotspots. In permit areas there was no observation time so NSL could issue tickets immediately. She asked what the total dwell time was in each of those areas by NSL’s civil enforcement officers.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth explained that permit areas had limited parking availability so it was appropriate to prioritise those areas. He asked Members to inform NSL or the Council’s parking team about any hotspots. He noted that Members would receive updated monthly statistics. The Council had exceeded the numbers of employees on its behalf who were issuing more Fixed Penalty Notices then before.

 

(Q4) Catherine Powell asked the Cabinet Member to share the details of the storage and transport arrangements from port to vehicle from the start of operations in February 2024, and asked who was funding the other twenty buses. She asked how he planned to learn from initial operations for the ZEBRA 2 bid, she would forward the latest research paper.

 

Lance Spencer noted that the saving in carbon emissions was described as 3 billion kg or 3,000 tonnes equating to only 0.04% of the total emissions and asked whether the Cabinet Member would agree that it was vital to find new ways to encourage greater bus use.

 

Catherine Baart asked whether the renewable hydrogen was green, blue or grey.

 

George Potter asked for the details of the certification of the renewable hydrogen ‘from well to wheel’ to be shared with Members. Noted that Air Products’ website indicated that they did not currently have any operational projects producing green hydrogen, they did have a facility in the UK producing hydrogen from fossil fuels.

 

Edward Hawkins sought reassurance that a hydrogen pipeline was not being planned by the Council.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth noted that he would request the details asked for by Catherine Powell from Air Products and Metrobus regarding the hydrogen delivery, there was a storage facility in Crawley and tankers. The Council was producing its own ZEBRA 2 bid and was supporting West Sussex’s bid for further hydrogen buses. Regarding Lance Spencer’s question on promoting greater bus use he noted that the LINK card had been well received by those aged 20 years and under - on capped fares bus fares were halved to £1. The Council would be doing an advertising campaign. He noted that it was green hydrogen produced from biogas and would get that confirmation for Catherine Baart. Regarding George Potter’s question, he would request the certification. Responding to Edward Hawkins, the Council was not proposing a hydrogen pipeline across Surrey.

 

(Q6) Jonathan Essex noted that the response did not provide details of any meetings or work following the agreed motion at October’s Council meeting, he asked what communication the Cabinet Member had with the Government on expanding Travelcard zones.

 

Robert Evans OBE asked whether the Cabinet Member was aware that the car scrappage scheme requested for Surrey was not the Mayor of London’s financial responsibility, in other local authorities which had requested such as scheme the Government had funded that. On extending the zone 6 Oyster card system to Surrey, Transport for London (TfL), the Mayor of London, South Western Railway and Southern Rail were supportive of that. He asked whether the Cabinet Member was aware that the reason that zone 6 had not been extended to Surrey was that TfL had not agreed to cover the rail companies’ potential losses.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth responded to Jonathan Essex noting that the Council had requested a meeting with the relevant Government ministers to discuss zone expansion; that was being pursued. Responding to Robert Evans OBE, the Council had engaged with TfL and was working with the Campaign for Better Transport on zone expansion and cheaper integrated ticketing. He noted that the Mayor of London could offer outside of London, the scheme he instituted was unfair on non-London residents.

 

(Q7) Jonathan Hulley was pleased that the County Planning Authorityexpected the developer to comply with all 21 planning conditions, conditions 6 and 7 protected the mature Oak trees on site. He asked the Cabinet Member to confirm that the developer would comply with the National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 180 c) regarding the tree category methodology; and that future construction would begin without amendment to the approved highway design.

 

Bernie Muir noted that the operators at the Chalk Pit were not complying with the planning conditions, enforcement was needed to hold them to account.

 

George Potter noted that expecting the developers to comply with those conditions was not the usual role of a County Planning Authority, it was to ensure that conditions were being applied via monitoring and enforcement not simply expecting that to happen. He asked whether such monitoring and enforcement was being undertaken.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth responded to Jonathan Huley that the Council would be complying with the planning permission. He recognised the concerns regarding the trees, reassessments had been undertaken which did confirm the original report; more trees would be planted. Responding to Bernie Muir, he noted it was disappointing and the Council was taking enforcement action. Responding to George Potter he was sure that the developer - the Council - would comply and continue its monitoring.

 

(Q8) George Potter hoped that the report being prepared would include a methodology.Highlighted that the explanation given for the 28% reduction in pupils between primary and secondary school was not credible, for example most secondary schools in Guildford were oversubscribed. New homes were being built without secondary school places.

 

Catherine Powell noted that the response raised concerns given the number of secondary school places required, in Farnham and Ash school place planning had again been underestimated and all schools exceeded the places. She asked whether the Cabinet Member would commit to reviewing the accuracy of the methodology for each school place planning area.

 

The Cabinet Member for Children and Families, Lifelong Learning noted that she would commit to reviewing the methodology being used, the team used Educate software which was accurate at predicting the number of school places. Earlier in the year she organised individual Member Development Sessions by quadrant on school place planning and the methodology used, she was happy to organise those sessions again and could put Members individually in touch with officers from the School Place Planning team. She recognised the strain on places in Farnham.

 

(Q9) Hazel Watson welcomed the commitment to end the backlog of installing road signs and asked whether the Cabinet Member would welcome a question at July’s Council meeting to celebrate the end of the backlog.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth was happy to celebrate the end of backlogs, he would ask the team to improve its communication around the batching of road signs and to provide reasons for the delays.

 

(Q10) Will Forster referring to his questions b) and c), was concerned that Surrey residents might accidentally travel into the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) area. When the Mayor of London publishes the data and there is evidence of that, would the Council revisit its decision on signage to ensure that Surrey residents do not accidentally go into the ULEZ area and be wrongly charged.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth noted that the Council had requested from TfL whether there were any specific sites that it might occur, only one had been provided on safety grounds and that had been dismissed. If the Council received the granular detail requested, a discussion would be had looking at whether anything needed to be done.

 

(Q13) Robert Evans OBE thanked the Cabinet Member for visiting his division,he welcomed his guarantee that some of the repairs were underway and asked him to join him in keeping the pressure on ensuring that those roads do not continue to repeatedly flood.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth confirmed that the Environment Agency (EA) was responsible for the ditches and watercourses and he would be putting pressure on the local MP for the EA to continue to maintain those. The EA was not obliged to do so on some of those watercourses and that was why in the past the Council and Runnymede Borough Council had done so. There was extra money targeted at drainage, he was keen that as many defects could be fixed as possible so those do not cause flooding.

 

(Q15) Catherine Powell awaited the outcome of the review, she asked for confirmation that the review would cover all ongoing projects including the Walton-on-Thames site that recently had planning permission for Hopescourt School.

 

The Cabinet Member for Children and Families, Lifelong Learning confirmed that it would be a full review and was confident that it would cover Hopescourt School. She noted the risks around the projects regarding inflation, market and workforce pressures, and planning delays. She had a high level of confidence in the joint teams regarding the delivery of the capital projects and emphasised the careful planning, robust management and oversight concerning the projects.

 

(Q16) Catherine Baart had no supplementary question.

 

Robert King asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member toreview the Council’s inability for Members to use their £5,000 and £50,000 allocation for the same YFS project, noted issues around capital and revenue products.

 

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Customer and Communities explained that revenue and capital had separate funding streams, she suggested that the Member speak to officers where the Member had a project that involved both funding streams.

 

(Q17) Jonathan Essex referred to the response which stated that Digital Demand Responsive Transport (DDRT) was relatively new for Surrey and there were lessons learnt. He asked whether a comparison had been done with other places outside of Surrey using DDRT to undertake benchmarking against the experience in Mole Valley. He asked whether the Council might consider an incentive for shared use, lowering fares.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth asked for more advanced notice on such detailed granular questions going forward. He noted that comparisons had been done and Hertfordshire was a good comparator, he highlighted the Government website on DDRT. Mole Valley Connect had transported more people than other schemes funded by the Rural Mobility Fund. The five additional areas added this year were performing similarly to Mole Valley when it started. He was unsure about what bus sharing would incentivise as all the fares started at a £2 cap, those fares increased over three miles. He noted that promoting the service was vital, an advertising campaign would happen in 2024.

 

(Q21) Robert Evans OBE noted that whilst the response stated that youth services had not closed, he noted it was a shadow of what it had been particularly in three areas in the north of the county. Those services had provided activities to young people occupying them. He asked whether the Cabinet Member felt shame regarding her response and asked whether she felt it had any impact on ASB seen in some parts of Surrey.

 

Steven McCormick understood that districts and boroughs were responsible for creating and submitting applications to the Safer Streets Fund - supported by the Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey (PCC). He noted a successful application for funding by Epsom and Ewell Borough Council, benefits of it addressing ASB had been seen. He asked what the Council’s specific plans and action points were to address to issue of ASB across Surrey.

 

The Cabinet Member for Children and Families, Lifelong Learning noted that Robert Evans’ OBE question presumed that all ASB came from young people. She responded to him noting that her response was not untrue or that she was ashamed as it represented the reality. Noted that she had previously been the Deputy Cabinet Member leading on services for young people and compared to around a decade ago the current provision for young people was not dissimilar. The work done over the past few years had opened the market to active and effective voluntary services providers. She noted that youth work did not provide leisure services, it was a regulated service to further personal development.

 

(Q22) Catherine Powell asked for the pipeline to be shared with Members,and for the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member to explain the strategy for closing the large YFS scheme and when it would be introduced based on the pipeline.

 

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Customer and Communities noted that the pipeline could be seen via the Member Portal. Regarding the pipeline, there were several elements to consider for example the applications were self-selecting assessed on rigorous criteria by officers and not all elements would be supported. None of the applications scheduled for tomorrow’s YFS Advisory Panel were ready, without the relevant detail and assessments it was not possible to predict which of those applications would be successful. 

 

(Q23) Catherine Baart noted that the local parking review team had been helpful in sorting out an exception.

 

(Q24) Lance Spencer noted that when he highlighted the issue last yearthere were 284 incidents which breached the legal twenty-week period for EHCPs provision, that number has risen to 1,038 incidents. He asked what the Cabinet Member believed to be good levels of timeliness to be reached by May 2024.

 

Jonathan Essex requested that the Council does all it could toensure that in addressing the EHCPs response times it remains within its legal obligations regarding the levels of evaluation and support provided for children.

 

The Cabinet Member for Children and Families, Lifelong Learning responded to Lance Spencer acknowledging the deterioration of the timeliness of completion regarding EHCPs needs assessments and annual reviews; hence the recovery plan’s acceleration and £15 million investment over the next three years. The existing backlog had halved. She would send the Member the recovery plan’s trajectory as published in the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee’s December agenda. By the end of May 2024, the target for a good level of timeliness of EHCP completion would be at least 67% based on the previous year. She would follow up with Jonathan Essex on his question.

 

Cabinet Member and Deputy Cabinet Member Briefings:

 

These were also published in the supplementary agenda (item 8) on 11 December 2023.

 

Members made the following comments:

 

Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources: on the problems with payroll processing, Andy MacLeod noted that whilst he stated that there were some improvementsthere had continued to be problems regarding processing schools’ payrolls with reports of over 800 emails being received in one day requesting help. Asked for assurance that all payrolls including schools would be processed in time this month; and for an update on when the issues would be resolved.

 

The Cabinet Member apologised for the disruption caused, which affected schools and corporate payroll. Improvement had been seen in the November payroll. He noted that no evidence had been seen regarding those 800 emails. Work was underway via an action plan and additional resource was in place, by February it was intended that the issues be resolved. Regarding December’s payroll, the date had been brought forward to 20 December to resolve issues before Christmas.

 

Nick Harrison on theclosing down of the Digital Business and Insights (DB&I) programme on 15 December, noted that the Surrey Pension Fund (SPF) and Surrey Local Pension Board had written to the Chief Finance Officer to express concern that the staff at Surrey Pension team had difficulties such as processing new joiners and were using workarounds to keep the system live. He thanked the team for their work, he noted that the Council’s work was regulated so it was vital that it does not close anything down until the work was completed.

 

The Cabinet Member noted that nothing has been closed down, the Council was moving from hypercare towards the business-as-usual phase of the project. Resources would continue to be provided to the team, he anticipated further development work and system improvements.

 

Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure: on the Edge Leisure Centre in Haslemere, Paul Follows noted that it took a meeting with the Council’s Leader to break a deadlock for the Council to engage with Waverley Borough Council. The Council left the legwork to Waverley Borough Council, yet leisure centres were not a statutory duty of either council; the Council could have engaged directly with Woolmer Hill Sports Association but did not. Noted a recent constituency update by the local MP who believed that the delay was down to Waverley Borough Council, that appeared to be resultant from the word ‘still’ in the Cabinet Member’s Briefing. He confirmed that Waverley Borough Council would have completed the work by 18 December. He asked the Cabinet Member to recommit to a better working relationship with Waverley Borough Council.

 

The Cabinet Member noted that the Council’s Land and Property team met with Waverley Borough Council’s officers to discuss the matter, an agreement had been reached but it had sat with Waverley Borough Council’s officers for over three weeks. She had worked hard with partners to try to get the leisure centre reopened at the beginning of December. 

 

Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth: on Gatwick Airport’s growth plans, Helyn Clack thanked the Cabinet Member for following up her Member’s Statement at October’s Council meeting by holding a meeting this morning with local Members focusing on the impact of those growth plans such as increased traffic in rural areas. One of her local parish councils had committed over a third of its annual budget on a vehicle activated sign as a traffic calming measure. The Council’s budget for such signs was small and only one officer provided the relevant assessments. She had pledged some of her Member’s highways allocation to such signs and asked the Cabinet Member to commit additional resources to deliver more vehicle activated signs in rural villages.

 

The Cabinet Member noted that the Council took road safety seriously, having provided the additional £3 million for road safety outside schools and the annual budget had increased; he would speak to the Road Safety team. Noted that additional money had been identified for road safety via the renewed partnership scheme with Surrey Police and Surrey Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) regarding the new Surrey RoadSafe Partnership Vision Zero Road Safety Strategy.

 

Cabinet Member for Fire and Rescue, and Resilience: on the Community Safety Partnerships (CSP) and PCC relationship in tackling anti-social behaviour (ASB) and changes to ASB powers. Steven McCormick referred to the last paragraph of the Cabinet Member’s Briefing around the work to update Surrey’s frameworks regarding ASB powers and the operation of community safety problem solving groups once the Home Office introduces revised guidance and legislation. He asked what role the Cabinet Member saw for CSPs in districts and boroughs.

 

The Cabinet Member noted that it was guidance at present and that he saw the districts and boroughs to have an extremely important role regarding CSPs, as it was a partnership role between them and the PCC, and Council.

 

Eber Kington on the His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services’ (HMICFRS) inspection report published in September, noted that it showed that SFRS required improvement in seven assessment areas and HMICFRS was disappointed that SFRS had not made the progress expected since the 2021 inspection. He asked what assurance the Cabinet Member could provide that all improvements required would be achieved by the next inspection.

 

The Cabinet Member noted disappointment in the inspection findings, he highlighted the improvement plan which had been discussed at the relevant select committee. He was confident that improvements would be made.