Agenda item

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 29 January 2025).

 

Questions:

 

Notice of twenty questions had been received.

 

The questions and replies were published in the second supplementary agenda (items 10 and 11A) on 3 February 2025.

 

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

 

(Q2) Fiona Davidson asked the Cabinet Member that in the unlikely event that a community group may wish to bid for a community asset, would the Council handle that in the same way it does for commercial property such as looking at best value.

 

Eber Kington asked whether the Cabinet Member would agree that the Community Asset Transfer (CAT) at less than market value was legal and that if residents have a proposal for a CAT of a Council property or land, then it should be considered.

 

The Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure noted that she would ask officers to look into the Member’s question, she clarified that the Council did not have a CAT policy, most of the Council’s buildings were operational. The Council was duty bound under Section 123 of the Local Government Act to obtain best value for its sites, most assets were purchased and made into residential sites. She noted that she would liaise with the Member regarding the old Grafton Stables at Worcester Park.  

 

(Q3)Chris Townsend asked the Cabinet Member why the information requested last year could not be provided now, rather than having to wait a few months for a meeting to take place.

 

Jonathan Essex reiterated the ask of the question regarding the current use.

 

Mark Sugden noted that the matter was heard at a Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee in July 2024, until a well-organised youth group could get guarantee of a lease extension it was difficult to motivate new volunteers to join and to raise money. He asked when answers would be provided.

 

NickHarrison asked what the purpose was of the review and whether criteria had been set on how it might be used in the future to bolster youth work.

 

Robert King noted that if the Council was to look at terminating the use of buildings, he asked whether any revenue could be ringfenced for youth work.

 

George Potter asked whether the Cabinet Member could confirm that the information requested on whichorganisations have a lease for each building and what the status was, was information that could be obtained under a Freedom of Information request and for that to be provided.

 

The Deputy Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning explained that it had been difficult to schedule the meeting with the many providers as some felt they had been given too short notice.

 

The Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure explained that the information requested could not be provided because of the General Data Protection Regulation. She clarified that Land and Property operated on behalf of the service and would offer a property to other services, it took a long time to declare a property surplus and offering it to the open market. 

 

(Q4) Catherine Powell highlighted that the work done by the HGV Community Watch in Farnham justified the need for enforcement cameras, she asked the Cabinet Member what more the community could do as there were still large numbers of HGVs travelling through. She asked how the consideration would be taken forward regarding contributions to set up enforcement cameras.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth called for patience whilst the other measures were put in place, it would take time for the satellite navigation companies to pick that up. He was meeting the portfolio holder in Hampshire County Council and would ask them to prioritise requests from highways officers around the diversion route.He noted that offers were looking at the legalities around contributions, cameras were heavily regulated under law, the administration of the contributions would usually be done by another authority such as a town council.

 

(Q5) Eber Kington asked whether the Leader would agree that denying members of the People, Performance and Development Committee (PPDC) the opportunity to understand the director’s thinking on staffing, whilst at the same time sharing the Council’s Human Resources information and plans with borough and district councils as part of the local government reorganisation working group, undermined the Council’s scrutiny function.

 

The Leader clarified that he was not aware of such information having been shared with the borough and district councils.He noted that workforce was a key issue regarding the reorganisation of the twelve councils, it was too early to provide guidance to staff on what reorganisation looks like. Work was underway through the Surrey Leaders’ Group and he had set up a forum for the Council’s select committee chairmen. He would ask the Director of People and Change to provide a verbal update at the PPDC meeting on 18 February 2025, by that time there should have been a decision by the Government on whether Surrey would be part of the Devolution Priority Programme. Work was being done on identifying the issues.

 

(Q6) Joanne Sexton, on her behalf Eber Kington asked the Cabinet Member to provide a response that answers the specific questions asked.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth clarified that he had answered the question numerous times before. He explained that JCB Pothole Pro did not work for the Council operationally, the Council operated across three depots and the JCB Pothole Pro was designed to work in areas with more depots. The Council was investing in a resurfacing programme and had resurfaced over 500 miles in the past few years, potholes had reduced by 40% and repair speeds had increased by 10%.

 

(Q7)Robert Evans OBE referred to the response where the Council had long lobbied the Government for the requirement to register all home-educated children, he asked whether the Cabinet Member could share that correspondence and responses.

 

TheCabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning responded that she would share the requested information.

 

(Q8) Catherine Baart asked the Cabinet Member to confirm that the oil extraction at Horse Hill had ceased.

 

Edward Hawkins asked whether the Cabinet Member was aware that the legislation had placed the onus on the Planning and Regulatory Committee members and it was examining ways to increase training to deal with planning applications of that nature.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth confirmed that commercial production ceased on 25 October 2024, that was confirmed by a visit from the Council’s planning officers on 31 October 2024. A minimum maintenance flow was kept in place by the operator until 15 November 2024, as of 28 November 2024 the pump was inspected and was non-operational. He noted that the Council would do all it could regarding the High Court’s ruling.

 

(Q9) Jonathan Essex had no supplementary question.

 

Robert King noted that as the Council would have to report on any subsidised service in its scope 2 emissions, he asked how that would be done if the Council did not hold a comparative greenhouse gas analysis for the use of hydrogen.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth explained that the Council would request any data that was required from the operators, the Council did not specify to the operators which buses and fuel they could use.

 

(Q10) Ashley Tilling noted that since November 2023 the recommendations put forward on road safety had yet to be funded and installed, he asked whether the Cabinet Member was convinced that sufficient priority was given to spending and installation on the Road Safety Outside Schools schemes to protect children.

 

Jonathan Essex asked whether the £3 million and the further £2 million was sufficient to deal with the backlog and to right-size the budget going forward.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth noted that the programme concerned capacity and delivery on the Council’s roads, the Council had continued with a significant amount of capital funding for Road Safety Outside Schools. There were 50 projects with some rolling over to the next financial year, it would be a continuous workstream funded through the budget. 

 

(Q11) Lance Spencer asked whether the Cabinet Member wasconfident that the various meetings and activities described would address the issues.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth called for collaboration on the schemes.He noted the difficulties around junction 10 where the scheme had changed throughout the process of construction.Having open communication would help minimise disruption to residents. The Council had 90 daily interventions a day on the highways by utility companies and over 100,000 a year.

 

(Q12) George Potter reiterated his question around what the overall level of Council spending on supporting Active Travel was.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth noted that he would provide a written response.

 

(Q13)Liz Townsend noted that after January’s Cabinet meeting, several families contacted her on the feedback from the task group and felt that it had been misrepresented, the focus of the evidence was solely based on parents’ experience of the EHCP process and it should not be incorrectly phrased as feedback on the panel process. Parents wanted a greater involvement in the panel meetings and to explore their role further. She asked the Cabinet Member to confirm that parents’ concerns about panel meetings would be thoroughly addressed through new task groups, to ensure that their feedback would be genuinely heard to inform meaningful changes.

 

The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learningexplained that much of the work was done in partnership with Family Voice Surrey, the Council’s official parent carer forum. Regarding the end-to-end review, the service continued to work with families. She noted that not all parents shared the same view.

 

(Q14) Robert Evans OBE noted that the Council had received £32.5 million in additional funding for roads, £3 million more than was expected and he asked whether the Cabinet Member would join him in thanking the Government for that.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth noted that the amount of Government funding could be better, that figure had been static for the past ten years, he urged the Government to provide a multi-year settlement. He noted that the Council had to borrow to deliver the bulk of capital funding for roads which led to significant improvements, he would welcome match funding from the Government.

 

Following the adjournment for lunch, Tim Oliver OBE re-joined the meeting at

14.29 pm where he responded to Q5 at the end of the item.

 

(Q15) Catherine Baart asked whether the Cabinet Member would agree that it seemed like a matter to be sorted out as part of local government reorganisation.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growthagreed.

 

(Q16) Ashley Tillingnoted that it was a shame that the YFS Small Community Projects Fund wasending soon. He asked the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member to confirm that applications could be made until the end of March.

 

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Customer and Communities noted that there was an advisory deadline for the end of December 2024 for applications as a courtesy to the officers so they would not be overwhelmed with applications when the fund ends in March. She asked Members to get their applications in as soon as possible and she was aware that some applications were more complex than others.

 

(Q17) Lance Spencer had no supplementary question.

 

Jonathan Essex asked the Cabinet Member whether it would be possible to arrange a Member briefing for Mindworks Surrey to explain what was going on and for an update to be provided to the select committee. 

 

The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning explained that there had been two meetings with the Surrey and Borders Partnership (SABP) leadership on Mindworks Surrey’s transformation plan, with the Adults and Health Select Committee, and the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee. She noted that there was another joint select committee meeting in March where Members could ask questions of SABP.

 

(Q19) Lance Spencer noted that just under 50% of the Council’s borrowing was on long-term fixed interest rates, and over 50% was on short-term rates; the Council needed to borrow £928 million up to March 2027. He asked the Cabinet Member whether the PWLB was the only source of funding on that scale and if it was, what would happen if it was unwilling to provide such funding.

 

Robert King asked whether the Cabinet Member had reviewed all the Council’s financing arrangements particularlywith PWLB, to see whether there was any revenue gains on the early repayment of loans from any capital receipts.

 

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources explained that the PWLB was not the only source of external borrowing, the Council would be looking at the balance between short-term and long-term borrowing. There was a high level of short-term borrowing at present, as interest rates decrease that would be reviewed. He explained that the Council was advised by Arlingclose on the best way of financing loans, the Council would review different options and decide accordingly.

 

(Q20) Lance Spencer noted that when the scheme closes, the Council would have paid out £43 million for YFS projects, he asked whether it was correct that the repayments on that would be spread over next 50 years totalling £80 million out of revenue.

 

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources explained that the money borrowed for the repayment of YFS was part of the total borrowing requirement in the Treasury Management Strategy, repayment would take around 50 years.

 

Michaela Martin left the meeting at 14.40 pm.