Agenda item

Purpose of the report:  Scrutiny of Services and Budgets/Performance Management/Policy Development and Review 

Following the report to the Select Committee on 23rd October 2013, this is an update on the latest position on the Countryside Management Transformation Programme.  Significant progress has been made in three key areas: the formation of the collaborative group, the review of the management of the Rural Estate and the review of the Surrey Wildlife Trust Agreement.

Declarations of interest: None.

Witnesses:

Lisa Creaye-Griffin, Countryside Group Manager

John Furey, Cabinet Member for Transport, Highways and Environment

Emily Boynton, Asset Investment and Regeneration Manager

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The report was introduced by the Countryside Group Manager who explained the report provided an update on the latest position of the Countryside Management Transformation Programme. Significant progress had been made in three key areas. The Countryside Collaboration Group would now be known as the Surrey Countryside and Rural Enterprise Forum (SCREF). There has been an agreement to bring the management of the rural estate in-house which would be managed by Property Services in Surrey County Council (SCC). The review of the agreement with Surrey Wildlife Trust (SWT) to manage the countryside estate had also made positive progress, following the development of a business plan.

2.    A Member of the committee stated that the rural estate had always been managed in-house by Property Services. The Asset Investment and Regeneration Manager explained that the ‘day to day’ management of the rural estate had changed. The changing nature of the smallholdings estate meant the Service was better equipped to manage the rural estate. The reasons for why the day to day management of the rural estate has returned in-house can be found in the report on the review of the rural estate. At the moment the Service relies on one surveyor who holds all the data on the rural estate. The Service will now take on the responsibility for managing this data.    

3.    A Member of the committee raised concerns around there not being any clarity on what was happening with the rural estate in the past. The Asset Investment and Regeneration Manager clarified that the agent who managed the rural estate was given direction by Property Services.

4.    The Countryside Group Manager clarified that informal discussions had started with SWT which would hopefully lead to renegotiation of the contract. The Service had approached SWT with specific issues and was now awaiting a response to these. The Cabinet Member for Transport, Highways and Environment explained that SWT had produced a five year plan on the future management of the Countryside estate but had not provided financial details with this. The Cabinet Member for Transport, Highways and Environment explained that it had taken time to discuss specific issues with SWT but a finance director had been employed by SWT to help produce a finance plan. The view was expressed that the current 50 year contract with no break clause was not desirable.

5.    A Member of the committee raised a concern on point seven of Appendix 1 and commented that progress had been made on establishing the management and governance of the Surrey Hills AONB. It was explained that this point had been included because Surrey County Council hosted the Surrey Hills AONB.

6.    A Member further added that point three in Appendix 2 which referred to the Surrey Hills Trust Fund was incorrect. The Countryside Group Manager stated that the point being discussed had been written by the respective organisation.

7.    It was added that there had been no mention of Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) as the new formed SCREF would not be covering this remit.

Recommendations: None.

Actions/further information to be provided: None.

Committee Next Steps: None.