Transcript

So I'd like to welcome everyone to the meeting of the Community's Environment and Highway Select Committee on the 15th of October, 2024. It's 10 a.m. and we're in the council chamber. First of all, there's no fire drill planned for today. In the event of a fire alarm sounding, everyone present is asked to leave by the nearest exit and assemble at the top car park, reporting to a member of the building management team. Staff will be on hand to guide you to your nearest exit. Please ensure your mobile phones are either switched off or put on silent. In line with our guidance on the use of social media, I'm happy for anyone attending today's meeting, including members of the committee, to use social media if this does not disturb the business of the meeting. Today's meeting is being webcast to the public and a recording will be available online afterwards. I'd also like to mention that this meeting allows for participation by videoconference by Microsoft Teams and that some attendees are participating remotely. For those participating remotely, if the chat feature is enabled, please do not use it. It limits the transparency and open discussion we aim to maintain at our public meeting. For those officers who have joined the meeting remotely, please use the raise hand function to indicate that you would like to speak and please mute your microphone and turn off your camera when not speaking. For those officers and members who have joined us in person, may I please ask anyone presenting to speak clearly and directly into their microphones. We do have a huge amount of business to get through this morning, so can I ask you to be brief, please? When called upon to speak, press the right hand button on your microphone and start speaking when the red light appears. Remember to turn the microphone off when you could finish. So the next point is around apologies. We have apologies from Councillor Whitten, Councillor Beckett and Councillor Bownes. Councillor Cooksey has joined us remotely because he's suffering from COVID. Can I ask the committee to approve the minutes from the previous meeting? That would be happy. Can I ask if there are any declarations of interest from the committee members? Okay, thank you very much. So we're going to move on to the questions. We have three questions. The first question was from Catherine Powell and was responded to by Duncan Knox. Catherine isn't able to join the meeting, but she's asked that Councillor McLeod would ask a question on her behalf, a follow up question. Thank you, Chair. I'll read out the question that Catherine has sent to me. Part C of my questions relate to how residents will be able to manage the exemption online. It is obviously important that the school street works in terms of protecting children walking and cycling to school, however, it is also important that whatever IT system Surrey County Council determines to operate also works for residents and is efficient and effective for both Surrey County Council and the NSL to manage. The answer to the question does not commit to the system having a web portal that residents can use to manage their number plates and advises that documentation will need to be provided for each vehicle, confirming it is registered to their address. This will require officer intervention and also reduce the flexibility for residents. For example, those that need carers to visit multiple times a day to help with their care. Please can officers look again at providing a system that will allow residents the flexibility to manage their own number plates without officer intervention. The number of plates will obviously need to be limited to ensure school street will work and if abuse of the system occurs, then clearly additional checks and balances will need to be introduced. I do have a firm belief that we should start from a position of just trusting a resident to behave in a reasonable manner. Can I ask just a brief comment on my own, as a Waverley Councillor, Waverley have such a system for their own Councillors where they have multiple cars that they can use in Waverley car parts and we can manage that online, which car is the live car, if you like. We can't use more than one at a time, you know, so I'll just throw that comment in. Thank you, Duncan. Could I ask Duncan to respond? Thank you, Chair and thank you, Councillor McLeod for passing on that question from Councillor Powell. Yeah, we're absolutely committed to trying to get a user-friendly system to make it as easy and smooth for residents as possible to register their vehicles. We can't say at this time exactly what that system will look like 'cause the conversation needs to be had with NSL, the enforcement agents who work for the Council on that, but the way it works in most of the local authorities is that there is a web portal. For example, where I live in London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, you have a dropdown list of all the different school street schemes across the borough and you select the one you're interested in and then it brings up another dropdown list of all the properties on that street. So you say I live at that property and then you say what you're trying to register, whether it's a new vehicle or a replacement vehicle for one that you've already registered and then you have to upload the vehicle registration document showing that that vehicle is registered to your address and I think that's the sort of process that we should be looking to implement and I note that NSL do that in other local authority areas for which they provide the enforcement function. So I can't say exactly at this stage until we've had those conversations with NSL as to what the system will look like, but that's how it looks elsewhere so it'd be kind of surprising if it wasn't very similar to that in Surrey and that will allow the residents to set up their exemptions and carers and those other people who need an exemption if they're doing some work on the house builders, for example, on the odd occasion, rare occasions that that needs to happen, but it does need officer intervention because they do need to check the documents that are being submitted so there's not a system anywhere that doesn't require someone to look at what's been submitted and say yes, that's correct.

Thank you, Duncan, excellent response. The second question has been submitted by Councillor McCormack. He's not present and there is no follow-up question. And the third question was put through by a member of public, which is excellent. David Jenner, sorry. So thank you today for putting his question in. The response has gone back and there's no supplementary question. So that's the questions done. So now we're moving on to the climate change delivery plan annual update. I would say at the beginning of this we do have a lot of questions, so can I ask the officers to be brief if you can be in your responsive, please be informative, but if you can keep it brief that would be really helpful. So can I ask whoever's going to present to introduce the paper, please? I think we can be quite succinct in doing this, Chairman, because it's quite similar to last year's report in that we remain on target, but obviously the pressures are getting higher and we have warned, I think last year we had the same conversation where we came in and said it's going to get harder and harder and I think we're now in danger of slipping over the next year or so. The report that the officers can speak to in a moment obviously sets out that we have kept to target and a tremendous amount of work has been done with some good successes in areas, particularly in supporting vulnerable households shifting. We've been one of the leading counties in that area in regards to working with our schools on the green flags and regards to tree planting and numerous other areas that we've been successful in but the pressure is getting much, much more difficult and as we will have conversations no doubt that will evolve in the discussion, the funding is becoming one of the biggest issues facing us. I think it's worth just setting the context that I have felt over the last year that perhaps and certainly not from this committee but perhaps the interest in climate change and net zero has reduced somewhat and there almost seems to be another narrative coming in quite strongly that this isn't where we should be placing our money and focus. So I think we need to address that and be very clear in what we're going to do around that because we still have the targets and therefore this authority has a duty to meet those targets so I'd appreciate a really strong conversation and to pick up the feeling of this committee in regards to that. We know that we're a council facing numerous pressures like many others in terms of funding. What we are seeking to do is because we recognize and let's be totally open, we recognize that there are real risks to us meeting our targets coming forward in the next year or two is we're saying basically let's pick up the 2026 plan. You'll remember this is a 21 to 25 plan. Let's pick up the 26 plan earlier and start identifying very clearly where those gaps are in both funding and resource and setting them out so we can have a really serious conversation perhaps in this committee mid next year to say what are we going to do about this, what are we asking government for exactly, what are we saying to this organization in regards to if you fail to meet those targets, what does offsetting look like. So I think that's where the conversation has to go now and it will have to be a very serious conversation indeed because we are only five years away from where we said we'd go. On the 2050 targets, similar situation, at the moment we're sort of on the amber to green but we've mentioned this numerous times. It relies on many other partners coming around us for that and I think it would be really helpful to have a clear mandate around what we're doing in regards to that as well from central government and perhaps now with their strong commitment to net zero that will come. So I think there's some things that we could be asking of government and our partners. Happy to talk to you today about the greener futures partnership and the greener futures board, how we're evolving that in order to get where we need to get to but I'll just ask the officers if they'd like to raise anything in the report that you think should be brought to a member's attention. I think the key thing from my side and to be brief is Marissa's phrase that to deliver on this it's a partnership approach and we need additional funding to help deliver on that. But I think there's a real opportunity through the county deal and devolution and to see how we can return period but what I'm hearing is that there is that push towards local delivery and looking at how we could develop local plans that deliver on the government's ambition I end out. Okay, thank you very much for the introduction. Yes, the question is whether there's any money that goes with the plans so that's going to be the issue I suspect all the way through. So for my first question is which areas of performance cause you the greatest concern in the plan that we've just gone through? I think probably that's one for Kate's home as well. Yeah, so as pointed out this is not easy. We are on track but we are being very realistic about the challenges and so far we've positioned ourselves well to draw in government grant funding that's been available. We've been able to sort of demonstrate our ability to deliver in comparison to other areas but it's really the scale of the challenge that is the problem. We know that there are many homes that are struggling with positions around moving [inaudible] payments that's probably going to mean more people in Surrey are struggling to stay warm this winter so we need to be responsive to that. Drawing down as much funding and delivering schemes as we can. We want to [inaudible] those sorts of homes and businesses where people are most at need. And then the other challenge around decarbonizing our own state is that we have been fortunate enough to be able to focus on the low hanging fruit. During funding we have had a lot of buildings with end of life boilers where we've been able to focus on putting whole building measures in and funding's been available to enable us to do that. We are now coming to a point. Just going back to your comment, Marissa, on the new plan you said we should be looking to bring the next five year plan forward, any ideas when that plan would be put? Well we would like to start, I mean they look at the team because they're overburdened but we'd like to start doing that now, taking back the feedback that you give us and the rest of the council give us as to where the priorities and focus should be and having those conversations about as Katie's just mentioned when we're dealing with buildings that don't necessarily need a new boiler and things, what are our decisions around that, are we taking them out, are we offsetting, what other routes are there forward. We think the conversations with governments should certainly evolve over the next six months as they set out their plan as well. So we'd hope to come back sort of midyear next year I think with a comprehensive plan to say the way forward which is probably about eight months ahead of where we were planning to do it I think in the end. I mean it's worth pointing out these challenges as well. I mean I mentioned when I introduced we're one of the leading authorities in decarbonizing vulnerable and low income homes but we're talking about 3,000 homes so when you think about the challenge there it's quite small isn't it really and yet we're one of the better performing authorities. You can see the absolute mountain, not just us but other authorities have to climb as well. As I recall it was 30,000 homes we were hoping to do by 2025 wasn't it? So and I absolutely appreciate the problem is not lack of willingness or enthusiasm to do the job, it is simply a funding issue because it's so costly. Okay so regarding strong green job opportunities, paragraph 11 on the report, we often hear about the cost of the green agenda and in preparing for climate change what job opportunities might arise in Surrey as we transition to a green economy or and or it should say an economy that tends to mitigate the effects of climate change. Because mitigation is becoming a bigger thing as compared with where we were four years ago I would suggest. Well you would not just suggest you'd be completely right in saying that and I should have said that at the beginning we also have to tackle climate adaptation now as well so these jobs and the opportunities for jobs are right here, right now as you've seen from the amount of flooding and things we've had over the county. We've actually done a piece of work, green schools demand report. Kat do you want to just run us over that and what it's found out? Yeah so I guess the first thing to say is that the job prospects or the green skills prospects are very good in Surrey, better than average compared to the UK. So Surrey has a comparative advantage to the rest of the UK with 23 percent more green jobs than the average UK as a whole. I also wanted to point out that the rate of growth per year in the sector is very high, so 8 percent per annum to 2030 so again there's really good job prospects building as the net zero transitions roll out. The kinds of jobs that will become, are already available and will become more available include jobs around reducing, reusing, recycling and repairing the power sector, climate adaptation and around decarbonizing homes and buildings and construction. We've also seen that there's a real potential opportunity for Surrey County Council's strategy to really focus on opportunities around green tech innovation and innovation manufacturing. [Inaudible] of the cost. Bear in mind that this is for measures to buildings that are needed to, you know, keep the building heated and powered and obviously there's, you know, there's an investment element to that as well. But we are really interested in looking at the ability of these measures to pay back and they don't offer the majority of the costs. Councillor Teague, can I ask you to put questions three and four together? Thank you. We're sticking on the subject of funding which you both mentioned before and it's about the detail. Is the funding of 4.7 million a one off or is it per year and are we expecting it to continue? And if we don't meet the target that their funding is for, is there a penalty? Then we've put that, it's a couple of pound shy of 5 million and that's split across two years. The way government's been running it, it's the Public Sector Decarbonization Fund. It's been a competitive, it's required my offices to be sat by a computer as soon as the funding window is open and get the bid through as quickly as possible because it really has come down to sort of minutes. And they've been able to do that which has been brilliant. It's, we have an indication that there is another round of funding but we don't know yet whether government will continue to make that funding available. They make it quite complicated and difficult to access. And then in terms of the second part of your question, that will be in the same boat and that will be an ongoing revenue pressure that we will need to find. So in a way it is a penalty, in a way it is a penalty because it comes with a cost one way or another. But that's my point about doing the new plan to sort of judge the cost of offsetting to the cost of meeting the net zero target and to have that discussion around that. Or you can take the other route which I wouldn't recommend which is you say we won't, you bring it to the council and you say we won't have the 2030 target. I don't think that would be in the interest of our residents so that's my personal thinking. Thank you for that. Just, well for my benefit and I suspect for anybody watching this, can you give me an example of offsetting because it's one of those terms we often use and I must admit I don't know, I don't know what it means. I mean it can be very broad and there's good offsetting and bad offsetting. I mean planting trees can be seen as offsetting in one way as it can putting solar in I mean do you guys want to come in and give me some examples of thoughts that you've got around offsetting? So offsetting means any carbon savings that go over and above so there's a target. So if we achieve carbon savings or encourage carbon savings outside of that target, then that's what counts as offsetting. So there are a number of choices as Marissa, as Councillor Heath has said, but what we're trying to do is develop a way where we're encouraging decarbonization activity within Surrey so we pay for additional carbon savings that happen locally to offset carbon emissions that are either too expensive or technically unfeasible to decarbonize across our state. Okay, thank you very much, I'm much clearer than that. Councillor McIntosh. Thank you Chair, I wonder if I could come back to people and skills if that's okay. So I think when this is, this sort of item has come to this committee I think I've asked in the past around sort of skills, upskilling. But if you sort of look at, if you look sort of at the national picture there isn't so much as a skill shortage but a skills gap. And I just wondered, you know, how are we trying to capture that? How are we trying to upskill some professionals who may not be working in one part of the built environment but we could possibly capture them in another aspect of the built environment, upskill them so they've got the skills, the knowledge and the experience needed on things like retrofitting. And particularly looking at sort of levers that we have available. So sort of aspects of sort of council staff such as local authority building control. You know, looking at sort of upskilling that group of, that workforce. So actually it's not just around building safety but they are looking at where buildings can be more sustainable. And particularly again I go back to the argument of retrofitting which I think is absolutely vital. So the green skills agenda has been taken very seriously and the approach was set out in the local skills plan. We've been doing a number of things over the past year or so to try to encourage movement of people who do high carbon skills. So for example, boiler installers to carbon technology such as heat pumps. So one of the things that was done was a trial to see whether we could retrain and that trial was pretty successful and that led to the development where we bid for about two million pounds of funding to try and increase the number of green skills courses, subsidized green skills courses available across Surrey. That's led to about 500 subsidized places that happen this year with more next year. So that's an example. In relation to building control, that's quite a specific role. So building control is where you check that buildings meet national minimum standards. So that's the responsibility of boroughs and districts. So we haven't done any work specifically on that but what we have been doing is putting some guidance around low carbon planning policies and how we can implement that effectively. Councillor McIntosh, do you want to ask question five or do you think that's already been covered? I think it's already been covered actually Chair, thank you. Councillor, we're seeing you. Thank you Chair. My question is around the school engagement which has resulted in 98 schools with the green flag status, Surrey having the highest in the country which is I guess it's been assumed. In addition, I think there are 31,969 students completed cycle and working training. This is really good news and we praise the schools and the students who took part. In terms of the matrix, which council has the next highest school for green flag status schools and how does we as Surrey stand in relation to other parts of the country? Are we exceptional or are we sort of achieving well in terms of progress? Thank you. Well, we are achieving very well. We were gutted not to get to 100. We were pushing for that but 98 still stands well above the next closest which is the [inaudible] which has 69 schools so that gives you a bit of comparison and then you've got Hertfordshire, Leicester and Kent so we're the top five authorities with them but the gap between 69 and 98 is significant enough to say that we're doing very, very well on it. We have seen this as a success and we've put a lot of time and energy into it. I don't know Kat if you want to add anything that puts a bit of context around where we are but I think it's something that we should be quite proud of in Surrey and certainly carry on with. Just to follow on from that is to say that we work really closely with a network of 99 local authorities who are all trying to support eco schools so it's brilliant that we've been particularly successful and I guess in answer to one of the following questions we're also trying to increase that engagement activity both in terms of the number of people we're reaching but also how effective that action under eco schools is so that they can achieve a higher level of environmental outcomes. It is a crucial part of the engagement getting young people engaged in this and from my experience going to Woking High School. And I'm interested in how do we measure or do we measure the impact of the cycle and walking training in schools particularly on how those pupils, the impact of this training and not to say it's not a good thing. Yeah, I'd agree. I think there's always more that we can do and the school takes up the offer. Okay, Councillor Tim. This question was down later in the pack but it's more to do with increasing the mileage of cycleways and walkways, it is a wonderful job of training all these children and we're grateful for that but are we really getting the progress we want in increasing the number of cycleways and walkways and where we have done it, is there any discernible benefit in the traffic that they're taking off the roads? Thanks very much, Paula, very much. Welcome seeing that map when it's circulated. Thank you. Anybody, I'd better go and check mine. So that hasn't landed so I will find out where the report says that and perhaps come back. Okay, thank you. Okay, we're going to move on to EV charging points which is probably the most, one of the most visible signs that we're trying to do something about climate. So, Councillor Wirasindar, would you like to ask a question? Thank you, yes. Thank you, Chairman. I got a couple of questions around this topic and I'm particularly keen because I think two years ago I had to withdraw one of the EV charging scheme from my division because the resident didn't like the area where it was supposed to be installed. So my first question around the EV charging installation is it looks like this has been slower than expected. And the focus was that Surrey wanted to install 10,000 EU charging points by 2030. Are we still on target? Number one, yeah. Yeah, I mean it is an important question. As someone with an electric vehicle that's always struggling to find charges, it's not actually that easy to have an electric car and actually charging it wholly at home. We have to make this easier for people. We are, but it's not just Surrey County Council delivering the 10,000. I think it's split. I think that 10,000 is split between private, district and county. And break down, 2,500 for county, which I think we're on target. How are the others getting on? And what's the sort of time we're still heading for the 2030 target, aren't we, as far as I'm aware? Yeah, that's right. So the 10,000 figure was not just for Surrey County Council to deliver. That was the estimate we thought we needed to have the number of publicly available charge points in Surrey by 2030. So that high level estimate was gathered through a consultancy report and a number of assumptions. So that seems around 50% would be delivered on private land. So things like, you know, supermarkets having a charge point. 25% through borough and district car parks. And 25% through the Surrey County Council connected curb contract. That's when, so the climate change report shows the target of 2,500 by 2025. So that's how it got broken down. So we haven't moved away from the target. There's a four-year network plan that's been developed since that original estimate. And that's targeting 2,000 on-street charge points by 2028. So in that respect, despite some challenges at the beginning, the program is still on track. I mean, it's worth pointing out that demand is varying. I mean, there's been a lot of talk about slowdown in sales of electric vehicles, whether that's just certain media points. I haven't drilled down into it. But also I guess it depends what comes with the budget as well. And if the government hold on to the tax advantages of having electric vehicles for businesses and consider some other incentives. So, you know, we're planning to still put in those electric vehicle points. But we also have to hope that demand continues because the business model I presume is based on vehicles needing to use them. So we hope to see what comes out of the budget in November to help that. Okay, I've got one more question. This is about the contractor, this connected curb, right? We know that there's a bit of a-- the installation is slower than expected. And is it due to the council or is it due to the supplier? Are you sort of slowing down the process? It's actually to do with legislation making it very difficult. The legislation hasn't been set up to install electric charge points on public land. So we're having to navigate that and there is a conversation going on with government that can simplify that. But turning to you guys, I think it's getting the consultation process which you will-- in the experience of other parking issues in your division no doubt about advertising and legal processes and allowing people to object, et cetera. So I think it's more that that's caused the delay rather than any lack of wealth from our contractor or from us for that matter. Kat, do you want to add into that at all? Yeah, that's quite right. So the legislation wasn't developed for that. So it's not as fit for purpose as it should be. National government recognized that and are trying to deal with that at the moment. But there are also-- the nature of the contract means that we aimed to be able to deliver fully funded charge points essentially at no significant cost to the council. So that's something that was really innovative and that's taken some time to bed in. When we commissioned the request to suggest charge points, the residents suggested 15,000 locations, so which is brilliant. But each one needs a sort of comprehensive consultation both with members and with residents. So that takes a lot of time to work through. There's also been-- so there was initially quite a lot of sort of negative response to some of the suggestions and the consultations. So there's been a change of approach where we've tried to put forward EV charging points that don't restrict parking and that reduces the number of resident concerns. And so all of these changes that we've been making have resulted in an increased acceptance of the charge points that we're putting forward from 50 to 75 percent. So now we're in a much better position to roll out EV charge points more quickly. Thank you. A few more questions if I may ask. Probably you must-- probably you may not have this data in hand, but perhaps it will be helpful for us to understand some of this data. Can we understand out of all those installed EV charging points and how many are underutilized? How many EV charges point have been probably not operational? So have you had any data around those numbers? So actually Cat has put the data together on those numbers because it's important for us to know them, we can send them to you and write it and so it's clearer than me just speaking through them just to say since 2020 we've gone from six to 196 points. We've got an additional 486 in the pipeline at the moment which I think are being delivered shortly and we've got about 500 more to be installed next year. I don't know what data you've got on usage Cat. I think you did put some together on usage in your report. Yeah, I don't have the specific numbers that you asked for to hand, but what I would say that it takes time for people to know where the charge points are and so that it takes time to build up the charge point usage. So what we have seen is more than a doubling of the usage of the charge points that are in place over the last 15 months. So what we're expecting is a build as people start to know where they are and use them regularly. And of course getting the charges right. There have been examples where the price point not in Surrey County Council but in other areas hasn't been quite right and that's put people off using them, but I think our contract is actually pretty sound so it is a question of just getting people using them and seeing them there and recognizing, building the confidence basically for someone to get an electric car if they don't have their own off street charging knowing they can use those spots. Build it and they will come sort of scenario I guess. The other question is how customers can report if there are in AV charging points are 40. Do you have a mechanism in place as to how to respond and just to track on? I think it would probably be on the charging point that they connect, they call connected curb, don't they? I would have thought it would be that simple. Yeah. I'm getting nods from Paul that it would be notified where they can charge. It's in connected curbs interest to make sure they're all working because that's how their business operates. My last question, sorry. The target for Surrey County Council's own fleet of EV charging is now the green futures. There's no direct budget for them on the council estate. Our own estate transport carbon footprint remains unaffected. Is this the case? Thank you. So fleet emissions are part of the 20-- Councillor McLaren. Sorry. Thank you, Chairman. I've got a couple of questions if I may on paragraphs 13 to 16 of the report which covers the implementation of the green futures engagement strategy. My first question is a general question really. Do officers believe that we have a compelling engagement plan to implement this strategy? That's a big question. The short answer is yes. We think that the engagement plan is comprehensive and robust. It's based on social research that applies nationally but we also did some social research within Surrey. So the topics and the methods that are set out in the engagement plan, if you did all of them to the maps, you'd reach 100% engagement. The major challenge, of course, with a complex plan such as climate change is our ability to scale up the level of engagement with the, you know, scale up with the same or lower resource. So that continues to be a challenge. So in all cases we will need to make sure that the engagement impacts on both residents and the environment. I think the challenge probably is the amount of noise that's around on so many different issues and how you get their attention on this one. And it goes back to my point I made at the beginning about climate change not being as high profile as it was say three, four, five years ago and how we want to address that broadly and I think that is a collaborative piece of work we need to do as community leaders as well as much as our officers. But also again going back to national government, they are obviously seeing it as one of their top five priorities. We hope to sort of sail off the back of that to an extent as well and develop our engagement on that basis. Yes, I think we'd all agree without central government doing a lot more, that this is going to be hard to keep high on the agenda so we've got other large pressing issues. Councilor Baum. Oh sorry, I had a second question actually. Second one is a slightly more specific question in relation to paragraph 15. The report discusses the contribution of volunteering and good quality engagement plans. What resources does the council plan to input into volunteering and engagement plans in the future? Is the volunteering network expected to become self-sustaining in the future? Just before Kat comes in, we've got five members of staff working in engagement and volunteering. You always need more. I mean we've got 1.2 million residents and also residents who come into Surrey to do pieces of work as well. We are working on an environmental volunteering framework which should help give us more clarity about the whole sort of opportunities we've got basically and where we should be focusing. I think the simple answer is that we always need more as we do for many other areas as well. But Kat, do you want to delve into that a bit more and set out? I know you've got some examples of the kind of things the team's done under this which are quite useful to hear. Two things that we've done in the volunteering space. So one is a pilot project called First Step Volunteering which we delivered along with the Surrey Wildlife Trust and Surrey Hills Society. And that looked to encourage people to try a bit of a volunteering pathway. Another was one called My Green Future Program which again was in the midst of 12 weeks for nine people to introduce them to different volunteering opportunities. So the third one I wanted to mention was in the retrofits good quality information and have the two bounce off each other. And that has resulted in around 100 retrofit coordinators who can do household surveys so provide a sort of to people and encourage them to reduce their energy bills and make the most of the support opportunities available. So those are people who want to volunteer and that is likely to include proposals for volunteering networks in future. So I can't answer it. If I could just go back, I think that's a good answer actually. But this is definitely an area in which you'd expect there to be a big opportunity for volunteers because of the interest in the subject in the community. But they have to show appreciation in some way of being volunteers for their efforts. That's where these things sometimes go wrong. You know, we expect volunteers and they come forward. We somehow got to show that we appreciate what they do and get them publicity for a good one. Thank you. Yeah, one of the things we've done is done quite a detail on why they do what they do or why they don't do what they don't do. And that's all going to feed into that framework approach. Thank you. Yeah, Councillor Barr. Thank you. You mentioned the project together for Surrey which is a joint project between the County Council and the University of Surrey and I read that it's a peer-to-peer inspired digital platform. I'd like to hear more about it. And in particular could you talk about is the funding between the future's team or more from University of Surrey and do you feel that the project is, well, is-- Three years, two years, 2027, isn't it? It launches on the 4th of December so we don't know the outcome specifically yet, but you can talk about the funding, the partnership we've got. And obviously the main objective is to get to a different audience because we're speaking to a certain cohort again and again and again. We need to get wider than that but can't. Yeah, just quickly, so the funding is secure for that. We've put-- so Surrey County Council have put some upfront development funding in which has already been banked, if you like. And the University of Surrey are providing resourcing kinds for some research. So the idea is that the tool's going to be monitored and we're going to try and incrementally improve the way it responds as time goes on depending on how people use it. And I think the other thing that will guarantee its success hopefully is the way that we use it when we're working with partners. So we get a lot of queries and it's-- so pulling people into a particular space where they can get community-- they can listen to community leaders talk about their stories and be inspired by that is one of the other advantages. So yes, the funding's secure. We're looking to-- for it to be a four-year project and see how it's gone. Thank you. Always parish councils in my division. In Paris 16.1.2, you say that further support for parishes to develop and implement plans. It's crucial to our overall plan, I should imagine. We want the future to make sure that engagement works, please. You've picked a topic that I've been flagging for a while because I think parish councils are underutilized in this area and they are the best ones closer to their community to lead things. Not only in net zeros, we're talking about today in decarbonization but also in our greener, our natural environment agenda as well. So we have been doing some focused work. We are looking to run a six-month pilot with a number of parishes to really understand what works for them. Does that come under you, Kat, to talk about that? Climate action at that really local level, we can see that loads of parishes are really keen to do things in this space but there's a lack of knowledge. There's the lack of capacity to deliver and also the way in which engagement can also be a barrier. So the idea is to try to work really closely with about six to eight parishes to help them develop climate and nature plans. So the idea of that is to build their knowledge and skills and also start to launch it at the SALT conference in November. Good news. Most parishes have got resilience committees that would be a good forum to progress this on. But good news. Thank you. So just to say and that's a call to action. I'm doing the keynote at the annual conference for parishes this year. And so it would be really good to encourage parishes in your area to come forward with their ideas and enthusiasm and to also do some really good engagement. Links back to your volunteering point as well because it is often the parishes who are connected with those sorts of groups and can do things on the ground. So lots of opportunities. Thank you very much. So next question is around whether we are confident we can remain on target for 2030 and 2050. And I think you've already answered that one effectively. So I wonder if you could suggest any recommendations this select committee could make that would help you stay on track. Well I think reconfirming our commitment. I know that sounds very obvious and perhaps not necessary thing. But I think affirming the commitment that we want to get to those goals and it remains a serious issue for us. Setting out the need to be using this opportunity of in government while they're working out how they're going to meet their targets to make the case for local government again. We did this in the last government when there was a review of net zero by Chris Skidmore making the point that it's still not mandatory for us. We still don't have certain powers and we've also made the point about funding numerous times unless we have that pipeline of funding and less of this emergency there's a pot of money everyone quit run for it. It's going to be very hard for us to really establish how we're going to meet that 2030. If that became clearer then we might be able to sit here this time next year and say we're more confident we're going to get to those 2030 goals. At the moment I think we need to do that whole review and look at where our weaknesses are. We need to have conversations about things like solar on rooftop and ground which can be quite controversial conversations and really establish where our weaknesses are. I think I said at the beginning I'm concerned, I absolutely am concerned. I recognize there's gaps in funding. I think officers would probably agree things, Carolyn if you want to come in, things are definitely getting more difficult now. Yeah, it's as we said earlier on it is quite tricky and I think they bringing forward the five-year plan to next year and really looking at and having some really honest conversations around that would be really good. And I think one of the key things is taking a whole council approach because this is, this isn't just about green futures and environment. This is about how we deliver our other services and how do we integrate both our internal targets but also how we work with adults in the community around housing retrofit. So how do we integrate these in a one council approach and see how we can do it collectively? And obviously there are different things coming at us, whether this government wants to change the way local government is run, whether we're talking about devolution, all of these sorts of things will have an impact as well on where we go. It's also worth flagging and it is within the report that the districts and boroughs are in even more serious trouble when it comes to reaching that zero, how are we supporting them, how are we working in partnership because, you know, it's all very well us if we do meet our net zero goals. If they don't, we all still live in Surrey. You know, it's a problem we've got to approach collectively. Well, that was a good, clearly a good question. So thank you for a very comprehensive response on that. Down to the final few questions. Now, Councillor Baum. Yes, we've got a new-- why are they going up? This one's really interesting. Kat provided the answer for this and it fascinated me as well. So basically, Pat's answer was that we're not getting so much energy from offshore wind into the electricity grid. So each unit we're using has a higher carbon impact. And then you've also said that we've had to estimate some of the use. There are some-- there are buildings basically where we don't have that information. So we've estimated and we've taken a very conservative approach and made sure we've gone sort of bigger rather than less on it. So it might be that it's actually better than it looks. And the third thing is that our move towards heat pumps apparently may have resulted in more electricity use. So it was a good question 'cause I didn't have any awareness of this. I can see the business about the heat pumps need-- use more electricity. It was just-- It's just-- it's part of the greenhouse gas reporting rules unless you have a wire, essentially a wire connecting the renewable installation. So you can-- so that's why the electricity consumption has a carbon impact even though we've got a renewable tariff. We could potentially publish both figures but it's just part of the greenhouse gas reporting. They're looking to bring them in from the outside. Hopefully, with all the government's plans then this will change, won't it? Well, presumably we can have solar farms and connect them directly to buildings and that solves the problem. Did Simon Crowell have a question? We thought we saw his hand up. [ Pause ] No? Oh, Simon. Yes, hi. Thank you, Chair. Well, it was just coming in to support the last point that Katie Sargent was referring to regarding macro. And Councillor Bart's question. So it was just really kind of-- well, reinforcing what Katie was saying, but just to add that some-- so macro having come out of MACE just before the go live are also sort of pursuing net zero themselves. So we have a number of suppliers across the land of property supply chain that are-- either have or are aspiring to achieve net zero themselves as a supplier. So it hopefully reinforces the answer that Katie gave to Councillor Bart about their aspirations. Thank you. Thank you, Simon. Last question before we move on to recommendations. Councillor Bart. Yes. We had a dedicated green skills officer who did a lot of the ground work in incorporating the green skills approach and building the green skills approach. That was a two-year fixed-term contract which came to an end and we weren't able to renew that. But we've got a really good foundation now. We understand a good level of what the approach should be and how we can build that going forward. So our aim now is to integrate that fully into the next-- the future economic growth strategy and make sure that that is fully integrated into everything we do as opposed to having a dedicated officer. Thank you. So that brings us to the end of the questions. We're now going to go on to recommendations. If you could put up the draft recommendations. We'll go through them one by one. We are going to change them substantially I feel from discussion we've had. So I'd encourage the councillors to help on this process. So the first one I think is fine if everybody agrees that one. I think we should have introduced one. I'm not quite sure of the right wording. Requesting the cabinet reconfirm the commitment to the 2013-2015 targets. Which seems like a reasonable fact. Do we have to reconfirm the target and resource to do something to meet the target? Well I think reconfirming the commitment to the target implies the fact that the-- I think I'd let us do our piece of work and talk about resource after that when we know what the gaps are so we can have an intelligent conversation about it. The next one would be to encourage the cabinet to engage with central government to get more support for the 2013-2015 targets which I'm sure they're doing anyway. [ Inaudible Remark ] Okay. So that one to suggest or request the cabinet bring forward the second five-year plan. [ Inaudible Remark ] A draft for the committee to consider. Okay. They can come back and-- I hope I-- unless anybody's got an attachment to that one, I'd sort of take it out 'cause it's a bit motherhood with apple pie, isn't it? [ Inaudible Remark ] Thank you. [ Inaudible Remark ] Lance, I'm wondering if it's worth picking up on the one council approach sort of tying into this joined up piece of work of getting all the other departments and things continuing. Well, I'll come back to that point. Sure. This is commitment to work in the chosen districts and other partners. Is that what you're referring to? But also across this council to continue that work that we sort of built at the early stages. Oh, okay. Chairman, maybe something about engagement with other to get more mileage constructed. Yeah, I mean the one council approach could capture that in a way. It's just making sure we're all working and spotting opportunities to come back to this net zero plan so where there's developer money, how do we use it to implement that kind of thing. I'm comfortable with number four 'cause I do think they've done a great job on that piece and it is their future we're just talking about really so it's quite important. [ Inaudible Remark ] Well, my view is I think that covers it because it talks about, you know, what we're referring to is this school's engagement which has been very successful and we need to continue that. Point five. [ Inaudible Remark ] We won't take it out on the basis that it's-- [ Inaudible Remark ] Oh, you can read them out. That'd be a good idea. So, first recommendation is that the committee welcomes the framework that facilitates the council to remain on track with the 2013's targets and then four, considers that engaging children and young people in green initiatives is crucial and recognizes the high performance by Surrey in school's engagement. Five, recommends continued work with parish council's volunteers and engagement with the public. And then six, requests that the cabinet brings forward the second five-year plan. So, it's second five-year climate change plan and delivers it for 2025. [ Pause ] Okay, that brings us to the end of that section. Thank you so much officers and Marissa for your excellent comments and support on that. [ Inaudible Remark ] I think your labels are down here. Can you see them? [ Pause ] Okay, John, you get the price of your biggest pack. I can-- Yes. This is-- You're not going through that, are you? Yes, this is a sum of the three components you expect to have acquired. [ Pause ] Okay. Well, thank you very much gentlemen. I understand that you brought Lee Spencer. Could you just introduce him to us please? Yes, absolutely. This is Lee Spencer Smith whose area commando is our Head of Protection. Okay, lovely. Thank you very much. Can I ask you to introduce the paper, make any introductory remarks please? Thank you, Joe. I'll do that and then hand over to the-- to people who have all the knowledge and expertise. So the Grenfell Tower Inquiry GTI Phase 2 report was published on the 4th of September 2024 and it presents critical findings and recommendations aimed at preventing future tragedies similar to the Grenfell Tower Fire of 2017. This report provides an initial update on these outcomes focusing on their implications for the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service and for the county. It highlights significant building safety failures, necessary improvements in firefighting response, and outlines the steps Surrey Fire and Rescue is taking to enhance safety and compliance with the new recommendations. Additionally, Surrey Fire and Rescue Service is awaiting further guidance from the National Fire Chief's Council to fully implement the recommendations and to ensure comprehensive reforms. Furthermore, a review of long-term resilience in the UK scheduled between September 2024 and spring 2025 which will inform the government's strategic approach to resilience incorporating responses to the GTI Phase 2 report. And we'll take any questions that the committee wish to ask. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much. Councillor Thier, you're going to be very forward on this one. I'm afraid you've got a series from me to kick you off. The report states that there are 91 high-risk residential buildings in Surrey and all have mitigation measures in place, obviously designed around the building themselves. We've sought legal advice that confirms the current mitigations are sufficient to make enforcement currently unsuccessful. And that gives me a great deal of concern. And we also believe you're concerned about that as a factor. And there are gray areas where you feel that enforcement would be warranted, but the enforcement would be unsuccessful. And I want to dig into that a little bit. So your conclusion is that enforcement shouldn't be taken. So what are the risks in not pursuing enforcement? What are the risks to us and the service? So I'll try my best to unpack some of the parts of the question. But it's a very, very valid question. Just for clarity, the 91 high-rise residential buildings in Surrey, there's only actually seven of those that do need mitigation measures to be put in place, and they are in place. So it's actually the responsibility of the responsible person in charge of that building to make sure that the effective measures are in place. It's not the role of the Fire and Rescue Service to do that. We have, however, as part of our regulatory responsibilities, inspected all of those buildings. And the audit outcome, so the outcome process that we use, which is a National Fire Chief's Council process, so all Fire and Rescue Services are doing the same, has identified from its scoring that the mitigation measures they put in place are sufficient to warrant a successful outcome of that audit. So what we have done, however, was we did seek independent legal advice because we wanted to assure ourselves and we wanted to make sure that obviously the residents of Surrey were assured as well that we weren't missing the opportunity to take the appropriate level of enforcement. So our legal advice was checked against the regulatory form fire safety order of 2005 and also the fire safety England regulations of 2022, so quite recent. Under that legislation and what's referred to as the regulator's code, the work that the premises have done have achieved a safe standard. So effectively, if they have a risk, they put a mitigation, alternative mitigation in place to manage the risk. Now, obviously, if the legal advice is saying that actually we've gone as far as we can from an enforcement perspective, there is a risk to Surrey Fire and Rescue Service if we pursue that legal action without the appropriate success. So what we are waiting for, given the report that's obviously only recently been published in terms of Phase 2, but also what that would necessarily trigger in terms of changes to potentially some legislation frameworks or particularly guidance, the approach that central government as well as Fire and Rescue Service's national intake, we're looking for opportunities to continually review that. So if that changes, if the appetite changes, if the responsibility changes, we will change with it and we will operate across all of the suites of our enforcement responsibilities. Just if I'll pick up on a couple of other little bits. So just to reassure you, I touched on it earlier, that very much the work in this area is undertaken in collaboration with the National Fire Chief's Council. So what they're doing is making sure that every Fire and Rescue Service is operating consistently across England particularly and they're looking at what the developed administrations do as well. So we are absolutely embedded into that work. So we're assuring ourselves that we've got all the right connections, we're taking the appropriate actions to make sure that our Surrey communities are safe. Okay. Thank you, Daniel. You've covered all of my questions. Thank you. That's your whole set? That is the whole set. Cool. That was an impressive answer in that case. So thank you. Councilman MacLachlan. Thank you, Chair. If I can ask a question about Para '65 of the report. Will you tell us that you've inspected Churnham 77 mid-rise buildings and identified 14 that require further investigation? Just like first of all to be reassured, does that mean we're totally satisfied that the other Churnham '63 are no problem? If you can just confirm that. But secondly, if I can ask you what priority you're giving to the remaining 14 and what's your time scale to address any possible fire risk in these buildings? What happens if there's no response from the owners regarding the cladding in these buildings? And how will you deal with that if you don't get cooperation or response from the owners? Thank you. No problem. I'm going to hand over to my colleague Lee to talk through some of the regulatory part. But just to I suppose introduce it, the work that we've started in regards to mid-rise preceded the outcomes of the Grenfell Tower inquiry report. So we were already taking action to make sure that we went that next level into the built environment to understand what the risk looked like. Now the 14 that we've prioritized are those that are, from what we understand, got an external wall system that we want to understand more about, which has some synergies to obviously what happened in Grenfell Tower. So I'm going to hand over now to Lee to talk through some of the regulatory work. But just to reassure you, this was early action by the Fire and Rescue Service, our Fire and Rescue Service, to get ahead of what we could see would be a further level of risk that we wanted to assure ourselves about. Good morning, everyone. As Dan's already alluded to, under Article 8 of the Regulated Reform Order Fire Safety Order, it is up to the responsible person to take such general fire precautions to ensure that their premises are, as a reason to be practical, safe from fire. And that's for their employee to be on them to make sure their premises is safe from fire. So as I said, therefore, it is their responsibility and their responsibility alone to make sure their premises is safe. And what we will do, we will continue to request that information from other premises. We've had the 14, but at the moment, they're in the mid-range, so it's voluntary information and we'll continue to work with those premises to identify where we can assist, you know, the regulatory reform order to those premises, but working with them at this stage. As with all premises, you know, we will ensure that if we need to, the relevant legal notices are applied. So that will start with giving them notices of advice and guidance. And over time, we'll work through that to make sure that they are in compliance with the regulatory reform order and help them to make sure they achieve a safe premises. We're not after a gold standard. What we need to bear in mind that we are after a safe premises, but it's up to them to identify how they do that. We will work with them to make sure that happens. Thank you. Andy, any-- Can I follow up on that, do we have any authority or enforcement powers to ensure that people take action if we're not satisfied? I understand your answer. It's the responsibility of the owner of the property rather than our responsibility, but as the authority, if we're not happy with what we're doing, do we have any powers or any enforcement powers to do anything about it if somebody just ignores our advice? Yes, we do. Under the regulatory reform order, we do have powers of enforcement. We have powers of alterations to make-- so that they can't do stuff to premises without reform. But we also have powers of prohibition where we can stop what we believe. What we have to bear in mind is the regulatory reform fire safety order applies to all premises across England with the exception of domestic dwellings for a person's individual premises. However, when it comes into the legislation of high-rise buildings, we can legislate for the common parts which the bits everyone needs to use to get through and that is a bit we're working through at the moment as to how-- Chair, if I can just add to that. Just to reassure you as well as Leah has described, we have and we do already use the full suite of those opportunities to enforce and prosecute where needed. [ Pause ] Good answer, thank you. Paragraph 1365 refers to a single regulator of the construction industry. Do you have a view on the advantages or disadvantages of a single regulator and what if any are the risks to people before such a regulator comes into being? So it's an interesting question 'cause obviously particularly in the question is asking me my views. So I will heavily caveat to see what my view will be based on the information that's available within the report. Appreciate it, it will take some time for something to actually be known in greater detail. But with regards to single regulator for the construction industry, there is a good amount of information of what the aspirations would look like within volume 7 paragraph 113.5. So there's a relatively good list there to refer to. Obviously the fire and rescue sector through the National Fire Chief's Council will be engaging with the work of any development of a regulator, the same as we did with the Building Safety Regulator for the Health and Safety Executive. We'll be looking to represent as a sector what that could and should look like. But in terms of benefits, I think there is one around having a consistent approach across England particularly around the development of buildings but also not just the development of new buildings but if they start to have alterations that require the building regulations to apply. So that would be really, really beneficial. The disadvantage can be that it can be-- it can remove sort of local understanding and there'll be a bit of work to do around sort of localism, bylaws, local knowledge around what is actually going on within the context of the area. So that could be one of the disadvantages. In terms of the risk between now and when it arrives, it's pretty much gonna be the same. So the activity that has already been started as we've described already around the checking for remediation measures, making sure that mitigation measures for risk assessments are in place, that will continue, that won't change. We're looking to see if anything changes earlier from a central government perspective or a sector perspective which will change our approach. So that has the potential to, you know, make us a bit safer maybe. But in the interim, we will carry on applying all of the rules and opportunities that are available to us through our regulatory framework so it will largely remain the same. Okay. Thank you very much. Councillor Teane. Drilling down a little bit on the recommendations per 24, how do you think we'll contribute to setting the definition of what's necessary there? I'll take that one. What we're hoping and what will happen is the National Fire and Rescue Council who are the professional voice of the Fire and Rescue Service will take a coordinating role in that, a definite voice is how that moves forward. And para 29 identifies a gap between the legal requirements that are contained and the fact that the compliance will not, the guidance will not necessarily result in compliance. What's our view on that and what can we do about that? Again, if I could take that one, Chair. Clarity of guidance, you know, is always welcome and the instruction of better, namely under approved document B and we will continue to do that. We do make a clear distinction when we are consulting on regulations that come through on whether we're asking them to meet the needs of the building. Councillor McClatch. Thank you, Chair. If I could refer to paragraph 35 which talks about building control. The way it's phrased actually, you're talking here about a panel to consider whether it's in the public interest for building control to be done more if you have a commercial interest and understand that point. I don't totally understand, I have to admit, how building control relates to fire safety. I do understand in terms of normal functions of building control in terms of whether the building is going to fall down and that sort of thing. The developers can appoint their own building control rather than use local authority which I've always thought is completely unsatisfactory and that needs to be looked at. But as I say, in terms of fire safety, it's a suggestion here that it should be performed building control in terms of fire safety. Should it be done by a national body and is that what we as the certified rescue would like to see happen? Yeah, thank you. Very comprehensive question. So again, I'll have to caveat what I say just in terms of an opinion because obviously we only know the information that we know at the moment. But Lee's already touched on building control rests currently with our borough and district partners and there is a duty that we get consulted with as statutory consultees. So we are involved in the process of building control. Although there are requirements and guidance in approved documents, there will be differences in different locations based on sort of borough and district approach and particularly the actual officers themselves so one of the key benefits of obviously a national authority is that you do get a consistent consideration of a particularly approved document B from our perspective. But the earlier point around the single regulator in terms of some of the disbenefits could be that you lose some of that local context, that local understanding. So at the moment, I wouldn't like to recommend the either way but I appreciate the benefits and disadvantages of having something like that. If I can come back on that. I wouldn't have thought that these independent bodies appointed by developers would be at all expert in assessing fire safety at all. Do they rely entirely on your advice as the competent authority? Do they come to you and say we don't know enough about fire safety. You use the fire and safety body for sorry are you satisfied with this aspect of building control in this building? So they certainly shouldn't be relying upon the Fire and Rescue Service as a statutory consultee to tell them what to do. But I think you're right in terms of one of the other key recommendations is around having the appropriate qualifications, accreditations, registers of all the required people and skill sets in order to be informing that process we'd certainly recommend a more robust approach to making sure that you've got the right skills and qualifications as part of that decision making process definitely. I'll come back one more time. Thanks very much. I would have thought if building control was carried out by local authorities rather than by independently commissioned people from developers there'd be a much better chance of it working better and actually encompassing things like fire safety because they're public bodies, they've got their public interest at heart. I just think the whole system strikes me as being just unsatisfactory at the moment to be honest but maybe the solution is to make it a national. If it becomes a national thing does that mean that national body would do all building control, not just fire safety, would they do everything? Unfortunately I'm not able to answer that at this moment in time because it's too early. Certainly we'll be looking to see how it develops and how it integrates into the work, the responsibilities that we have. I think what the Grenfell Tower inquiry has identified is that there's a need for system change and so that will cover all areas of these type of elements that relate to any buildings of this nature. Thank you very much. Council Member Singer. [ Pause ] Sorry, the question is around the feedback to the committee on the final initial recommendation item that was scheduled with the LRF, actually it was the 3rd of October. Regarding the local authorities, referring to paragraph 44, could you have feedback to the committee once the council incorporate resilience group has to discuss the GTI report recommendation on the 9th of November? So I'll answer the local resilience forum part first and then the corporate resilience group which is the Surrey County Council Group. You'll be pleased to know we already actually had that meeting. That was on the 26th of September we brought it forward so I'll be able to report back now as to what the outcomes of that conversation was. So from the local resilience forum perspective and in my role currently as the chair of the local resilience forum, the reason for putting that onto the executive meeting was obviously because of the importance, the prevalence of the Grenfell Tower Phase 2 report was to make sure that we were aware of how each agency were taking cognizance of the report contents and what actions they were going to be taking in order to explore the report, identify the areas that they need to do differently, develop their own action plans but then bring that back to see from a local resilience forum perspective whether we could have a joint action plan not just on the areas that fall within the business of the local resilience forum but for awareness of what everybody's doing in tandem so we can better join up and you know improve some of the areas of system change that already needs to be done at a local level. So we had that meeting on the 3rd of October. It was agreed by all agencies to go back away and review the recommendations particularly but certainly volume 7 that relates a lot to local authority activity and then we'll be reporting back at the next executive in terms of the outcomes of that. The executive meetings take place quarterly so just an indication of when that will come back. From the corporate resilience group perspective, what we actually did was fire and rescue as you would appreciate have been quite involved in post the tragic event of 2017 to now in the development of not only the phase 1 but the phase 2. So we felt as though we had a bit more information perhaps than some other partners within our sorry county council services to offer a bit of an update as to what the recommendations mean in practice. So one of our system chief officers John Simpson actually took a presentation to the corporate resilience group and delivered that with a commitment that we would continue to feed back to the corporate resilience group as things change. Now we also asked the representatives there of which they represent all services across the council to then in turn go away and look at the recommendations and feed that back to from a sorry county council perspective to have a joint action plan as well in place. Now from a fire and rescue perspective, just to reassure you further, was within our normal business as usual governance we have what's referred to as a number of working groups, one of which is the operational policy and assurance working group. So that's the place that we'll be looking at anything that changes from an operational perspective, how we're doing our work, what lessons there are and feeding it all back in to make sure that we continue learning. We're setting up a subgroup off of the operational policy and assurance working group that's going to be dedicated to the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 2 report. So that would certainly make some recommendations as to what we need to do differently as a service. [ Pause ] Okay, that's the end of the questions. Can we move on to recommendations? Oh, sorry. Of course, yes. Yeah, I don't need to declare an interest on this so I can actually ask questions. So I should have said that earlier. So I work on-- I'm taking forward some of the government recommendations as part of my role in the department so it's quite-- this is quite close to me. But I won't ask anything specifically about regulation. But I do have like a few things just to understand sort of our role in sort of, you know, or our response in this, but if you sort of read through and I have read most of the 1,700 page report which is-- has taken time. But I think what sort of struck me as well is the specific management association and their lack of understanding around what their role was in particularly in sort of, you know, liaising with the local authority, fire and rescue, police, et cetera. I just wondered out of the buildings that we have in Surrey, do we have any concerns around tenant management organizations that are either running those and if they are, have we flagged that, have we been speaking to them and what is the right way to kind of address that early? I'm not going to offer you some answers there. As part of the work we're doing with those premises, we're looking to engage and keep them safe. Can I ask another question as well? You can, I do. So around the contingency management plan, so CMP, so obviously in the Grenfell Phase 2 inquiry report there was heavy criticism around communication between emergency services, so around who was taking a lead role. I think there was also comment around using the wrong radio channels as well. There were issues around call handlers giving out wrong information around helicopters and the use of that during the night and the early hours of the morning. So I just wondered in terms of communication, reading that report, I mean obviously the criticism was around London Fire Brigade, but I mean have we taken that on, is communication a big thing between our fire and rescue and other sort of emergency services and is that something that we've been working on since? Yeah, I can add to that. Yes, it's incredibly valid. What we have done is even though the recommendations, some of them relate to London Fire Brigade directly, we haven't taken that as there's nothing for us to look into. So if I give you an example with regards to the communication, we are already right now procuring an electronic system that enables connectivity between the control units that are on the scene with joint fire control and the bridge head that is normally positioned within a high rise building. So that enables you to automatically share information about residents that might need our support, our assistance, not only from the point of a 999 call, but also to on scene and the management of the resources to assist in getting to those people and rescuing them. So that's the first thing. Even so, as far as just to reassure you further, if you read the report, it talks interestingly a lot about the wattage of the radios that were used by London Fire Brigade. So I've already assured ourselves that our radios are already at the required wattage and that we don't reduce that wattage in order to mitigate any perceived risk around the environment that you're in versus compromising the ability to communicate with each other. Taking it up to the local resilience forum level because you're right in terms of the plan that was-- should have been in place, should have been well practiced, well trained against and should have operated in Surrey, we have one plan and that is the Surrey local resilience forum response plan. Every single partner across Surrey are joined up on that plan. We exercise on the plan. Every single type of scenario I do, whether it be a cyber attack, a high rise residential building, fire, whatever it is, the consistent approach is done through this plan. So I'm assured that from a training and exercising perspective, we are targeting our efforts in the right place. But one of the things that we're going to be doing more of is training and exercising. Because one of the items that came out very explicitly when it came to a local authority perspective was having the relevant strategic managers with the right skill sets to be on at a particular moment in time and to know when they need to support and also when they can ask for support and how it's going to be provided in return. So training and exercising for all strategic managers not only within Surrey County Council but across the partnership and at the same exact meeting where we looked at this, we signed off a mutual aid agreement between all boroughs and districts and Surrey County Council in terms of support requests for an incident of this nature. Can I ask a follow-up and then just one more question? Sorry, sir. Yes, go ahead. Thank you very much. So I mean on that, because it's interesting in that report or in the Grenfell Phase 2 report, I mean the CMP was outdated. I think it was a template used from another local authority. I think it was Brent or somewhere. So I just want-- and also the criticism from the report was around how bureaucratic it-- or how complicated it was that no one could really understand. And I just wondered have we made sure it is simple, easy to read and accessible to all those that do need it in such a situation? Yeah, no problem. So it's certainly accessible because we do it all through Resilience Direct which is a robust secure means of being able to make sure that these plans are available and all relevant people have access to Resilience Direct. So it's certainly accessible. In terms of the report, it's broken into-- the plan rather, it's broken into two parts. So there's like the part that talks about the purpose of the plan, the roles and responsibilities, et cetera. But like you're describing, when we have an operational incident, that's great. But I don't really want to be in a position to have to read that at that moment in time. I need to go to the bit of what's my steps, you know, what am I going to be doing next. And the first thing is around, you touched on it earlier, activation. So there is a prompt on the front cover of the plan to switch to a certain page that then starts going through the actions. And again, you may or may not be aware but in Surrey, we invested in what's called the Everbridge system. So whereas in some of the examples that were provided, there was dependency upon telephone in the right person, having a particular telephone number, we don't have to do any of that. We have a one-button system that basically tells everybody simultaneously that something is occurring with a certain amount of characters and then that invokes the response from the agencies. So the very next step will be to trigger the appropriate governance, whether it be tactical coordinating group or even a strategic coordinating group. It's called the Everbridge system. Thank you very much. That's really good to hear. And then obviously just final question. So obviously, going in and obviously checking external wall systems and all of that, that's absolutely fantastic but, you know, there was a serious issue with the ventilation system that was in Grenfell. I mean, it was updated I think twice. It was the wrong type of-- it wasn't a smoke system so it wasn't able to fully cope with there was a fire that would then spread to the outside walls and then would come into the building. So I just wondered, is that something that our fire and rescue are also checking and that whether it is appropriate and whether it is also being checked and managed because I think the other criticism is the ventilation system that was in was not properly checked on each floor. Yeah, 100 percent. So in terms of measures that are being put in place in order to manage an incident occurring, that will firmly be within the fire safety inspector's role to make sure that that's being looked into and it functions correctly. Management is a big element and management particularly gets looked at in all buildings to make sure that not just the responsible persons but those that are operating in the building at the time and that responsibility are able to fulfill the management requirements. Going a bit further into the report, you would also have seen about some of the construction around fire stopping between the windows being fitted and also fire doors between the individual flats and the communal areas. That again is something that is looked at by all of our fire safety inspectors and fire doors particularly around having the right door between an individual flat and the communal area has been an ongoing topic of conversation and is something that we're continuing to make sure we advise the responsible person of what their role is on that. So we're looking at fire stopping management, fire engineered measures, fire safety measures, making sure that they're appropriate and they're working. Thank you. Wonderful to have an expert on our team there. Should we move on to the draft recommendations? Put those up please to the ISFRs in preparing its current response. Have you actually read the whole report as well, 1,000 pages? Yeah, so this was the areas that I focused on which are volumes 1, 5 and 7 and also I've read some of the expert witness testimonies as well. Very impressive. Okay. Everybody happy with the first? Oh, Andy. [ Inaudible Remark ] Okay, let's do that. Second one recognizing the key role the ISFR plays in ensuring the safety and well being of sorry residents which is certainly been well described by you during the course of your submission there including utilizing a range of powers to ensure the buildings are maintained to a safe standard. Everybody happy with number 2? Yeah. Number 3 recommends that ISFRs provide a further update once its thinking is finalized on recommendations of raising. Do we know when the final output is going to be? Well, I was going to suggest that probably it won't be until about 9 months time. And the reason I say that is 'cause we know that from a central government perspective with as Kevin's mentioned about the resilience review, we're not expecting any more detail from about February 2025. And then it would take us time with the NFCC to respond to that. So, I was thinking 9 months would give us a decent amount of time to come back with something that we can stand scrutiny on. Okay. Happy with that. Thanks. I was going to suggest that we strongly support the idea about building control in paragraph 35 of the report that an independent panel should be appointed, you know, to review building control and see whether it would be better performed by a national authority. But also that we ask the cabinet to do something about it, to write to the appropriate government department to say that this-- Sally would like to see this happen. 'Cause just having it in this report wouldn't be read by everybody at national level. So we need to take action to say that we want to see this happen. I don't know if Kevin agrees with that idea as a portfolio holder. I think the issue is obviously it's got to go to the National Fire Chief's Council. 'Cause what you couldn't have is Sally doing one thing with one process and our neighbors, for example, who we work closely with, doing something slightly different. So I can understand where you're coming from, Andy, but I think we need to-- this needs to be a national response and a national framework. So I would-- I think I'd be quite unhappy to try and put Surrey on its own when national guidance might be taking us to a different direction. I think we need to work and see what comes back. I'm happy with that response that we go through whatever the proper process is. But I think we should be saying that we want to see this action. We strongly support this. Could I make a suggestion? Through the appropriate process, Kevin, and hopefully still meet yours, Andy. Could I make a suggestion? 'Cause the reference to the National Fire Chief's Council, I mean something that we could do is we could make it explicit around us, sorry, supporting the position of the National Fire Chief's Council in terms of their direction. And therefore, they will be the-- they're the body that normally does any sort of lobbying or representation as behalf of the sector. So it certainly could be the imperative from us to make sure that we support the NFCC. I think this-- very few things can-- good things come out in a tragedy like Grenfell Tower. But one thing that could come out is it could cause a review of how this all works nationally. And, you know, what happens is disgraceful really. And it ought to be changed. So if it can be done through the fires, because there's lots of problems with building control apart from the fire issues, it as a system, it doesn't work well at all. So if this can be a catalyst for a national review of building control through that channel, I think that's what we should be going for. You are the internal optimist there, Andy, but no one else has an objection to it. Are we all okay with that? Actually, Chair, can I-- I mean, on-- just on Andy's point, I mean, to be fair, government has taken this incredibly seriously. I mean, you've got-- you've had the Building Safety Act. You've had the Hackett Report or the Hackett Review. You know, there has been a whole sort of piece of work from government that's definitely looking at every aspect of the-- connects including competency of professionals, looking at the role of the private sector and the public sector, fire and rescue, the role of emergency services, all of this stuff. It's a huge piece of work and it's obviously ongoing. And I think as a council and as an authority, while we can definitely sort of support, you know, support you guys sort of taking some of this forward, we do need to wait for government to come out with responses to the recommendations for this next part of the report. But are you comfortable with the number four there? I mean, I don't think there's anything in there that causes an issue or shouldn't. I mean, it's very specific to building control. I mean, this is part of a bigger-- what I'm trying to say is this is part of a much bigger-- it's not just building control, which was the issue with Grenfell-- with the Grenfell tab, but I just think it's a part of a bigger thing. I think that's all true, but on the ground, actually, what is happening at the moment is that building developers are still pointing their own building control people to, you know, to satisfy the building that's been properly built from then to every angle including fire control. That's happening right now. I welcome the fact that the government's going to review the whole thing, but it's important that it's done quickly. Well, things like that can't necessarily be done quickly, but it's important there's sufficient urgency to review this whole thing. Just what happening on the ground is that what caused the Grenfell fire to happen. It's happening now and it could be happening in another building right now because a completely unsatisfactory building control company could be appointed by a developer to review the building including fire safety. And there's no change to that at the moment. That's what's happening now. Well, it is being looked at. [ Inaudible Remark ] Okay. I would be happy with all four recommendations now. [ Pause ] Okay. Well, thank you very much, gentlemen. Very knowledgeable and informative as ever. Thank you. [ Inaudible Remarks ] So, we have Councilman McCormack. [ Inaudible Remark ] So, Councilman McCormack, did you have a follow-up question to the question you asked in writing? [ Inaudible Remarks ] I feel I've given them the chunk. So, next item on the agenda is the response to committee report on Vision Zero, 18-89-96. Is everybody comfortable with the response from-- [ Inaudible Remarks ] Okay. So, can we move on to the Recommendations, Tracker and Forward Work Program? [ Inaudible Remarks ] Oh, sorry, Mark. Would you like to make a point? Yeah. I'm sorry about that, Mr. Chen. I did have a question on the cabinet response particularly relating to paragraph 5 and I think it's just denoted where we asked about appropriate funding for the Vision Zero and particularly the likelihood of more request for 20-mile-an-hour speed limits. If I can just refer to lines primarily 2 through 4 which state discussions are taking place regarding the future level resources and funding that will be allocated to implement road safety initiatives. And all very nice and good. The question is then we will know about it or I suppose we will be discussing matters like that later today in our initial and second budget meeting. But I just want it noted we did ask, we do need. Okay. So, can we note that in the minutes? Oh, Paul, we're going to get a response on that very question. Thank you, Paul. You may sit wherever you like. Thank you. Yes, I mean it was part of the discussion when the Vision Zero strategy was being scrutinized by the select committee and obviously we've had a number of budget [inaudible] to look at the future budget allocations across the whole of highways and transport. This is a key element and obviously comments will be received and fed through and the budget setting process will take place. But as set out in the answer, that's the position that we're at. We meant the schemes to enable, to allow that to happen. Yeah, it is. Absolutely. And if you take, for example, the two additional budget allocations that have been in place for the previous two financial years and the current financial year. So an additional three million pounds for road safety asset school, an additional three million pounds to tackle speeding across the county. And so an awful lot of work has taken place and many new schemes have been introduced which have been interventions that we've made at many schools across the county. And of course we are being contacted by groups of parents and schools, communities saying, well actually we've seen the really good work. The provision for that is part of the budget setting process. Councillor Stroud then does that give you any comfort? I would just make an appointment. I completely agree with what has just been said and I know the impact it's had. But they were, in essence, one off over two year budgets which run out I believe next year if not this year. So as we go into the budget process, we will need to look about whether provision of the levels we've had for the last two years can be built into the future because they do stop either the end of this year or the end of next year to allow us to do some more of those projects. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And we've made those notes I take it. Okay. So now we're on to the tracker and forward work program. So the next meeting is on the 5th of December. But they, we've requested them to come back in December 25th. So that will be the 5th of December won't it? [ Inaudible Remark ] Thank you. So and that's the, is that a full day meeting or have we not got that far? Yeah, the National Transport Plan which will impact on it. I think we did push back on the fact that it had been delayed at the previous meeting. This is a great opportunity for Councillor Bennett if you'd like to make any suggestions of things we might cover in future meetings. Now is a good time to do that. What do you mean within the context of the college or in the distance or what? No, in terms of what we might look at in future meetings of this select committee. Okay. [ Inaudible Remark ] Excellent. Thank you very much. In which case-- [ Inaudible Remark ] Okay. So next meeting is 5th of December. Please book out the day as usual and that's the end of this meeting. We're gonna get back together at 1 o'clock for the second part of the meeting. So we'll see you then. Thank you very much everybody. [ Inaudible Remark ] [BLANK_AUDIO]