Subscribe to updates
You'll receive weekly summaries about Surrey Council every week.
If you have any requests or comments please let us know at community@opencouncil.network. We can also provide custom updates on particular topics across councils.
Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee - Thursday, 5 December 2024 10.00 am
December 5, 2024 View on council website Watch video of meetingTranscript
with, I have no doubt. I'd like to welcome everybody, members and officers, to this meeting of the Communities, Environment and Highway Select Committee. There is, you'll be pleased to hear, no planned fire drill for today. So basically, to summarise it, in the event of the fire alarm sounding, follow me out of the building. We'll be okay that way. Please ensure, which I will do in a moment myself, to make sure that your mobile phones are switched to silent. Everybody is perfectly welcome to use social media today, provided it doesn't disturb the business of the meeting. Today's meeting is being webcast to the public, and there will be a recording online afterwards. I'd like to also mention that this meeting allows for participation by video conference in Microsoft Teams, and that some attendees are participating remotely. For those participating remotely, if the chat feature is enabled, please don't use it, because it limits the transparency or the open discussion we want to have in a public meeting, and that chat facility isn't available to the public. For those officers who have joined the meeting remotely, please use the raise hand functions to indicate that you'd like to speak, and mute your microphone and turn it off the camera with not speaking, and if I don't notice you, just interrupt and tell me. For officers and members who are here in the room in person, may I please ask anyone presenting to speak clearly and directly into their microphones when called on to speak, press the right hand button on your microphone and start speaking when the red light appears. Please remember to turn off your microphone when you've finished, and if you're sharing a desk microphone, you may need to press the right or the left hand button, depending on which side of the microphone you are sitting on. Right. Right. So, we move on to apologies for absence. I believe that we've had apologies from Councillor Liz Bowes, who I can't see, so I think she's not been able to make it in. And also, we were expecting Mark Sugden, but he's not here, so we'll give his apologies. Were there any others? No. No, just those two that we're aware of. Okay. Minutes of the previous meeting. I'd like to ask the committee to, if they're minded, to agree the minutes of the meetings held on the 15th of October and the 19th of November. Are there any queries, or is those agreed? Is those agreed? Are those agreed? Okay. Declarations of interest. If any members are required to declare at this point, or as soon as possible afterwards, if they have any disclosable pecuniary interests or any other interests arising under the Code of Conduct for anything we're discussing at this meeting. Anything anyone has to declare? No? Okay. Okay. Right. Questions and petitions. We've had two questions, both from a member, a question from Councillor Bart. Councillor Bart, you've had the answer in writing. Can I ask if you have any supplementary question? Yes, please. On my first question about disposal of assets, I wondered what made the examples that have happened, what made them possible? And also when the collaborative asset management agreement that's being proposed, what sort of timescale is that proposed within? Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Bart. Thank you, Councillor Bart. The land that we sold was to Townbridge Council, and we put it out onto the open market, and they expressed an interest. And under Section 123 rules, we are allowed to sell at a slight discount to, obviously, local councils, and they're bringing forward a social housing development on the site. And we're actually, again, speaking to Tandridge about another site, again, within Tandridge. So, officers do have meetings all the time with their counterparts within the boroughs and districts. So, some of them, as we know now, don't have any money to spend on buying some land. But we always would consider an offer from them, but being mindful that there is only a certain amount of discount that we are legally allowed to give them. And in regard to the strategy or the policy coming forward, I have to be honest, can I come back to you on that with some definite specific dates? We can just catch up at some stage. Thank you. Sir, would it be possible? Sir, would it be possible? Sir, welcome. Sir, would it be possible? Sir, would it be possible? Sir, welcome. Yes, thank you, Chair. Thank you. Apologies I'm not there. Just to add to Councillor Bramhall's points. I was at Tandridge Council yesterday and did actually see their thoughts for the site that had transferred between the Council and Tandridge Borough Council. It was good to see that they were actually progressing the development thinking for the site in question. The second point, just to add to Councillor Bramhall's answer, in terms of the asset management agreement, we actually did review a timetable and we'll be looking to get something in place by April next year. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you both very much. Councillor Barth, you have a second question. Could I ask if you have a supplementary to that, Catherine? I don't have a supplementary question. Thank you very much for the answer. Very helpful. Thanks very much indeed. Right. Item five is the Cabinet response to select committee recommendations. We're asked to note the Cabinet responses to the committee recommendations following the budget deep dives and briefing sessions and invite any comments from anybody from that. Maybe we can pick up any comments as part of the budget item. Is that okay with everyone? Fine. Thank you. Right. We'll move on to the budget and medium term financial strategy. I did have a request before the meeting from our Vice Chairman that for all of the items on today's agenda there should be no discussion absolutely and that we should simply move to all the recommendations because that will save us all a lot of time. However, I tend to feel that people would like to have a quick word as we've all come to Rygate this morning. So Merry Christmas. Could I therefore move on and ask as he's very kindly joined us this morning and I know it was a difficulty with other meetings clashing and stuff. Welcome David Lewis, the Cabinet Member for Highways who is here with us and other Cabinet Members who are here today. David, would you like to kick off on this for us? Yeah, thank you Chair and good morning everyone. Just to be clear, I'm the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, not Highways. Sorry. Well, apologies to you and to Matt. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. No questions. Let's combine the two. Double or treble-hassing? Yes, thank you. This is in fact the third select committee this week and we're giving all the select committees an opportunity to review the draft budget and scrutinise the draft budget that was approved by Cabinet last week. And when we talk about the budget, we're talking about the revenue and capital budgets and the medium-term financial strategy. The budget for next year, 25-26 and the medium-term strategy through to 29-30. You've got a couple of slides which we've produced for the introduction and, you know, I think no surprises. You know, we're in, as a sector, local government faces some significant financial challenges. Surrey is not exempt or, you know, we face the challenges in the same way as other local authorities. And, as a consequence, the setting of the budget for 25-26, you know, has been a fairly difficult process and has required us to take some tough decisions in order to ensure the financial resilience of this council. And, you know, as we've said before, and I think you'll hear later today, I mean, we've spent the last sort of six years really building up that financial resilience of the, of Surrey County Council. And we don't want to jeopardise that for the budget going forward. We actually began the budget setting process immediately after the budget for this year was agreed at full council. So the, the, the, the process started in February of this year. And, and the way it works is that, uh, monthly iterations are produced, uh, which go to, uh, CLT and, and cabinet. Um, and in those iterations we, we, we work on a, a budget envelope, uh, approach. Um, we take into account the pressures faced by each of the directorates and we look at the efficiencies. And the intention is to, to then, uh, close the gap so that by the time we get to the, uh, the, the, the, the, the final budget, uh, as we're required to do from a legal point of view, we've got a balanced budget. So that process, that, that iteration process has been ongoing, uh, since February, uh, of, of this year. Uh, and, uh, we, we, we had this sort of mini milestone of, of, of, of the draft budget coming to cabinet last week, um, and, uh, and, uh, and being approved by cabinet. And that's, um, what we're scrutinising today. We do believe in the importance of engagement, um, and there has been multiple, there have been multiple opportunities for engagement on the budget setting process. Uh, both in terms of, uh, uh, this council, uh, so the scrutiny committees have all, uh, spent, uh, quite a lot of time looking at the budgetary process. Each of the scrutiny committees, um, has done, uh, uh, two deep dives. Um, and, and, and you chair referred to the responses to your deep dives, uh, this morning. Um, there's been, um, member briefing sessions. Um, the, uh, opposition groups have all been briefed. And we've also importantly consulted with our residents and organisations across Surrey. Um, the first consultation took place before the development of the draft budget. And the second process is open at the moment. And we opened it immediately. The draft budget was approved by cabinet last week. Um, and all, all that input that we receive as a result of that engagement and that consultation is considered and will be considered going forward in terms of sort of getting us from where we are at the moment with the draft budget to, to, to, to the final, uh, final budget. Um, in terms of your deep dives, as I say, you, you've had the cabinet responses, but these recommendations will be considered. Um, uh, they were considered, um, you know, when we're putting together the draft budget and, um, will, will continue to be considered as we get to the point of finalising the budget. Um, and in terms of the, the, the time scale for that, um, um, we have the local government, uh, settlement, um, which we expect to hear the details of exactly what grants, the, the, the, the amount of money we're going to receive from government, um, on the 19th of December. Um, and cabinet will consider the final budget in January. And at the budget setting for council meeting at the beginning of February, we'll ask council to approve the budget. Um, so today is an opportunity, as I say, to, to scrutinise that draft budget. And we are looking for your input. As I say, you know, we, we, we, we do value the engagement process. Um, so you would have seen that there is currently a 17.4 million pound gap in the budget, uh, in the draft budget, uh, which we have to collect. We've closed. We've assumed at the moment a council tax increase of 2.9%. The reason why we assumed that level is because we've only just received confirmation from government that we are going to be allowed to increase the level of council tax up to, uh, 5%. So 3% plus 2% for the adult social care precept without triggering a referendum. We had thought that would be the case, but we haven't had confirmation about that. We have now had confirmation about that, but the, in, in, in producing the, the draft budget, we've assumed the 2.99%. Um, so that gives us a gap at the moment of 17.4 million, which we do have to close. Um, I know there's been some comments on social media about the fact that the numbers don't add up. That is not true. The numbers do add up. Um, we do have various ways in which we can close that gap. Um, as I say, you know, we, we, we, every 1% that we increase council tax generates another 9, just over 9 million pounds of income. But there's other ways in which we can do it. We don't know exactly how much grant we're going to get from government. Um, we could look at deficiencies and so on. And although we wouldn't recommend it, there is the possibility of using reserves. And Rachel will talk a little bit more about that later on. Um, despite the difficult situation that we face in terms of the, the, the challenges of the financial situation, you know, we are still ambitious as an authority. Um, and we have ensured that within the, the draft budget, um, we've, we've ensured there is sufficient finance for some specific investments. And you can see on the slide, um, that, um, you know, some detail of where we will continue to fund, um, some, um, specific initiatives that we, as a cabinet, um, really believe, um, meet the needs of our residents. And I guess in terms of this select committee, you're interested in the, um, uh, demand responsive transport rollout. I know that was subject to, to, to, to, to one of the deep dives. And also the, uh, additional money that's going to be spent on our highways, particularly around the verge maintenance and the, the clean-up gangs. Um, so we, we, we, we've ensured there is money in the budget for that. Um, I've spoken about the need to, to close the gap. And as I say, we'll talk a little bit more about how we could do that, uh, later on. And also we just need to, to think, I said at the beginning that, you know, we're talking about not just the budget for next year, but we're talking about the medium term financial strategy. And if we think things are difficult at the moment, I think they're about to get even harder. Um, the government have, uh, indicated that, um, they will be looking at the, um, the fair funding review. Um, it's likely that the way in which the grants that we receive are calculated will change. Um, it's very likely that we will lose money rather than gain money. Um, resources are likely to be channeled towards more metropolitan areas. It's likely that deprivation indexes will be used to determine exactly how much money we get. And as a result of all that, you know, our anticipation is that, um, we will receive less funding rather than more funding as a result of any, any fair funding review. So looking ahead, you know, we are, um, you know, it, it, it will be very challenging. Um, and, and, and, and, and the, the numbers which are shown in the medium term strategy, strategy, uh, you know, indicate that. Um, but I think it's important to, to, to, to say that, you know, we, we, we do have, um, you know, we are driving efficiencies through this council. But at the same time, we have a major transformation program, which we're funding. Um, and I think the two things go hand in hand. It's really important that we realize that, you know, we're not talking just about cutting numbers or, or cutting costs. We're, we're, we're, we're talking about doing things differently. And that's what the transformation is all about. How can we provide the services that our residents want and need, but provide those services in a more effective and more efficient manner? And, and the, the, the final bullets on this slide ahead of you indicate the sort of scope of the transformation work that's, uh, that's ongoing. And, you know, as I say, I think it's really important that we bear that in mind that, you know, it's not just about finding efficiencies and finding, uh, cost reductions. They flow from the transformation work. So the two, two, two things work in parallel together. So at that point, I'm going to hand over to Nicky. Thank you. Um, before I just introduce, um, Nicky and, uh, Rachel, um, perhaps if I could ask a couple of questions that you could consider in your audience. Um, two points, um, arising from what David has said. Um, am I correct in saying that of the council's annual revenue expenditure, about 75% relies on the council tax income? Um, the other 25% I'm assuming is from our share from business rates and from whatever government grants are available. Um, so, and the other point is just going touching on the reserves issue, because a lot of the public tend to think, well, if the council's got reserves, why not use those to plug the gap? Can you tell me, because I know that a few years ago, this council was, and I'm talking about seven or eight years ago, so well before David's tenure of office, this council was down to about a year of usable reserves. Um, so how much does we, do we have in unallocated usable reserves now compared to a few years ago? Because I know a lot of work's been done on building that up. So if you could pick up those two points, at which point, uh, I'm very pleased to welcome, uh, Nicky O'Connor, um, and, uh, also Rachel Wigley, um, who have been involved with these matters for a considerable number of years. Um, I'm looking at Nicola, I think 15 years plus. But anyway, um, if you would like to kick off and, uh, give us an update from your perspective. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Yes, uh, so for those of you that don't know me, uh, Nicky O'Connor, strategic finance business partner for corporate finance. Uh, yeah, I've worked in finance at the council for beyond 20 years, actually, although I'm not always involved in budget settings. So thank you, thanks for that. Um, so in the interest of time, I'll just pull out the high level, um, revenue and capital for corporate positions. So the key messages in relation to that. And between myself and Rachel, we'll pick up both of those questions. Thank you, Chair. Um, so overall, the revenue budget envelope for 2526 is it is anticipated to increase by 34 million pounds to a total of just over 1.2 billion. So that's the increase from current financial year to next financial year. That is based on a huge amount of estimates at the moment in terms of our funding position, as Councillor Lewis alluded to. It includes a 2.99% council tax increase, um, and essentially a rollover of grant funding from this year to next. Um, so the policy statement issued by government last week did confirm that we can put council tax up to 5%, so up to 3% for core council tax, an additional 2% adult social care precept. Um, but the budget at the end of October from government and indeed the policy statement last week did give us an indication of what our funding would be for next year. It confirmed that 5%, um, and it gave, it indicated new funding sources nationally, including increases in social care, um, grants. However, what it didn't do and what we won't see until much later this month in the local government finance settlement is give specific allocations for specific councils. And there really is a huge range depending on what allocation methods and what formulas are used by the government to calculate those. Um, the policy statement last week did give a strong indication that government are saying for new funding sources, those allocation methods will be very targeted. They will be looking at areas of deprivation. They haven't suggested how they're measuring deprivation at this stage. They have also said that they will be taking into account council's ability to raise income through council tax. So, uh, as the chair has said, 76% of our current budget is raised through council tax. We have one of the highest tax bases in the country, which means when government formulas are equalized to account for the ability to raise council tax, our share of that allocation decreases. Um, so there is still quite a lot of uncertainty about how much of those new funding sources we will receive as a council. And it will very much depend on that equalization and the formulas used. Um, having said that, we are expecting an increase in the overall budget as, as I said, of 34 million. Offsetting that are pressures that have been identified across the organization of 108 million at the draft budget stage. And that would require therefore 74 million of efficiencies to be identified in order to reach that balanced budget position that we must. Um, at the draft budget stage, we've identified 57 million of those. And that leaves the, the gap of 17 million that we're talking about that draft budget. Um, so just moving very quickly onto capital, as part of the work to develop the 2025-26 budget, and indeed the medium term financial strategy to 29-30, we have, uh, reviewed the capital program. Obviously the capital program impacts directly on our revenue budget position. Um, you will all know the cost of construction has increased significantly over recent years. And successive interest rate rises has also increased the cost of borrowing. So we have seen interest rate reduction recently. And we are forecasting interest rate reductions through the next 12 months. But certainly not as steeply as they have risen over recent years. So overall the cost of capital has increased significantly. And that has mean that we've, meant that we've carried out a line-by-line review of the capital program. Looking at all schemes, particularly focusing on those requiring borrowing as a funding source. To ensure that the capital program is affordable in terms of the revenue impact of borrowing costs on the revenue budget. But also that it's deliverable and proportionate to our, to the overall size of the authority. I'll hand over to Rachel at that point. Thanks Nicky. Uh, good morning committee. Um, I'm Rachel Wigley. I'm Director of Finance, Insight and Performance. I was just working out my, uh, length of, uh, tenure in, uh, local government. And it's 35 years and counting. So, um, so yes, I, I'm, uh, I'm fully aware of, uh, the, um, the, um, the importance of, uh, select committees. And scrutiny of the budget. Um, so we, we've talked about the, the budget gap of 17.4 million. Um, and Councillor Lewis explained that there were different options that we could look at to close that budget gap. So one of the things, uh, that Nicky's talked about is the additional government funding that we may see, uh, within the provisional local government settlement. But there certainly isn't any, um, detail or certainty on that detail until we get that settlement. Um, and we're expecting around the 19th of December. So it's probably as late as it possibly could be. Um, but nevertheless, we will, uh, we'll, uh, look at what that means for us, uh, over next year and into the medium term. Uh, one of the other options that we are continuing to look at is to reduce, um, our pressures and increase our efficiencies wherever we can. And officers are continuing to work on that and will do so until we, uh, we write the final committee, uh, cabinet paper for the budget, uh, in next year. Once we know about the, the local government settlement. Um, Councillor Lewis mentioned, uh, the use of reserves and obviously we'll continue to look at those. So they're currently, the usable reserves are around 140 million. So that's 12% of our net revenue budget. Um, we, you, you're quite right. We had depleted reserves, um, um, and 20 by 2018. And we've worked really hard to increase those reserves, um, to weather the storms, uh, of difficult financial situation. Um, and we would not recommend using reserves for ongoing expenditure to only use them for one off expenditure. And then the, the other, uh, option that Councillor Lewis also, uh, also mentioned was, um, a potential increase in council tax. So within the, uh, draft budget, we have assumed 2.99%, uh, but we, uh, we could consider the additional 2% adult social care precept. And obviously that will, uh, that will be a decision of cabinet and full council next year. Um, and just a reminder, every 1%, um, um, equates to around 9 million pounds in income. Um, so they're the options to close the budget gap that we could look at. Um, if we turn to the medium term, there's, I think it's pretty obvious that there's significant, uh, uncertainty going into the medium term. Um, we've had many years of single settlements, single year settlements, um, government, um, have committed to, um, multi-year settlements going forward. Not for five, six, but from six, seven onwards. Um, and that will hopefully enable us to have, uh, a bit more certainty about our planning situation. Um, we've also mentioned fair funding and what that might mean. And so for now we have assumed flat income, um, going forward. But obviously, uh, that, that needs to be worked, worked through once we know any further details. We're not expecting, um, any changes to, to the fair funding reform before 26, 27. So in putting together the medium term, uh, financial strategy, we've obviously looked at our pressures. We've looked at funding and we've looked at where we, uh, can consider efficiencies. And at the moment we've got, um, 193 million pound medium term financial gap. So that's around 16% of our net budget by 29, 30. Now, obviously we focus heavily on 25, 26 because we have to, we have to set a balanced budget. Um, and we'll continue to iterate over the next few years as, as we go through. And we know more from, uh, from the local government settlements. Um, as we move forward and certainly from fair funding reform. Um, and just finally to, just to reiterate that, um, reserves have reached that sustainable level. Um, and we're not recommending that we use those on an ongoing basis. Thank you. Okay. Uh, thank you very much. Could I just ask if there are any, uh, other cabinet members who are here? Who wanted to make any other comments before we move on to, um, questions and comments? No? Okay. That's fine. Um, I will, um, kick off in that case. Um, because there is a large proportion of, um, EIG spending is on multi, large multi-year contracts. Um, can any more be done, do you think, to drive down the cost of those contracts, um, to at least ensure best value from them through effective, uh, contract management? Who would like to, um, take on that one? Sorry. Sorry. Oh, sorry. Uh, Lucy, um, money. Thank you. Online. Thank you, Chairman. So, um, other colleagues may want to add to, to some comments here, but I suppose just to remind, um, the committee that most of those contracts have actually been competitively tendered in recent years. Um, so we have done a great deal of evaluation to get to where we are, and then there's very much an ongoing, um, review throughout the life cycle, depending on how the different contracts are set up. So we do have the opportunity, um, to test the prices and the payment mechanisms as we go. Um, also I'd point out that, um, in recent years, we've put a greater emphasis on, um, translating value into, um, added social value, uh, reducing carbon costs and delivering continuous improvements. So lots of that is already locked into the contract model. So that gives us that ongoing opportunity to ensure we are getting best value, but, or, um, a best value might not just be cashable savings. I suppose is the point I'd want to make there. Um, lots of the costs that we, we include in our contracts, obviously is determined by, um, our own policy decisions on how often we'll do something or what our maintenance levels might be, for example, in highways. So we do have a responsibility ourselves, I suppose, to go back and check that our policies, what we're asking the contractor to deliver is appropriate. And whether there are other opportunities in there to reduce that or to use different technology, which, uh, enables it to be delivered in a different way and, um, recover, you know, cashable savings or other benefits, if you like. So an example, perhaps in highways, um, we're doing a lot on, um, collecting information about, uh, lining at the moment so that if we, uh, carrying on doing extra lining, we're only doing lining where we need to do it. For example, another example would be on the street lighting contract where, um, that's a PFI as many of you know, but we've actually saved quite significant sums through looking at part night lighting policies, um, and converting the lanterns to LED. So I think those are just a flavour of things that are happening all the time, um, on those longer term contracts, which, you know, there are mechanisms in there to drive it down. Other aspects like benchmarking obviously will continue. So, um, we've been doing some of that recently comparing our, our prices against other contracts, but it's, it's very dependent on the specification. I.e. what we as an authority are asking the contracts to deliver. So we do have to come back ourselves and, and be part of that challenge. Uh, thank you, Lucy. Uh, Simon Crowther also wanted to comment. Thank you. Yes. I mean, I agree with everything that Lucy has shared so far, just two other smaller points, one of which is, um, building on the point about, um, commercial contract management. We do have some internal governance now, which is looking at, uh, engaging much more so with our procurement colleagues post procurement. So we, we have that formalised and we'll be making sure that the levers that we have will be utilised against our, our supply chain. And then the second point is we do have the flexibility in these contracts to dial down the costs when we dial down the scope. So certainly in the land and property, um, space, we have the flexibilities and the contract arrangements to reduce scope, whether it's because we're reducing the number of assets or just dial down things should be needed. So we have those flexibilities as well. Thank you. Uh, thanks very much indeed. Um, I know have a couple, uh, sorry, David, uh, want you to come back on that. Just very briefly, Chair, just to, uh, to, to, to, to what Lucy and Simon had said. I mean, procurement is part of my portfolio. And, you know, I think we've reported, um, in the past about the new procurement act and, and, and the changes which will be coming into force as a result of that. That will increase the whole transparency around the procurement process. Um, so I think, you know, from a procurement point of view, that should be beneficial. And then in terms of the contract management, um, you know, we, we are focusing much more on, on, on, on, on contract management in terms of trying to drive the value. from, from, from, from the, uh, the contracts that we have. And, and also there's a lot of work. Denise is also involved in, in terms of sort of getting the, the, the full social value, uh, out of the contracts as well. Uh, which I think is an area where we haven't probably, um, benefited as much as we, we, we, we should have done. So there's work going on in that space as well. So just to say that things are changing, hopefully for the better, um, you know, as we go forward. Yeah. Absolutely. Because getting value for money is always a top concern for everything. Uh, Denise. Thank you. And if I could just add to that, we're recognizing the needs within our sort of voluntary sector and our ability to be able to distribute that social value. So we've got a social value marketplace and there's a lot of untapped resource that we're realizing currently, which will be made available through a, through a elevated platform. So we're trying to be as, as smart as we can with the opportunities that we have within our gift as, as a, as a major commissioner. Thank you. Can you put social value marketplace into plain English? Yeah. Apologies, chairman. So this is something we've been talking about for some time. So there's a platform that Surrey County Council have, which is populated by, um, services contracts. So there will be an offer of, uh, equipment or it could be time or it could be, um, services, resources, support. Um, but it's been quite discreet. So we've recognized, we've done a full evaluation of all of our, um, contracts and all of those social value commitments. Um, some of which have been, I mean, the highways particularly, they've been very active in making sure that those apprenticeships are available on the training and support equipment has been given to the voluntary sector. But actually, I don't think the visibility has been there with, within the county. So we're currently reviewing that. That's been refreshed and, um, that will be, and there'll be a lot of comms around it. So, so, so voluntary sector groups and, and local organizations will be able to benefit from, as I say, the rich, um, pool of resources that we have available. Maybe it needs rebranding, Chairman. Thank you. Plain English is always good. Um, I know that we have a number of questions from councillors. Um, so if I could firstly call on Richard Teer. Thank you, Chair. Um, top of page 32. Uh, there are pressures of 14.5 million identified, 25, 26. Well, what is the risk that these could be significantly higher, uh, than anticipated? And if there is a risk where those risk areas, please. Anybody? Anybody? Yes, Simon online. Thank you. Um, so, I think as we kind of touched on before and, uh, to date actually, um, a lot, a lot of our spend is within contracts. Um, so clearly there may be some contractualized terms in there about what the uplifts will be. So that would contribute to the pressures as well as our staffing costs. Um, we're also, um, doing more work in the environment in terms of virtual maintenance, visual improvements. Uh, so, so really it's, it's primarily, uh, scope changes, inflation embedded in contract terms. Staffing costs will be, uh, putting the pressures on our spend for next year. Um, but clearly we're working kind of intensively to mitigate those as best we can. Um, I don't know if Lucy wants to comment on things like, uh, fair highways pressures and concessionary fares. Thank you. Yeah, I'm happy to come in there. Um, one of the big pressures that we've, that's, that's covered in the report is the, um, five million pounds. So, um, that is manageable in terms of we, you know, we deliver to, to that value. One of the, the areas potentially at risk, I suppose, is the concessionary fares reimbursements. So we are applying a, um, a government and a DFT calculator. Um, and so that sort of sets our approach if you like. Um, but we are finding at the moment is, um, positively more people are using the bus. So, um, that's really encouraging, but that obviously means there's more reimbursements to be made on, on the fares. So that, um, so that's a risk, I suppose. So we're, so we're estimating, uh, in terms of what we're anticipating based on recent trends. So the risk is low, I suppose. But there is a difference, I suppose, in those, in those, um, pressures where we can, uh, cut our cloth to suit, um, what we're expecting. And where we are, some of those aspects are more outside of our control, but we will monitor as we go along, obviously, and report those pressures if they change throughout the year and seek to offset them. Thank you. And just on that, can you just update us on the latest concerning the bus fare cap? As we've raised the issue of buses. Is there a latest on that? Thank you. Sorry. Okay. Yeah. So the, the cap, the cap is changing from two pounds to three pounds, as we know. Um, and, um, beyond that, um, that, that will roll out next year. I think it's, it's next year. So, um, that, that's the change. So there's some, there's some impacts there for people, obviously, because where we have the two pounds, obviously more unattractive fare than three pounds. So we're looking at the moment, uh, working with operators to understand how we might publicize that and whether there are greater opportunities for residents to, uh, buy different types of fares rather than, uh, continue to use the bus using the fare cap. So that's a bit of work that's ongoing at the moment, really not, not entirely sure of the, uh, all of the details as yet. Well, perhaps we could not for the budget discussion, but for a future meeting of this committee, have an update on that because clearly a 50% increase for residents in the, uh, the bus fare, um, is significant. Um, and I don't know, not for answer now, but whether there are any implications at all for council, um, finances, um, within that subject. Don't expect, oh, David, if there is an answer now, even better. No, I wasn't going to answer that yet. Um, it was really just to talk about the pressures and, and, and, and to say that, uh, you know, we assume when we put the budget together a level of inflation, both in terms of sort of general inflation and, and, uh, staff, uh, employment, you know, costs, inflation, and then look at specific, uh, parts of the organization if, if there's specific inflationary pressures. But, of course, you know, we've got things like the national insurance, uh, rises and, and, and, and changes to the, uh, uh, national minimum wage. Um, and, and, and these will be feeding through, um, and, uh, you know, hopefully the, the assumptions we've made about inflation overall will, will cover those. But, you know, there's undoubtedly a risk, you know, particularly where we're talking about contractors. Um, I don't know whether Lucy or Simon want to comment on that, but, uh, there is a risk that, uh, you know, I think that, you know, some of those costs, some of those costs get, get, get, get passed through to us because, you know, they're real. And it's, it's, it's a result of, you know, the government decision to, to, to make these changes. Well, I'll come back to Richard, I think, because I, I, I, I think we simply say, Richard, are there any further comments or questions that you have, um, from your question? I think, uh, we all recognize that inflation and, and wage rises are going to be, uh, a big part of, of the pressure that we're going to get. Um, uh, and they'll feed through, as you say, uh, over time and nobody knows what the, the, the bottom line effect will be. I'm, what we're hearing anecdotally on the street is that people, uh, are shedding staff everywhere. Uh, and I think our contractors will probably look to do that too. So it'll, there'll be some balance, there'll be some mitigation there, won't there? Thank you, Chair. Uh, thank you, Richard. Uh, and our next question is from Catherine Bart. So, Catherine, would you like to, um, put your question and any other comments that you have? Thank you. Um, just, just picking up on the, sorry, the bus cap. If the bus cap goes up, does our, does our levels of reimbursement go down? Does it work like that? Just, just to clarify. Uh, Matt. No, so with the bus cap, it is, um, it's, it's a national policy. So the operators have to sign up to the scheme. Uh, they are reimbursed, uh, by the government, by the DFT effectively. Um, the interesting thing will be to see whether all the operators that are currently opted in remain in, or they use this as an opportunity to, uh, start having more flexible pricing. Out of our 22 operators, about half are in the scheme. Um, the other half aren't. We're doing, still trying to encourage them to join the scheme because it's better to have a flat fare for everyone. Um, just on your point on costs, Chair, the, the only ones we can see would be around our half price link card, uh, because we give a half price fare. So as it's going up to three pounds, it will be one pound 50 rather than one pound. Uh, but we'll manage that within our budgets, um, because it has a very good take up, and it's great for 21 of our lunders. Thank you. Um, so my question is, um, uh, we, we're, we're quoting 2.6 million of efficiencies, uh, set out in the draft budget. And, uh, efficiencies suggest that it's a way of doing the same work better. But obviously efficiencies also covers just stopping doing stuff that we've done this year, we won't be doing next year. Um, so my first question is, is, is that correct? The second question is, where does the balance between, uh, where have we got to now with the balance between doing the same stuff but more cleverly, more, more efficiently, and, um, just stopping doing things that we have previously done? Where are we now on the efficiencies, uh, in the draft budget? Thanks. Right, we've got, um, two takers, Lucy and Simon again. Um, yeah, it probably needs more than me to answer this, given the span of services we're talking about here. Um, in the, in the efficiencies in, um, the highways and transport area, um, in terms of what we've delivered so far, many of our efficiencies in recent years have been about, um, increasing surplus to offset other spend, I suppose. So, um, that, that continues to be, um, an ongoing element of the efficiencies we've got in the, in the budget. Um, so I guess we are continuing to deliver those, so it's not necessarily about, um, reducing services, if you like, in the same way that, um, may be the case for other services. Um, we've got some, uh, in terms of the confidence, we've got some of those are sort of secure already in terms of that transfer of the, um, 5.3 million, um, which is a fixed amount. So that makes it, um, much, much more doable than obviously an ongoing saving, which will need to be, um, planned through. So at the moment we're working, um, on our detailed plans to do the efficiencies. So, um, there's going to be a bit more rigor around how we're going to achieve that and what are they going to look like. So that, that's a piece of work ongoing at the moment. But as I said, in the highways and transport area, much of the savings we've been achieving have been about, um, recovering costs through things like parking inflation or the moving traffic violations rather than cutting budget, uh, activities necessarily. Okay. Thank you, Lucy. Uh, Simon. Thank you, Chair. And apologies. I've got a problem with my laptop. I can't put the camera on. Um, so just starting to, to Lucy's, uh, points and, and Councillor Bart's question. Um, again, back to our, a lot of our spend goes through our contracts. So as Lucy implied, you know, we can generate efficiencies by being more innovative. You know, back to the question about, oh, can we still deliver the same things with less money? Yes, we can through innovation in our contracts and in our supply chain, for example. Um, but it's also right that in order to try and hit our target, sometimes we have to either stop, pause, uh, or slow down some of the activities that we are, um, undertaking, uh, in order to hit the revenue targets that we face. So, so sometimes, yes, there will be some scope changes, uh, that may stop certain things. Otherwise it may be things that are paused or slowed down in order to hit our revenue targets. Um, and I think in terms of the balance, I think the vast majority of work will continue, but some things may continue at a slightly slower pace. Okay. Thanks very much. Thank you. Um, next question I have is from Councillor Lance Spencer. Uh, thank you. It's sort of follow on question from the previous one. So in the greener futures spending, it's intended to find, uh, uh, 0.5 million of efficiencies. Um, and I also understand that the, um, capital budget for solar investment, which is related to these efficiencies, it's been reduced to zero. Um, what impact will this have on the Council's ability to make its 2030 net zero goals and also the 2050 goals, if it makes any difference at all? Yes, Councillor Marissa. Thanks. Um, I mean, the efficiencies have come from the climate change team. Um, we can continue some of the work in partnership with the Southeast net zero hub, but I have put a question mark around this because I think we need to be sure about the impact, which is why I've asked to bring forward the 26 plan to start work on it now. So we can be very sure of that. The main issue is, you know, very well because you've raised it yourself is investment and funding from national government coming down as well to help us carry forward these projects. So I've asked for a deep analysis of that as well so that we can be very clear on where there may be potential gaps and what we need to do around that in terms of asking government for more investment. Um, the team, as you know, is very capable and one of our big objectives has been to find more partnerships and to work with private investment as well. Hence the point of the Greener Futures Board that looks to leverage additional resource and funding and the work that we've done in the Center for Sustainability bringing them in as a partner of the Greener Futures Board. So we're looking at a range of measures at the moment to ensure that we can come back next spring and say to you, this is where we are in terms of reaching the goals. Um, we know they exist and that, you know, they're set goals. We've got to find a way of reaching them. So that's what we're doing. But like everyone, we've had to take our, um, our hit on the budget and pay our share in this. And this is where we felt it's best place to do it in order for us to carry on with our program. Shall we come back on that, Lance? I do. I mean, in reality, uh, half a million pound of efficiency is in this team and it's a very small team anyway. So you're reducing the staff by 30% in that area, which is must have an impact. Otherwise, why would they start with? And this is a newish team because it's all been created, created in the last few years. Um, solar investment in my mind is one of the few areas that the council can invest in and get a return on because once it's in, it just generates funds. Um, so I'm surprised we've cut back on the capital budget for that in the medium term. Um, the combinator, the, the, the solar piece was a key component of, uh, sorry, County Council's net zero target 2030. Um, so my view is if you remove that from the plan, you're not going to be able to achieve the 2030 targets at all. Um, now I know that it's going, you're putting a new plan together next year. Um, but by the time you've done that, the staff will have gone, the capital investment's gone or you've taken out the budget. So even if the plan then says it can't be done, um, you know, how are you going to recover that situation? I mean, solar takes a long term, it's a long term investment, 20 to 30 years on return. So it's not that easy to invest and get the return in, but also don't forget, we're looking at different mechanisms around solar on land, solar on different buildings and things working with private sector as well to look at how we can do that in the partnerships I mentioned. So we haven't just been solar, but in a stretch of the imagination, it's a known tested and efficient, um, way to reduce our carbon and change our energy. So there's no change in direction in that. I mean, obviously all members of our team are valuable, but we still think we've got the strength within the team to carry on with the work we're doing. A lot of it was upfront work in delivering our strategy in the first place and setting out the different partners we were working with where we thought we've got some confidence. As I've said, the climate change commission center of sustainability and all these other organizations that are bringing in their expertise are absolutely invaluable and they want to be part of this. And this is a piece of work that Surrey County Council can't do alone. We've always been very clear about that. So we have put extra resource and time into doing that. And I think we've created a foundation. I'm not going to sit here and say there aren't risks. You know, there are risks, you know, you've identified them. I know there are as well. And I've been also very frank that we have been looking at what good quality offsetting looks like as well, because there are some elements that I am nervous about meeting. But the point of the plan next year is to really identify that and challenge the team and Surrey County Council as to what we're going to do about that. And I don't necessarily think the changes we're making now will adversely impact the consideration we're moving on there. I think the climate change agenda is constantly evolving and changing and we need new different skills and expertise brought into it. As you know, we've brought in five ecologists into our countryside team because natural capital is also a really important part of the net zero journey and the environmental journey. So we have invested as well. Caroline McKenzie, do you have any comments you'd like to add? Yes, just to add to that, that the roles that have been taken out that give the savings at the minute are primarily focused on our 2050 agenda and they're very specialist roles. And the fact that we had a green finance officer, we had a technical specialist looking at planning or we have and also someone looking at the data around low carbon infrastructure in generally across Surrey and in place. So they're quite technical posts. And what we're doing is, as Marisa said, we are linking up with the net zero hub, but also with various other bodies such as the LGA and collaborations with other local authorities to be able to get that technical expertise jointly between us so we can still have some impact there. And in addition, with regards to the solar, primarily related to that ground mounted solar where we've had issues around connection to the grid. And so the feasibility or the possibility of getting those projects in and delivered before 2030 is at the moment unlikely and will be, but we'll still be pursuing and looking at feasibility around that ground mounted solar. And the additional, we still have a portion of the budget around rooftop solar as well. So that's still within the budget. And just to clarify, the 2030 team and looking at our net zero for our own organisation is still the same as it was and has not been cut. So it's mainly spend related to the 2050 programme, which will be looking to work more in partnership with others to deliver. Thank you very much, Carolyn. I've got three councillors who'd like to comment. First of all, Andy McLeod. Thanks, Jeremy. I attended the meeting of the Greener Future reference group on Monday, which Lance now chairs, and I've been involved with this group for several years now, actually. And I'll say the background to the comments I'm going to make. I think we've got a good team of officers working in this and they've made quite a lot of progress and they're still trying to do that. But as Lance said at the meeting, they've had to focus up to now in the easier to do things that really get the greatest return. We're now heading into the really difficult things to do and we're faced now with this cutback in capital funding, which apparently means that we won't have funds to do feasibility projects and future projects unless we bid for them, which actually involves taking some of the resources to do that. One of the other things we learned is that if we don't achieve our government targets, we will face penalties and the team weren't able to tell us what the scale of these would be. I just wonder if the finance team, in working out the impact of all that's happening here, if they've looked at what the penalties are and if they can give us some idea of what the scale of these penalties would be. Because that would obviously offset some of the savings. Thank you, Joan. So we have no mandatory duty to meet net zero from national government. They haven't given us that power. We've actually asked for it. We've stood up and said, give it to us. It will give us more clout to be able to move forward with this work, but they haven't done. And so the penalties are on us because we as a council, us as elected members voted for net zero by 2030. And so we have to stick to that commitment unless we want to go back into the council and change it. And I think the evidence is quite clear. Residents don't want us to do that when you look at the polling. So we are considering ourselves what we need to do to pay back for carbon that we don't necessarily save if we don't meet net zero by 2030. And that's the point I made around quality offsetting. So if we we're starting to tease that out and in the planning we're doing next year, we're going to be very clear and kind of say these are the really big risks. These are the problems now. And if we don't get the investment from national government or we don't put the resource in as an authority, this is what we'd have to do in terms of offsetting. And we want to do good offsetting. Now, a lot of other people are going to be in this situation as well. So the market for offsetting will probably go up. And we want offsetting to be within Surrey, where it makes a difference to residents. And I don't mean to sound defeatist in this. I'd love us to get to 2030 without any offsetting. But that's the reality that we plan to map out over the next six months. Thank you. Thank you. Stephen Cooksey. Stephen, hello. Yes, thank you, Chairman. And I think my question follows on from the two previous questions in that at the Green of Futures meeting, that was the first time we'd actually seen the detail of what was being proposed. And I think it came as quite a surprise to us. So the question really is on communication. We've heard quite a lot about changes in capital funding. How far have local members been consulted about changes in capital funding that affect their divisions? Has that happened? Have we had discussions between the county and districts and boroughs where there are efficiencies being proposed? For example, just one at random, the recycling support payments. Have they been discussed and agreed with the district and boroughs? Or is that something that still has to be arranged? Yes. Yes. We have a group called the Surrey Environment Partnership where all of these things are discussed. It includes all the district and boroughs. So, yes, it has been discussed there. We also have the Green of Futures Partnership Board group, whatever we call it, which is where all the districts and boroughs key officers and key lead members come. There's always been an issue of communication, of things not being filtered down. We can take some responsibility for that, but it's also the responsibility of the district and boroughs who then don't cascade it through their leadership and through their teams as well. So we all need to improve that communication. In terms of capital in people's divisions, I'm not quite sure. I might need clarification on that, Chairman, because we're talking specifically here about are members of our team going in sailor projects. So I don't think that's relevant to individual members, but perhaps you can clarify that if I've missed the point. I might have done. I think the question on the capital program was a much more general one. Not necessarily for me. Okay. I don't know if someone else wants to step in then. Chair, could I? Sorry, you're sorry, Simon, your hand has been going up and down for a little while. Do you want to come in on this one? Well, so I had I had two other points. Thank you. I can perhaps touch on the capital point. Thank you. So if I can just go back to the point about, you know, the risk of what we've been talking about, things like feasibility studies, I mean, the team has been successful in raising quite a lot of grant monies to date. So I don't see that that should be prohibited through this. You know, we're much better writing business cases and being successful in raising funding. So I think we should continue to pursue that. The other point I'd quite like to make, please, is it's not just incumbent on the Greener Futures team to kind of deliver the 2030 targets. We've been very good at working across the authority now and establishing a net zero culture and mindset and working a lot with throughout our through procurement again. And bearing in mind how much of our services are delivered by our supply chain is to be thinking about social value and sustainability and the impact on climate change. So it's very much a cross authority theme in my mind. And then it just I mean, by way of example, I can't answer the question whether we've consulted with all our respective members on our capital allocation apologies. But but our capital programs certainly in LMP are are developed by theme, whether it's schools or adults and things like that. So we may, I suspect, been remiss in not updating councillors and where any particular project capital allocation may be. But we've certainly been working hard, I think, to try and keep members up to date on projects in specific areas. Thank you. Thank you, David Lewis. Thank you. I just wanted to make the point about consultation. I mean, as I said in my opening comments, you know, we were talking about both the revenue and capital budget, you know, and it's at a draft stage. And, you know, I indicated that there are various means by which we are consulting on the proposals in those draft budgets, both revenue and capital. You know, today's meeting was part of that process. We're also seeking, as I said, input from residents and other organisations. So the consultation process is underway. It's not complete. You know, the revised capital budget and the new revenue budgets haven't been formalised yet. That won't happen until the beginning of February. So there are opportunities to input views and comments. And if you think the priorities are wrong, now's the time to make those points. We're consulting, you know, as we speak. One point that arises from that is a question. Would it be possible for all divisional members to be advised if there is an item within the capital budget that is being considered that affects specifically their division? I think that was the essence of the question. I'm not expecting an answer now, but perhaps we can just pick that point up. Is that okay? In which case, back to Catherine. I think you had a comment on this. I do. Thank you. Firstly, a few questions. The first question is, in the Greener Futures team, there have been staff cuts and there are more staff cuts coming. So you said that the 2030 target, the 2030 team remains the same. Can you tell us that, therefore, none of the work towards the 2030 target is paused or has been slowed down? That's my understanding, but Carolyn, do you want to come in on that one? No, not at the moment. We are still delivering on our net zero, our public sector decarbonisation fund projects that we've got in place. The programme hasn't gone as quick as we would like for a number of different reasons, but it's certainly not been paused purposely. Thank you. And I know that that's not at the moment, but with the proposed cuts in the draft budget, do you see activity on the 2030 team next year having to be paused or slowed down because of the reduced numbers of staff proposed? No, not because of the reduced numbers of staff, no, because we look at capitalising our staff against the work we do on the estates. So it's all capitalised, which is one reason why we've been able to protect that staffing allocation. So I don't think that will be the case due to a lack of staff. And it's the same question for the 2050 target. Do you, with the proposed cuts to the Greener Futures team, do you see the work towards the 2050 target next year being paused or slowed down as a result of the cuts to the Greener Futures team? I think we'll have to be very smart about how we prioritise what we focus on and how we partner up with other organisations because they're obviously with losing four members of staff, that's less hands to do the work. But this is then about how do we work smarter. So, for example, the green finance role that we had in, there are a number of organisations that are looking at green finance and how to scale up finance in infrastructure. So we'll be looking to partner up with them to see how we can share their expertise. So I recognise your concern on that because it is areas around the planning side, around incorporating net zero into infrastructure, you know, how we do that and how we finance it all. But as we go through the resetting of the net zero 2030 and 2050 plans, we will look at where there could be potential risks and how we could mitigate those risks. Thank you. Thank you. Well, thank you to Lance for that question, which was a relatively short question, but we've had a lot of discussion on it with six speakers. I'd like to try and move on now. One quick one, Catherine. We are proposing, so my question is, would you agree that there is more value in supporting green futures team with 500,000 pounds than, sorry, that we could use the 500,000 pounds that we are cutting from the green futures team. We could pay that from the five million pounds extra that we are putting into weed control, grass maintenance, et cetera. And that in terms of value for money, investing in the future in our carbon net carbon targets is more value for money for residents than more weed control next year. I think both of the, yeah, I was going to say that, both of the cabinet members and all of the cabinet members have heard that point. I don't know that it's a matter that they will be able to answer today because it's an old chestnut. Every year cabinet has to balance what he said, but you've made the point, Catherine. There's a question, though, was, do you, do you, do you, do you, do you value for money? Okay. I think that if government's so intent on meeting its net zero goals, they need to fund us and change the legislation so we can have someone working on planning all day long and someone working on solar until we get the grid connection, until we get the national planning regulations setting out what's required, we're only ever going to be able to move a certain distance. So I prefer my team now to focus on lobbying hard at government and saying if you're so intent on meeting these goals, which I support, then you need to show us the money and then if they give us more money, we'll be able to do the things that we really want to do and the ambition we've got. We're trying to balance the needs of residents and the demands that they've got for wanting tidy streets as well as looking after our environment. It's a difficult balancing act, but our focus will be going very much on how we figure out the plan next year to get us to reach the next area. And we've got the resource to do that and I think the team is thoroughly capable of doing that and I think the discussion needs to be had when we come up with that better plan. We've moved on since 2021 when we set this plan. So, you know, I look forward to the conversation then about what resource we need. Okay. The next question is also from Catherine Barth concerning budgets for road safety outside schools. The question, which has disappeared under coffee at the moment, oh, it really does. Oh, thank you. Thank you very much. So, the question was in 2022, we announced that a million pounds a year over three years to clear the backlog of recommended safety improvements outside about 49 schools outside Surrey. And since then, more schools have been assessed, there's 44 more schools with recommended safety improvements, and we're going to assess more schools in 2024, 25. So, my question is, will funding be budgeted to avoid another backlog developing in the safety improvements that our officers have recommended outside schools in Surrey? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Simple answer, yes. Oh, okay. We are looking to continue the program at a million pounds a year so we can continue doing that. We are recycling some capital which hasn't been used and continue to do this instead. Thank you. I believe that Mark Sugden is with us online. Is that correct, Mark? That is correct. You have a question about spending on highways. I do indeed. Thank you very much, Chairman. Sorry I can't be with you today. Looking at the capital program 2526 over the medium term financial strategy. And firstly, I don't have the numbers for, I'm just looking at the highways capital total spend. I don't have the number for 2425. If someone has that, that would be a good comparator. But 2526 shows a total of 120.6 million pounds on highways, which in 2627 goes to 100 million. And thereafter, for the remaining three years, 2728 goes to in the order of 60 million. So half in three years time to what it is now. How is that going to affect the maintenance and quality long term of our highways? Matt Ferris. Matt Ferris. Matt Ferris. Matt Ferris. Matt Ferris. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councilor Tugson. So as you know, we have been doing quite an enhanced amount of funding for a number of years now to bring our roads back into a good condition. We did quite a bit of modelling in 2023, and with the budget that is proposed going forward after 2627, we do believe that the amount that we have budgeted will allow us to remain at a steady state. We do have to caveat this, of course, because the modelling didn't take account for inflation, which has been quite sharply increased over the past few years. But we have modelled it over a 15-year period, and we do believe that budget would be sufficient. That's not to say that if I am still in this position in those years ahead, I won't be asking for additional funding to continue an enhanced programme. But we have seen a significant improvement to the roads, so we do feel that we can drop it down a little bit after those years. Mark, do you want to come back on that? Yeah, I'd just like to ask the Cabinet member who used the word steady state from 2728 onwards. So we're talking about maintaining a level we have, we're not talking about improvements which may be needed. Is that correct? Correct. So what we will be doing is we will be continuing to maintain the roads at their state. So if it, a percentage of the A or B roads would remain in a steady state of 5%, a percentage of C and D roads improving condition would be 9% over a 15-year period. So actually it is a significant improvement, and we just have to take into account the fact that if we want to put more money into this area, where are we going to remove it from in other parts of the budget? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mark. Thank you very much, Mark. And the next part of this budget discussion concerns community protection and emergencies. First of all, could I ask the Cabinet member, Kevin Deenus, if he would like to make any introductory remarks, and also the Chief Fire Officer, Dan Quinn, who we welcome to the meeting as well. Thank you. Thank you, Chair, and I won't have the limelight. For community protection, as I said in the slides, 90% of our gross budget is on operational personnel. And as you know, they are on national terms and conditions, so that gives us very little leeway. And we've obviously included provision for a 3% pay award, but again, that is a nationally agreed award. So anything over that will cause us a financial pressure. I think the information is... Admit it. Who didn't turn their phone off? I did. I turned mine off after I'd reminded myself earlier. I think that should be cakes all round. The information is actually on the slides. I don't see the value in just repeating the information. I'm sure everybody's looked at it. And I'm sure if there are questions, my able colleagues down the line will be able to go into any specific details. Thank you. Dan Quinn. Thank you, Chair. Nothing particularly to add to the information that's already presented on the slides. So, ready for questions. Wonders arise. You've referred, Kevin, to the fact that 90% of the gross budgets are staffing costs. And I just wondered, are the staffing and the running costs of the Joint Fire Control Centre both likely to rise due to the inflationary pressures after 25-26? And do you expect those, either of you, to present a bigger challenge in future years? Yeah, I'll take the answer to that. So, just in case anybody's not aware, Joint Fire Control, we refer to as JFC, is a collaboration between Surrey, East and West Sussex Fire and Rescue Services, whereby we deliver call handling and dispatch services, which is a statutory duty, on behalf of all three of the fire and rescue services. So, in short, yes, we are expecting staffing costs are likely to rise through inflationary pressures, but also for the earlier mentioned national pay settlement after 25-26. We naturally monitor those costs closely and continue to incorporate any projected sort of pay increases and inflation projections into our budget planning. So, given that, as you mentioned, the staffing costs account for about 90% of our gross budget, we do anticipate that these costs will present a larger challenge in future years. But we do make every effort to make sure that we address those effectively and that they don't affect the continued efficiency and effectiveness of the service. So, our collaboration with partners will constantly be reviewing its delivery and how we go about accommodating any pay increases. As already been mentioned, for 25-26, the pay inflation, we've applied 3%, and that's for staff on national terms and conditions of which Joint Fire Control staff are. And then that will be effective from July onwards, plus the full-year effect of the previous year's 4% award, which has also been factored in. We've then started to apply already a 2% increase for each subsequent year, taking into account both the full- and part-year effects. Thanks. Thank you. Any other questions on salary, fire and rescue aspects of this document? If not, the next section is dealing with customer, digital and change, particularly regarding the registrations and coroner service. I'll ask our Cabinet member Denise Turner-Stewart to speak in a moment and also welcome Sarah from coroner's and registrations service customers to the meeting for any comments that you'd like to add. So, Denise. Thank you, Chairman. Kevin's actually responsible for the coroner's service, so he may wish to say some words. So, the registration and nationality service is an income-generating service. It's a highly successful service. In 24-25, the income generation surplus is 1.7 million. That's down to fees and charges and ceremonies. Most of the costs are staffing costs. Those costs won't be attached to an anticipated additional 150,000 in income next year. So, that will be hopefully planned to be generated without increasing any costs. And we've just agreed a new operating model for the registration and nationality service, bringing the service much closer to residents. We've currently got a number of individual facilities. We're going to be co-locating, optimising the use of Surrey County Council buildings. So, we're a very close working arrangement with land and property to make sure that we're making the very best use of those assets. We've got officers here from the Your Fund Surrey team as well. So, just to mention, of the 42 million, we've allocated 19.3 million to date. You've got 8 million that's been allocated to individual members. So, we've still got 15.8 million to allocate to projects. So, we're very happy to see those applications still coming through. And to date, we've had 47 large projects funded and 317 small projects. And as I say, the officers are with us at the other end of the table. Thank you. Thank you. Kevin, my apologies. On the coroner's service. No, I'll just add a few lines and I'm sure any questions there will be able to provide the details. So, just really talking about the coroner's budget. There are a number of issues which make it quite complex because we have special inquests which are out of our control and the costs are, through a greater extent, out of our control. I mean, this is a legal process. So, we don't have choices in this. We are looking at providing digital postmortems. I think that gives us lots of opportunities. We should be able to do approximately 70% of postmortems digitally, which is obviously better for the family and for the deceased. It's got far more dignity. And that has the potential for some income generation in the future, although we're not sure what that income generation, how much it will be. So, there are risks, but we've also got some opportunities. So, it's about balancing them over the next few years. So, I'll leave it for questions. Sarah, is there anything you'd like to comment on at this stage? Nothing to answer. Very happy to take questions, Chair. Thank you. Thank you. The first question I have noticed from is from Councillor John Beckett. Thank you, Chair. Yes, as highlighted by the Cabinet member, the Coroner's Service has a significant non-staffing costs, procures services from limited providers and has highly specialised transport. Does this actually mean then that there are no efficiencies that can be safely implemented to reduce costs? Thank you for your question, Councillor Beckett. And as you've rightly identified, we operate in a very limited market for specialised services, including mythology and specialised transport. And while that undoubtedly creates challenges, it doesn't mean that we can't also look to find efficiencies and do that safely. We have very robust contract management processes in place, and we have an excellent understanding of the market that we operate in. So we can identify opportunities in that way to deliver efficiencies. Just to give a practical example of that, we've recently changed our toxicology provider, and that will give us a saving of approximately £80,000 per year. So again, that real understanding, that granular understanding of the market we operate in allows us to do that. As the Cabinet member said, we've also just recently received approval to proceed with the digital post-mortem service, and that's using CT scanning technology to undertake post-mortems. And the details of that can be found in the Cabinet report on the 26th of November. And this will provide us as a service further opportunities to look for efficiencies, we predict from year two onwards, because we'll be adapting our operating model to make best use of that technology. And just to add, in terms of the position for 25-26, we've got plans in place to deliver £131,000 worth of efficiencies. And we've also, through in-year savings this year, reduced the pressure of £100,000 that we had against the budget. And we've been able to do that really through a mix of contract efficiencies, staffing efficiencies, and also, again, exploring digitisation through our referral process. So really kind of streamlining and making our processes more efficient is allowing us to deliver some in-year savings. What that will do is make sure that we can keep our special inquest reserves, as Councillor Guinness mentioned, topped up, meaning that we don't have a pressure in future years. So that's very much the strategy. So short answer, yes, we will always look to find efficiencies, and particularly given this highly sensitive service area, do that safely. Richard's here. I think Denise has already rounded this up, property costs is something she said earlier, but it's quite a significant part of the cost of coroner's services, isn't it? And we provide a lot of them. So is there anything that we can do to reduce costs here? I know we're our own landlord in many cases, but is there anything that could be done? Thank you, Councillor Tear. So of the 31 million capital programme for customers digital and change, 2 million of that is portioned to the registration service. That's a self-funding capital programme. 1.2 million is to the coroners, which sits with Kevin. The remainder is the libraries and hubs programme. And again, we work very, very closely with land and property. Every one of those, particularly the large investment projects in Weybridge, Zanes, Esher, and sorry, Epsom and Wharton and Woking. They've all been value engineered considerably. It was originally a 32 million pound programme. It's now about 26 because we were very keen to make sure that we made them as best value as we possibly could. The two stains and Weybridge hubs are due for delivery early next year. They are going to be significant community facilities, but every effort has been made to make sure that they deliver exceptional value. Thank you. Thank you. And I'll just say that as an individual whose family has recently had to use both the registration of death service and the coroner's service, how much I and my family appreciated the sympathetic and very kind way that the staff, Sarah, there dealt with all of our inquiries and matters. So please pass those thanks back. Thank you. Thank you. The last section under the budget is to consider community functions, specifically adult wellbeing and health partnerships. And I'd ask the cabinet member, Mark Newty, if he'd like to make some introductory comments on those. Thanks, Chair, and good morning, everyone. I think what I would just say is to champion the work that the communities team have been doing over the last few years. It sometimes goes under the radar of the work that they do, the CLOs, the LACs, because it's very integral to communities on the ground work, working with some of our deprived communities, feeding back, engaging. And that work is so important when we're looking at formulating strategy and looking at where our resources should be best used. So that work has been incredibly important. It's nationally recognized now, Surry County Council, as one of the leaders in this field. Only two weeks ago, I was speaking to Southwark Council and giving them advice and help on how they can start this process. We are ahead of the game. I think it's fair to say that whenever the budget cycle comes around and you look and you have to look at efficiencies and you have to look at change, it's never easy. And we have got a great team of people and that is going to have to change. So we will use that as a positive and we will flex and move with the changing environment that we're in. Obviously, there's going to be potentially a lot of change in local government coming down the line over the next year to two years. And our communities teams will be very important in making sure that that change on the ground doesn't have a negative impact on our communities. Now, we have at the moment one question and that's from Catherine Bart. Thank you. Just picking up on what's just been said, where do you see the main impact of the proposed changes and efficiencies falling? Obviously, we have the priority objective to create empowered and thriving communities. Do you see the efficiencies and changes falling more heavily on one area than the other? Can you just give it a bit more detail? Thanks, Catherine. I think that's how we originally thought. It was like, oh, how are we going to deal with this? Because it will mean a reduction in some of the CLOs on the ground and various staff. So what we are looking at doing over the next year is to embed more flexibility in the way that we actually approach our engagements with our communities. Something around place and communities officers, which will be much more flexible and be able to cover bigger areas, almost firefighting where there are issues and going in. So we will look over the next 12 months to how we can flex and make that work. We've got funding for another 12 months. Obviously, I'll be banging the drum very hard to keep that funding going in the future. And also, it will enable us, as I said earlier, to flex with the changes coming down the line in government, be that total reform or not, or how that's going to work. So from a positive, I suppose, we'll take that and we will change the way we operate and flex and hopefully be able to spread ourselves across the county in areas where we need to. It would always be lovely to have more money and more officers on the ground, but that's just not how it's going to be going forward. So there will be impact. We are very much looking forward to the challenge of making this a positive impact, not a negative impact. And I will be asking all councillors to advocate and to operate within their areas, as I know many of them do, and to feedback and engage with us on where issues are arising and the positive feedback that we get as well. So I think we all take some responsibility as elected members to operate within our communities. So I guess I'm going to be knocking on your doors a bit more as well to be that voice for your residents. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Mark. And we have had an hour and a half discussion on all of the various aspects of this committee's remit in terms of the budget for next year. I'll ask if we can put up some draft recommendations onto the screen so that we can all peruse those. And I will also ask that we add in the point made earlier about whether a report can be sent to all divisional councillors concerning changes to capital items that affect specifically in their divisions. So give us all a few moments. Do you want to just, when the screen can be moved down, for members just to read through all of those? No, sorry. That's right. Get the right one up on the screen. Okay. Technology marvellous sometimes. While we're just sorting that out, Jan, did you want to comment? Microphone. Thank you. So all the years I've been here, one of the threads which has gone through all of my council life here has been communication. So many times I've heard, we didn't know about that. Then I've been told at another meeting, oh, they've got the Riding for Disabled is in your division. They're getting something. But you see, I've never been told. And the result is that when I meet people they're thinking, is she going to these meetings? Is she a real councillor? Is she a real councillor? Because she's not telling us what we want to hear or what we should be hearing. So I know we're saying it now about communication, but I really think at some stage we have to say stop. We want communication. I mean, we've got a communication team here. Many smaller councils don't have the benefit of many people on a communication team. But I believe we have it here. And I think we should be informing councillors, not in the deep, deep, deep, but perhaps highlighting the things that they should know about. And therefore, if residents ask them a question, they're able to answer. So that's my big concern over the years. Thank you very much. Thanks, Jan. Right, we've now got the draft recommendations up on the screen. And one that I mentioned earlier is being added to the bottom. So if we all have a few moments just to read through those. Yes, the Vice-Chair was just asking me if it's possible to reorder these. The biggest point of discussion this morning was on Greener Futures, and it's the last item. So can you make item five move that up the list to become item one? Basically, wasn't it? Yes, to switch them. So to reflect the discussion that we had earlier. Okay, that's done on the screen. Are there any comments from anyone? Councillor Lewis? Yeah, thank you, Chair. I've got, I think, three comments. One relates to the wording, the original one was paragraph three, where it talks about capital expenditure habits. I don't think that's an appropriate use of the word habit. We have capital expenditure plans, and I think that perhaps that would be more appropriate to use that terminology. I'm quite happy to change habits to plans. That's a relatively minor point. Secondly, in terms of the recommendation about the, I mean, you expressed some concern about the deprioritisation of the Greener Futures spend in the budget. I think to be responsible, if you want that to be prioritised, you need to indicate where you are happy for a further deprioritisation to occur. You can't have one without the other. As we explained right at the beginning, we're operating within very tight financial constraints. And the final comment is around this recommendation about the capital programme. I'm not certain that that's actually practical in terms of what's being asked, because in terms of the programme, in many cases, it's an overarching sum of money that has been agreed for a programme. And it's not necessarily, at this stage, detailed down into each individual, divisional levels. In some cases, it clearly is, if it relates to perhaps a specific school or something like that. But generally, I think that level of detail is not necessarily available at this stage. It will be for the directorates to work that out as a programme is implemented. So I think you just need to be a bit careful about that recommendation in terms of the ability to actually deliver it. Thank you, David. I think we've said that we're quite happy to amend the word habits to plans. I don't think that's an issue. I don't agree with you with regards to the committee's responsibilities. We are giving you a comment. It's for the Cabinet to then look at those comments, as is your role and responsibilities, to see if the item can be reconsidered for prioritisation or not. I don't think we can here and now go into, again, as with the deep dives, the huge subdivisions of the budgets to make that suggestion. Are there any other comments from anybody? Sorry, Catherine. Could we add the word very concerned about the depriorisation of the green future spend? I think it was a bit stronger than... Given that it was the largest item of discussion, I don't think that we're going to quibble about the word very being added. It makes the point and it reflects the discussion that the committee has had when this goes back to Cabinet. Okay? Right. With those amendments, is everybody happy with that? Okay. Well, could I thank you very much, all of the speakers who have come for that item specifically. Can I suggest that we just take a five-minute break now to catch our breaths before the next item? Thank you. Thank you. And the purpose is to receive a report by the Chief Fire Officer, which presents this Plan 425-30. The witnesses, again, welcome to Councillor Kevin Deenis and Dan Quinn, the Chief Fire Officer, but also, in addition, Sally Wilson, the Assistant Chief Fire Officer, and Lee Spencer-Smith, the Area Commander responsible for protection in the Community Risk Plan. I think everybody's here in person. Do we have any of your colleagues online? We have Sophie Whitfield online, who's a Senior Communications Officer. Okay. I'll ask Kevin and Dan if you'd like to make any comments in introduction. Thank you, Chair. I get the easy role, and that's just to give a few comments of introduction. So, our Executive Director and Chief Fire Officer, Dan Quinn, will be providing the committee with a brief introduction to the way in which our Fire and Rescue Service manages and deploys fire engines. Thank you to you, the Chair, for suggesting this. I'm hoping it helps members understand it. However, before this, I'd like to stress that the seven proposals are not the whole Community Risk Management Plan. They are the key changes proposed for the next Community Risk Management Plan 2025-2030 that required public consultation. What our Fire and Rescue Service actually delivers is much more. Preventing emergencies in the first place, protecting businesses, developing our staff members and ensuring that they can bring their true and whole selves to work, embracing technology and equipment, and so much more. In addition, I'd like to reiterate that the Fire Standards Board, which is the Board that oversees the development of professional standards for Fire and Rescue Services, they define the desired outcomes of a Community Risk Management Plan as a Fire and Rescue Service that assesses foreseeable community-related risks and uses this knowledge to decide how these risks will be mitigated. I truly believe that our Community Risk Management Plan for 2025-2030 does that. We've had external auditors, Nottingham Trent University, who are leaders in this field, and they've assured the approach and methodology for assessing community risk, confirming that Surrey Fire and Rescue Service has undertaken a robust process to develop the Plan for Surrey. Information and data provided as to why each of the proposals have been designed and evidence as to what respondents said and why Surrey Fire and Rescue Service are suggesting we take the proposals forward as set out in this draft plan. So this service-wide strategy for the next five years aligns to our no-one-left-behind vision. So much that is mentioned from the start on the front page and the Surrey Way embedded throughout the Community Risk Management Plan. I would strongly encourage this committee to provide county-level scrutiny on the final proposals containing the Plan 2025-30 to ensure a balance of fire and rescue cover for the County of Surrey. I will now hand over to Dan to talk through the Plan. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Dan Quinn. And also I would ask you if you can just cover the aspect of the fact that there are many, many towns and villages throughout Surrey that do not have their own local fire station, and explain how your resources are deployed and allocated to wherever they are needed when there is an emergency. Okay, so firstly thank you, Chair, for advising and allowing us the opportunity to remind the committee of how Surrey Farm Rescue Service response services work. Surrey Farm Rescue Service is rightly dedicated to serving the entire County of Surrey and provides its response for services based on that principle. So this approach ensures that all of the emergencies receive an appropriate response to the incidents based on risk regardless of their location within the county. So this county-wide coverage is crucial for effective emergency management as it allows for coordinated responses to incidents and ensures that no community is left vulnerable due to localised response resource limitations. So to enable us to meet this risk and demand, we use a tool called the Dynamic Cover Tool. Now, ironically, during the Community Risk Management Plan consultation responses, which we'll be discussing I'm sure, a respondent actually suggested that we should use this tool to aid our emergency response, and we do and we have done for many years. So it's pleasing to see that recommendation. And what the tool allows us to do is to have a view of the current location and the availability of every fire engine and other resource in real time. It provides us with a live, whole county picture of risk based on what is happening within Surrey and the incidents that have been experienced over a five-year period. So we can move our resources to where they're most needed proactively. If we know there's an upcoming event, we can also do that in pre-planning. But equally, from a proactive lean nature, we can do that to react to incidents that are occurring at that moment. So where the resources are best placed based on risk is where we would align to make sure we have the fastest and most appropriate response. So this is why, when sometimes we talk about fire stations, we actually refer to them as being base locations. And that's essentially because that's where they start and finish their working day. The crew will also be at all times out in the local community doing community activity, business safety activities when they're not responding to incidents and or undertaking their risk critical training, which is required all of the time. So the fire engine serves Surrey. Our firefighters are Surrey firefighters. And we as a fire and rescue service must provide a service for a county, not for individual towns or villages. And our kit, such as a dynamic cover tool, allows us to do that. Thanks, Chair. Thank you both for those introductions, which I hope explains to anybody watching the basis of the community risk management plan and what it's all about. I have a number of questions that I've had notice of. First of all, from Richard Teer. Thank you. This sort of goes into a little bit more detail about your providing cover in a dynamic way and refers to the Banstead fire station and the Cambly fire station. Perhaps you can just enlarge on the changes there. And what the consultation that you've entered into has brought back to you from those local areas, please. Yes, certainly. So in terms of the community risk management plan, essentially what that's telling us is what our community risk profile looks like, where the risk is in the county and how, therefore, we need to respond to it. So for all of the proposals that we've put within the community risk management plan, they all essentially are underpinned by that risk analysis. And as our portfolio holder cabinet member has said, is that risk analysis has been externally verified by Nottingham Trent University, which not only are applying their academic rigour, but also are the people that effectively developed the national methodology for fire and rescue services across the country to use. So if I give you some examples, the risk requires us to respond from material changes to the response model. And for example, we've already mentioned Banstead and Cambly, but there are others. For Hazelmere, we found is a very, very low risk area. So the proposal to establish a change there, but also to do things like a seasonal response model didn't exist previously. So we need to be able to respond to those. The development of a community risk management plan naturally takes time. Absolutely, it should do. And we've been working at this for a number of years in order to make sure that we get a robust analysis undertaken. And the community risk profile that I've mentioned underpins that, and that is updated on an annual basis. So as an example of the change in risk, in 2023's community risk profile, what that showed us that there was a change in risk of a night time, particularly at that point within Spellfaun and Elmbridge boroughs. And this had differed from previous community risk profiles, so it wasn't evident beforehand. And obviously, as part of the previous CRMP, it also wasn't evident. It now is, so we need to respond. So therefore, Proposal 1.3 was developed to look at removing the daytime-only fire engine based at Cambly Fire Station, and effectively moving that to either one of those boroughs to ensure a 24-7 cover of risk in a slightly different way. Now, what that means is we're going to be relocating part of the cover at Cambly Fire Station, which is the day crude element, to either of those boroughs. And that will be the crew and the fire engine effectively going into the north of the county. You'll notice that will also go particularly into the night time to compensate for that risk, rather than from the daytime that it currently provides. Now, in the 2024 CRP, as we said they're updated annually, what that did was further identify two pockets of additional risk that were emerging in Runnymede. So that's the reason why you would have seen from the pre-consultation document to the post-consultation document and the final proposals is that we've included Runnymede to also be considered within the north of the county, Spellfall, Elmbridge and Runnymede. So this point particularly responds directly to the consultation and the risk analysis that we've had updated. And ultimately what we will be doing is updating our CRP annually and we will have to respond to that depending on what it tells us at that time. I hope that in part answers your question. It's gone a long way towards it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Catherine Baruch is next. Thank you. You mentioned the new risks that you've identified in Spellfall and Runnymede and Elmbridge. And I just wondered if looking forward into 2025 further, do you see any more emerging risks that you're having to keep your eye on and having to analyse just what you think is coming towards you in the future? Thanks. Yes, thank you. So certainly when it comes to the community risk profile, we're trying to make sense of what emerging technologies potentially pose to us, what things like climate change, et cetera, are implications for the service. So it constantly looks at those type of macro factors that may well result in a change for our response model that we need to do locally. Now, the community risk profile tries to take lessons as well from the past. It also doesn't look just at what's affecting Surrey but the wider sector as well. And so we're not looking at it with a narrow view. But certainly I've mentioned about emerging technologies, things like managing electric vehicles, dealing with changes to road infrastructure, et cetera, and climate change, particularly in the context of wildfires and flooding. What we found through the CRP is that the main three risks within Surrey, if you ignore for a moment the risks surrounded by the built environment. So I know last time that we were here, we were talking about the Grenfell Tower Phase 2 report. And if you ignore for a moment the built environment, which is relatively consistent in terms of other areas, what the main three risks for Surrey are is water, wildfire and road. And particularly from a context of we lose more people on the road than any other incident type that we respond to. So there's a big emphasis around what we do from a prevention perspective, particularly in road safety. And that's part of the reason why I took on the role as the national road safety and road rescue lead for the fire rescue sector, was to try and get some of that learning back into the organisation. Water, we have similarly an unacceptable level of loss of life when it comes to water. People enjoying our waterways, not just in terms of flooding implications, but also during the heights of summer when people want to take a dip in our rivers, et cetera, or go open water swimming, for example. But wildfires as well, one of the things we're looking at is the urban-rural interface that we have within Surrey. So many of our partners around the country, fire and rescue wise, will be able to deal with their incidents of wildfires in slightly different ways. They might be geographically remote, for example, from people or places. Whereas what we have to do is a very different type of response in order to make sure that we mitigate the spread of those types of incidents. So there's three examples really of key risks that we've seen emerging that we are keeping cognizance of moving forward. But if anything else comes up as well, we're not looking at just what it looks like for Surrey, we're looking at whether it comes up elsewhere in the country and trying to see what the effect could be. Thank you. Next is Councillor Cameron McIntosh. Thank you very much, Chair. A sort of more general question, because I note in there there's a comment around Whiteleaf, and I just wondered what are the chances of finding an appropriate or affordable site in that area? Thank you. So you'll be aware that we've conducted previous searches within the local area for our colleagues within County Council Land and Property Team. That took place prior to this consultation, and then that led to this proposal being included within the current CRMP. However, following the feedback from the consultation, we are suggesting that we would go out and have another look to see if there is anything that is appropriate and affordable since that previous review was undertaken. So we'll work with our colleagues within land and property to ensure that we understand what our operational requirements are and that we'll develop that specification for a site search. We'll then instruct through land and property a third party to undertake that review to ensure that that is a thorough review and looking at suitable sites within that area. We will continue at the same time to undertake the development work at Godston Fire Station, should there not be anything that comes forward from the searches that are undertaken. At this time, to say whether we're likely or we're unlikely, I couldn't say. I think we've got to wait to see what the outcomes are from that search. Yes, of course. Councillor? Thanks. There are two questions as the Banstead member. Why will that second look not include Banstead and surrounding? And when it comes to Whiteleaf or Godston, I mean, there's nothing in it, is there? I mean, they're next door to each other from a Banstead perspective. So in answer to your first question, the reason why we're not looking at Banstead is because the risk analysis doesn't dictate that we do. So the risk dictates that we need to look into the Whiteleaf area, which is where the risk, we now know from the CRP processes that we've done over the last two years. So there's no benefit in us finding a location within Banstead on the basis of risk. So that's the reason why we're not looking in Banstead. In terms of the difference between Whiteleaf and Godston, you're right, geographically, if you look at it, it looks like there's a short distance. But the difference is in terms of the risk that exists within the Whiteleaf area. If you take Tandridge as a borough for a moment, the way that Tandridge is structured in terms of our resourcing is that you've got Godston as a 24-7 fire station. It's around about sort of Junction 6 of the M25. And what happens is when they get poured north to respond into that area, which invariably at the moment Banstead get poured to the east to respond to that area as well, then that strips cover out from the rest of Tandridge Borough District Council. So what we're trying to make sure that we do is where the risk is is where we're more likely to provide a timely response that is because it's more likely to be needed for those that are more vulnerable in the event of a fire. So hopefully that's at least answered your two questions. But we're not looking in Banstead because the risk doesn't dictate that we stay in Banstead. If I could just come back. I mean, how does moving to Whiteleaf or Godston impact the response in Banstead? What will the net effect of it be? So picking up on the earlier point that we mentioned, we're providing a Surrey-wide response. So we've already shared publicly, and I think it's detailed within the consultation documents, the difference in terms of a Surrey-wide response time. And I think the impact is about 40 seconds to Rygate and Banstead Borough Council, and there's a slight improvement with Tandridge. Now, the reason we're doing that is because Tandridge District Council at the moment is one of the least well-served response time areas. Whereas the likes of Rygate and Banstead and Epsom and Yule, for example, are some of the better served. So it's about balancing the cover across Surrey. Well, thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. well you all know that i'm from epsom and you're too but my argument has been for all of this time i get fed up i've sat through so many meetings where i get this oh the projected number is this that's the number from our plan and all this and i always say what a load of rubbish no one can know when they're going to set a pan alight in their kitchen and call something and also is anybody taking any notice of that this government and the previous one are in are imposing on epsom we're being looked at something like 15 000 homes and all i'm saying to you is are you saying that in five or six years time we're going to look at all of this again and have to find somewhere else and then you're going to have to move another pump back to epsom because it needs two pumps if it's going to cover bansted because bansted is gettable i guess but i mean i go up to bansted quite a lot the lovely shopping center there anyway that's not the point my point is you're not looking to the future on this you're looking at what's there now and what we can cope with well anyone who lives around where i live will tell you it's gridlocked with traffic absolute mayhem can't get anywhere around even around by gate where i gate town now is taking a while i'm saying to everyone don't just look at the figures now if you're looking at this as some long-term project as you should be you should be looking at the figures that this government is imposing and i've kept carry not what anyone thinks they're saying they're going to build on every inch of green belt so never think that it won't happen to us because it blooming well will if this labor government get hold of anything and they find there's a piece of land in epsom or a piece of land in reigate we'll be off and then you're all rue the day that you've withdrawn services because then you've got to find new depots and new pumps and more importantly trained personnel because you know you're not just a firefighter overnight this takes years and also a certain type of person to be a firefighter not everybody wants to put their life on their hands to go in and rescue someone so there's several complex things here which i'm really worried about and have been that we're not dealing with for the future they're going to give me this idea oh we've looked at all this projected plan for that project no wait till this government get hold of reigate and banstead and epsom and yule and we'll have double the numbers of houses we'll have very little and plus the fact epsom's got triple si site which is important it's the epsom downs it's a huge area highly valued and we've got haughton country park that's the nature reserve loads of tinder stuff one match and it'll set it like so i just don't understand where epsom's down down to one but also it is now going to cover banstead logically and well i don't know what what man and his van or in this case what man and his pump will cover i can't see it i don't feel this is a really credible plan to do what they're suggesting that's my moan but you all know me anyway about i'm protecting you can't ask fire officers and firemen to do the impossible and if they've only got one pump and they've got to go to two fires and you can't get there i don't want my pump to go i want it kept here i want it kept at banstead etc etc it's not about that it's i'm talking about projection of numbers of homes and then that comes with numbers of people and probably be several elderly care homes i know there's a couple in banstead i go past so i'm not sure numbers on a bit of paper cut the ice with me now i'm sorry but i don't think this is credible and i don't vote for it ever dan would you like to reply to that including i think you referred to an annual review earlier yeah i'll i'll try to respond to the points that were being raised so um just in terms of uh clarity um we recruit and train firefighters so just in terms of the terminology that's being used we also have female firefighters and we're really proud of them um in terms of the uh crp um so community risk profile i would implore having a look at the detail that that actually includes because some of what you're talking about is absolutely detailed within it so in terms of our understanding and appreciation of the building of housing or any other um premises we are as a fire rescue service a statutory consultate so we know about the projected building of all premises that are going to pop up within surrey whatever their occupancy type is going to be so we do include that um this community risk profile is updated annually so i appreciate your point in terms of looking at the longer term but the uh the imperative the requirement upon a fire and rescue service is to develop a community risk management plan on at least a three yearly basis and we're choosing to do one that's longer term that provides a bit of a longer term vision over five years rather than three in answer to your question about are we going to be back here in five years time it might be sooner than that because if the community risk profile changes we need to respond so um as much as we accept that this is a plan for five years if it changes again next year or the year after we it's imperative is upon us to do a review of the community risk management plan um just in terms of the sort of response that's being provided the purpose of talking through about how we actually do our response services is and we find this a lot there is a an absolute fixation with fire engines sitting in fire stations and that's predominantly where they're waiting to respond to or respond from um they don't do that they're moving around all of the time and in terms of the cover that we provide to the county we always prioritize risk in terms of your locality of epsom epsom is actually one of the best if not the best served borough in the whole of the county so in terms of the cover that we provide again this is all covered uh within the documentation but just to try and reassure you in some way at least that the level of due diligence has gone into developing this plan um we've chosen to use nottingham trent university who wrote the national methodology for every fire rescue service to tell us whether there's anything that we're missing and what they provided back in terms of feedback which we've published in the public domain since 2023 to 2024 we've now evolved it even further so i am confident as the chief bar officer that what we're presenting to you is underpinned by risk analysis is a comprehensive plan thank you um councillor lance spencer thank you chair one of the main community risk management plan proposals is the development of a seasonal response model can you describe what the seasonal response model is because it sounds wonderful um and is a seasonal response model best practice across the sector what challenges are associated with developing this approach and are there any cost savings can be made from implementing it thank you i'll take this one for you um our community risk management plan as a whole is based as we said on the risk not predicated on cost savings for this instance however as a service we always will be and aim to be as efficient as possible this proposal aims to create an additional layer of resilience when we have those seasonal demands and seasonal demands could be in relation to uh wet weather or dry weather so we're looking at flooding and the seasonal associations with wildfires it does not necessarily reduce response times what it adds to it is a level of resilience as you can imagine these seasonal incidents can take um longer times to deal with they can be protracted incidents and we need more resources over a period of time to deal with them not necessarily at the same time this means that our crews can remain at the scene for longer times and we need to rotate crews to make sure that they are in the best and safest place they can be for to live in those incidents by having this additional layer of resilience we can provide more timely release for the crews who are working hard and ensuring that they get adequate rest facilities and we provide that cross-county cover as well which is important when we're dealing with an incident we still have to make sure we provide cover for the rest of the county and that's what the seasonal model will provide us in addition as we said as dan's alluded to we all of our crews are highly trained they have specialist kit they have specialist ppe at their disposal and therefore having the additional resilience should in turn allow us to make sure we have the right resources in the right place at the right time for the right reason i think we can agree that this is an innovative way of looking at stuff and a slightly different way to the extent that we believe we are an earlier doctor of a seasonal approach and a different approach and we we akin it to like the army reservist model where we can have additional resources additional people that we can draw upon in the moments of seasonal variations we said flooding and wildfire and this has been has been picked up upon by his majesty's inspector of consaggery when they are looking for us to to look at new ways of delivering our service and look at efficiencies within our service which i think this proposal does for us thanks very much um next question is from uh mark suggen who's online and in fact you've got two questions mark yeah the first question um and i will do them separately chairman first question is um the safe fire and rescue service intends to work more closely uh with health partners including south east coast ambulance service um there are a large number of hospitals and gp services across the county so the first question here is how will this work be coordinated thank you um you're absolutely right in terms of the coordinated effort that we need to do um so what we're committing to in terms of so far rescue service and health partners including south east coast ambulance service and um i'm grateful that south east coast ambulance service actually took the time to reply to our consultation and are in complete support with this proposal which is great um we'll also need to work with not only our partners but also staff and trade unions to which understandably will need to be included to make this achievable so the first thing is we're planning to build on already strong relationships and programs with health partners so just for example we currently already work with care partners in the community we already have relationships with our general practitioners our gps and we support um with homelessness um and other vulnerable groups as well so we've recently started a trial in relation to hospital discharge processes and how we can support people to ensure that their homes are safe upon return from hospital um and we've we've referred to that as being a situational vulnerability so not necessarily people that would automatically fill a criteria of vulnerability but certainly somebody who's been post a significant operation for example um furthermore we've engaged with secan to see how we can better support their burns management guidance um reflecting uh a very uh a very good piece of guidance that's called saving lives is not enough and the principles that that that presents so importantly and worth noting is that our fire and rescue cover is not intended to be impacted by this support so i'll caveat that um surrey participated in the national emergency management emergency medical response trials in 2015 and what we did was implement a county-wide co-responding scheme as part of that trial now during the trials uh secam southeast coast ambulance could request effectively a fire and rescue service asset for specific health emergencies such as cardiac arrests and during that trial we trained 400 of our staff um in order to be able to respond to emergency and trauma scare with the relevant skills and equipment and that included on fire engines included uh managers like myself in their vehicles included four-wheel drive vehicles that we had and um we have still retained that medical equipment and the defibrillators for example and all the training that goes with it um since that time now that trial concluded in 2017 due to national conversations that were taking place however we've still captured that learning in order to be ready to apply it more recently subject to obviously the advancements that our ambulance colleagues have made so effectively to implement all of the crmp proposals just in terms of your point about the coordination um we have a structured project management approach that we we will be adopting for each one of the proposals and so we've got um we're going to be setting clear objectives that are outlined to clear goals as you would expect and ensure really robust governance around um the uh the work that we're doing and also the accountability and responsibility to make well informed decisions so collaborative planning with partners and key stakeholders including secam trade unions and other staff will be essential and will be included from the outset and the final point is that with all of our priority projects and we have a regular process of ensuring transparency providing real-time visibility of the projects so we have trackers that are able to keep us a live sort of assessment as to what stage the project delivery is in along with things like risks and independencies as you would expect to be in place and be monitored as well and then it was picked up earlier around communications i think councillor mason mentioned particularly about communications which entirely agree with the channels and the proactive engagement that we'll be using will be looking to foster positive working relationships not just with the partners but also with our communities in terms of what services we'll be providing on behalf of our broader health partners but um to be to be candid we see this particular proposal as being a real contribution to enabling communities to become more resilient as well so after we've had an interaction we want to be able to leave somebody with an ability to look after themselves even better and that's that's a principle that we apply to our prevent prevention services all of the time but this will allow us to have a much wider connection with our community i hope that answers your question mark thank you come back on that question because we have another speaker before your second question no i didn't other than say thank you for a very comprehensive reply to that question okay thank you um katherine you wanted uh a query on that um no it's just to say that uh dan were you aware that are you working with the red cross who also have a program for looking after people being discharged from hospital i'm sure you have um thank you for that so i wasn't aware that they work with people post hospital so that's great we will connect um we do have british red cross um actually as part of our epson fire station and what they do is they respond yeah so they they respond to uh in uh in event of fires to basically assist people to work through uh their insurance documents to make sure they've got the appropriate um temporary accommodation etc it's a fantastic group to be part of we're well connected from that perspective so i i will continue that i will send you i'll send you the name of the person who's local and then you can make it thank you uh mark you had another question yes i did thank you chairman um the report states that the um primary objective of the community risk management plan is to enhance the uh safety resilience and overall well-being of the community by proactively addressing potential hazards vulnerabilities etc so my question is does the necessary fire rescue service or c that increased investment in resources for prevention and protection will reduce the need for fire service responses so we're building really from the um previous response where we're talking about how we can ensure that we're working with partners to um make sure that people are well within our communities our core aim is always to make sure that we prevent incidents from happening and in the first place by targeting those that are most vulnerable within our communities and working with our partners to do so um the most recent when we look at the most recent home office statistics it highlights that when it comes to the number of fires that that are being attended and that they've actually fallen by around two thirds over the last 20 years um so it's approximately about 140 000 fires um were attended last year and that is the lowest since uh the year 2000 however that's only part of the story because there's also non-fire related incidents and we have seen a an increase um in those um of approximately about four percent from the previous year um and nearing up to sixty percent over the over the last decade and that really highlights the importance of our other preventative work which is around ensuring that we focus on how we can prevent uh road traffic collisions and also how we're supporting um individuals within our communities um who um you know need support in terms of flood prone um homes um and the impacts around flooding um so every effort goes into and preventing incidents and protecting our communities within surrey and it is about trying you know that aim to stop that incident from happening in the first place however operational response remains essential and you know that that's quite key from the conversations that we've had today and our current response level for surrey is designed to make sure that we can effectively meet the risks and within our county and we believe that the response that we have is appropriate and that's already been covered by um uh dan's responses earlier today um and what we will do is obviously continue to keep that under review and as we do those annual review processes that we've spoken about too thank you okay thank you um thank you okay thank you very much mark and the final question i have is from councillor cameron mackintosh uh thank you very much um chair um so the crmp it talked about obviously people being one of the services greatest asset and i just wondered with that in mind are we confident enough that we have the breadth of skills and knowledge um currently in the service um particularly for example the technical expertise such as fire engineers um i would be interested to know that um and with a greater sort of emphasis on prevention in areas such as the built environment and with the government speeding up house building are we confident that we've got those skills for prevention such as fire engineers going forward um into the future thank you uh yes i mean as a service you know we're currently working to make sure that all of our staff have the right levels of training the right skills to to to deal with emergencies data interactions and particularly in our protection team as you know they play a key role in ensuring the built environment is as safe as it can be um we're continually looking to upskill our protection specialists with fire safety inspectors trained to the competency framework we have our auditors and we have our business education officers too so as as um as legislation changes regulatory reform order we always work with premises to make sure we advise we guide and we enforce against the regulatory reform order but making sure that our key all of our key people in the service have the right training the right skills to do to deliver that aspect of their role as you've alluded to fire engineers we don't um have fire engineers in-house but we do have contracts with fire engineers to deliver that aspect of the engineered solutions for us we do have level five qualified engineer technicians and that's how we we work it within the service but we make sure we have the right skill set to look at what we need to be looking at at the time particularly in that protection field again with prevention we always make sure that we have suitable training to assist our communities through prevention protection and response we have our prevention specialists and they work in with our communities to look at that community fire safety home fire safety checks and safe and well visits to make sure we're we're not just looking at the built environment we're in the round so we look at the environment and the people themselves as well i think moving that forward i think as part of our investment in our training you know we do have uh the new uh development of our 14.5 million pound investment in our training center to ensure that our training is a bit for purpose moving that into the future and that's again about protection prevention and response and you know if the mood changes within the service within our people we can look at that we can see that we can adapt to those changes to make sure we do employ the right people with the right skills and train to the right skills in the future as well can i just come back quickly on that chair if that's okay um so specifically in relation to using the service using technical skills um contractors that provide fire engineers um are we confident that there is enough supply um that we are able to tap into because i mean i think there's only like 250 fire engineers in the country um it's quite a low figure from the ife and i just wondered if if we're confident that you know there's there's people in the system that we can rely on those technical expertise um and again particularly going back to my point around an increase in building and protecting people in in homes that we're able to tap into that um going forward yes um lee can you speak closer to your microphone please yes um we do have um the uh a retainer with a fire engineer to make no i meant into the microphone we are guaranteed that that level of response and we're continuing looking at our our processes to make sure we can meet the response of the engineered environment thank you can i add to that chair dan yes yeah it's um just a worth sort of appreciating i understand the point you're making in terms of the sort of narrow resource that we're all accessing um so one of the things that we do is work very closely with our partners so if i use a particular example um in the field of protection and and the connections that lee has got um we have the 4f which is um us east and west sussex farm rescue services and kent and um you know in terms of particularly like the brighton and hove area there's a huge amount of high-rise um considerations to take place down there so um i've recently taken over chairing that group in order to try and make sure that we get that coordinated sort of effort and we we tap into the resourcing that individual services have because while we don't have fire engineers in its purest form within the service and we have a contracted mechanism to do that um others do and so if things come up we can then share resources so if i give you a practical example where that's actually applied um unfortunately during the events of operation bridge when obviously um her majesty the queen unfortunately passed away um royal berkshire asked for some assistance with regards to an immediate sort of requirement to audit their hotels that were in in the area because they knew they was going to get obviously a huge amount of extra people so they reached out to the region and we all provided qualified auditors to be able to go up and do a really concerted effort in that area and and the same principle in terms of obviously supporting each other um through collaboration will operate in all areas of the service but particularly in protection where certain skills are very very niche so i hope that just adds to it thank you very much well that um brings us to the uh draft of the recommendations uh that we'll have so if i could ask for those uh to be put up on the screen that would be great thank you okay and if members take a few moments just to read through those oh sorry and while those are up yes i'm not adding to anything here but it was something crossing my mind that if epsom has got all these open areas with heather and all the things that once they're lit they will spread like wildfire and we've got epsom downs i'm sure the other ten boroughs other than perhaps the most built-up ones must have something similar and i would have thought somewhere along the line there ought to be a form a formal thing you could put at the entrance of every area saying beware you know of fires and making people aware because i don't think they do they eat or drink and whatever out it goes out the window and my argument is if only we could try and remind people that things like ground cover and all the heathers and that and this beautiful wildlife areas this but this county's got if we remind people of their actions because they don't think very often um then we might have a chance and i think every area whether it's in woking or wherever it is should have a specific sign that is recognized by the fire service that goes up at the entrances reminding peoples of their duty of care because otherwise it's another couple of fire engines being turned out that stops it going from somewhere else like banks did so they will moan and it just goes on i just think is there a possibility anything could be done about this uh richard tier chair we we've got them on top in common and and they're very much appreciated but perhaps um the chief perhaps the chief fire officer could take that point up directly after the meeting with um councillor mason okay as there is precedence um righty-ho um we did have we got back up on the screen uh the three um of the draft recommendations if everybody has had a chance to look through those are we happy with those okay everybody agreed thanks very much indeed and uh thank you to our witnesses from sorry fire and rescue um for this afternoon's session okay um we will now move on to uh item eight which is economic growth uh we have with us uh still uh matt furnace um last cabinet member standing or sitting rather and uh also still with us um online is simon crowther um and also um in person is uh patricia patricia urtus uh who's head of economic programs and localities um so welcome to all three um now who would like to uh just introduce the paper will you do that uh matt thank you chair um yes i'll be very brief i mean at the end of the day i i think what we can say is uh the team have been brilliant we've hit the ground running um we've now got uh our business surrey a single portal set up we've uh had our uh second festival of skills um and uh we are really sort of moving quite uh quite well ahead with the the transfer of the the assets from uh the em3 let coast to capital you've got some questions on so i won't i won't uh delve into that one too much um but it's also good to see that the government has confirmed commitment for funding for uh next year as well i think we're just waiting on the the detail um of that um but all i can say really is the the response from the business community has been very positive uh i think the team making some excellent connections and uh we've got a huge number of business leaders now joining us on our business leaders forum uh which has been fantastic so they're really engaging they're coming from all sectors uh and we're working very closely with our education partners as well um who are talking to the businesses which is part of the key um point on skills uh which we're we're very keen to progress but uh you've got about 10 12 questions i understand so um i'll stop there and uh let you and the committee ask them uh well we'll crack through patricia is there anything you wanted to say at this stage okay um so our first question is from john beckett thank you chair um as we know that we've got two local enterprise partnerships or leps as they're called within the surrey area um one of which is coast to uh coast to capital um they've now decided to become or continue as a as a private company so i've got two halves of a question um what are the implications of this decision and will coaster capital now become a private competitor to the council's support to businesses thank you so the as i mentioned a little bit earlier the continuation of coaster capital as a private company has slowed down the transfer of the the assets uh from that lip to the three local authorities because they cover three areas uh surrey county council uh west sussex county council and brighton hove city council um i don't see them as a competitor personally if they continue to operate uh because their focus has pretty much through their existence always been focused around the brighton hove area we've actually received very little funding uh within surrey for business all support for businesses within surrey from coaster capital uh their focus has been primarily west sussex and brighton and hove brighton hove i think has received the greatest share of the grant funding uh from them so as the accountable and host body i'm sure that they're very happy with that but uh we've got much more success and much more funding coming across from um sorry the uh the it's gone out of my eye em3 lab uh where actually there's the significant amounts there we're not expecting more than i think unless patricia chris me about 600 000 pounds from coast to capital sorry still to be determined but yeah we are not expecting much because we have the smallest proportion of the split yeah so at the end of the day i think we we just need to look at um sort of what happens with final accounts but we've we've got the biggest share coming from em3 so to be honest that's where our focus has been okay uh cameron um actually i don't have a question on this chair um richard clear thanks jeff um terribly sorry i i was mistaken it's not cameron it's andy um sorry thank you thank you yeah and again okay continuing on the transitional arrangements i think the arrangements with um enterprise m3 in hampshire are pretty well explained well in the reports uh just one small point that is there any liabilities that have to be divided as well as assets so i must ask a question of that in terms of the more complex um arrangements that will be required as they explain the report with coastal capital in as a private organization will they retain any of their assets and and what what are the liabilities from the previous role because they're really previously completely funded by government as i understand unless i've got that wrong so will they will they be disposing of all their assets and passing them to the the local authorities and again liabilities do they come into it as well thank you thank you thanks andy um so as i mentioned the the the funding has been uh shared between the upper tier authorities uh based on working age population so that means a 51 49 split between ourselves and em3 uh from the em3 element between us and hampshire county council um slightly more complicated as patricia said a a 20 54 and 26 split between brighton hove west sussex and surrey so not not so much there um we've closed to capital we are pressing the accountable body which is brighton hove to effectively outline what the liabilities the assets and everything are because they were looking to go private that's why it's been a lot slower but our pressure is on brighton and hove uh in particular for that uh and that includes the the monitoring previous graph investments and loans uh with government reporting going in um in the case of em3 um there are uh long cross parking running needs which is an enterprise zone uh which we will be responsible for with running me borough council is probably probably the biggest the biggest the biggest change uh em3 did have a number of investments and we are sort of looking to divest from those and convert it back into cash that we can reinvest locally in in surrey businesses uh but we've been very clear it's the businesses are to to set out where they would like to see the money spent because it is meant to be for business and skills hope that helps thanks for that answer um are brighton hove still going to have a continuing involvement with because in this private organization you're sort of implying that they're closely connected with them will they continue to be a part of the the the private setup separate from there no they won't be part of it but they will have to wind down and then monitor any legacy grants or projects uh because it's still as you say public money therefore they would still have to report that back to government thank you sorry for the confusion there between the mcclouds and the mackintoshes um richard's here you may have partially answered this in the uh brighton hove arrangements in the possible competition but uh is there anything that we can do to um make the um reasonable assurance um view on the internal order if it's the only way we can strengthen what we're doing to make that uh go higher up the scale so um in that um audit report um it did state with regards to surrey county council um bearing in mind we are not the accountable body for coast capital that is brighton hove and it was brighton hove that got the reasonable assurance um in the audit report it stated for us that uh oversight within the council is robust with key individuals including exec directors and members being cited on key decisions the team have been very proactive on this so i don't think the audit report was concerned about our government structure it was very much on um what's happening in coastal capital and that's why it's taking that little bit longer to tease out all the assets and um liabilities got it thank you very much thank you um mark you have the next question uh thank you chairman um excuse me uh the report states that the council has successfully launched the surrey growth hub which offers high growth businesses with free tailored one-to-one support and the 280 businesses have taken up this service two questions are you happy with the 280 beyond what you expected or is it short and what is the feedback from those recipient businesses to date on the um free tailored advice that they've been given thank you captain um so the team has sort of done a little bit of a look through all the um responses that we've got about uh levels of satisfaction um and they've given me two quotes and i'll read those out so um um the first one uh who has been supported through higher intensity advice uh said that working with business surrey is like having the board you can't afford which is is very good and another reflecting that thanks to all the links that you gave me i've got a really good idea of what i need to do now the direction i need to take things to get up and running so i think it's important to say that we're not going to be able to focus on all 110 000 businesses in in surrey um but it's good to see that the businesses that we are who are coming to us and we're getting a regular number of people uh contacting us through our single uh portal which is is fantastic um they are saying that the the advice and the direction that they are being given is helpful we do have a comprehensive analysis of our events so far and they include high level supports with many small medium enterprise and partners uh and they are saying that they are recommending the service to um their networks as well so i think it's sort of fingers crossed but it's it's good it's a good start and one which we can keep building on uh thank you thank you very much indeed mark uh catherine thank you um could you you could you explain how we're supporting uh surrey's green economy and and indeed our you know our net zero targets in the context of also supporting high growth businesses in surrey thank you so um within the growth hub uh we do have a dedicated specialist to sustainability um for go sort of help high growth smes to to go green um it's also done as part of the helping advice for businesses just starting up as well um and the green futures team works very closely with the business support team as well um to give advice and they actually both teams actually share some of the advisors that we we employ so it's a consistent level of advice that's going out to to all of them um we've also enabled and facilitated connections between uh the relevant networks and advice networks such as uk business climate hub uh decarbonize your business which is a free course for smes uh greener future grants and then the net zero places innovation network which is a rather long one uh so we it is a large factor of what we do and we do provide that and if businesses are saying that's an area which they would like to see some of the ground funding go towards that's something we will consider as well given the given the uh cuts to the greener futures team that we heard about earlier um do you see that impacting the support that they can give to uh to the um economic growth uh activities as well no because most most of it is advice around policy and uh sort of directions or where they can receive the grant funding um but as we've got our specialist dedicated advisors which are looking into a business context uh that that support will still be there john beckett thank you chair yes um with the government funding for this service ending in april 2025 um what is the position uh and what happens next year after this date so i think i mentioned a little bit earlier so the government has confirmed that uh funding is going to continue we're just waiting on the detail for the amount um as i think we all across the council really um from from what they're proposing um we are planning that business area continues as the single gateway um to support so i mean we we actually started the service in the first year without any government funding being guaranteed so that's why we were so far ahead of other up-tier authorities um but it's good that the government has confirmed funding again um so we can continue with that thank you uh catherine um um this is a couple couple questions here um um our economic the council's economic strategy um identifies that businesses in surrey um some businesses in surrey lag behind our neighbors and and some businesses have contracted significantly and the council's proposed three priorities to deliver economic growth and i'm just interested to know you know how they were developed and the second part of my question was i wonder if you could just explain the mechanism by which the county council directly benefits financially from putting our resources into supporting economic growth in surrey just just you know for my clarification um you know how does that money directly come back and back welcome go off to central government i might have to look to patricia for the second part a little bit there um so in um 2020 we set out our surrey economic future to 2030 uh that was published and that was built on uh building on the work from the uh the lord harran commission uh the future surrey economy uh commission uh which lord harran had chaired and there was uh independent economic evidence as well it's all on our website if you're interested or we can we can send you the links there's i think about eight documents in total and the university of surrey has just done one about inward investment into surrey as well so a lot of people are looking and analyzing this um so there were four sort of key points which were developed through through these pieces of work so they are growing the leading edge supporting growth for innovation economy a whole place approach to growing and sustainable quality places maximizing opportunities within a balanced inclusive economy economy and capturing the potential of a greener economy as well so it's been in there green has been in there from the start um i think it's fair to say that when this was all set out um you know how they had lockdowns covid and everything else so things have fundamentally changed but i think that the key principles are there uh and we are doing a bit of a refresh um at the moment looking at sort of what what how we reframe the priorities is there anything that we're missing and uh what the future economic landscape uh could look at in your second point about direct return um i think it's important to say that when the government um dissolved the leps effectively and returned powers to the upper tier authorities we became responsible for the local and regional economy as upper tier authorities so although we may not directly see a direct return on our investment uh unless it's through uh a loan that we give out and then it's returned to two businesses um it's more about how are we making sure that the the local economy is is able to thrive and grow um two of the biggest items well two main ones that businesses continually say when you ask them what you need it's housing and it's skills and those are the two that keep coming up here and again uh they really struggle to keep people in sorry um for more than two years and two years is our benchmark uh if we can get people to stay in education or in work for two years they're most likely to stay in the area uh at the moment a lot of skills are being imported and then leaving because people can't afford to live in sorry um i suppose just to add to that point if i may that it is really about gross value added produced across the county so when the specialist support that goes into advice to smes in particular and the high growth industries is really focused on that productivity growth which could be around turnover for that company or indeed the number of employees for that company so i suppose it's the whole ecosystem that comes around that growth indeed more people moving into surrey to take on surrey jobs or to take on skills development you know within within surrey so it all contributes to the larger economy of the county obviously when we also work with startups we also look at business births so the pipeline of business increases business rates and other services and so on increase alongside with that just to highlight a whole ecosystem that we encourage Cameron you had a point um just as the cabinet member was uh thank you just as the cabinet member was mentioning the importance of skills and obviously there's been some discussion around government funding um i'm aware that i think government are looking at either cutting or changing level seven apprenticeship funding and i just wondered if that is something that has been fed back to back to yourself through businesses whether that's going to have an impact on skills um across surrey and into the future thank you so um not in terms of level sevens uh which is mostly the universities will be will be doing those level of degrees um the bigger concern is actually one to three um on apprenticeships because as as people are upskilling the university is getting involved with masters and degree level uh apprenticeships which is five five upwards um and now that uh the uh further education colleges can also do the the degree level there's a little bit of concern about the drop-off at one to three um i don't think there's been any change in funding for that i think it's more just the offering so when we're looking at that we're looking a little bit as a county council how do we set in to support that um just making sure that you've got that through flow of learning uh rather than just having it all focused again at the at the upper levels um andy thanks jim and you're obviously intending that the council's initiatives as well positively influence economic growth in the can in the county university i'd just like to know how you how you intend to measure this what will you see at success what will the measurements of success be in terms of the all the work you're carrying out and all the all the council's initiatives um that's a slightly difficult one we do have a couple of metrics and as patricia mentioned about gba is used as the main measure so i think it's probably that number of businesses that are surviving um and the ones which are a number of people employed as well are probably the three three main ones that we would look at um it's a difficult one because any decisions that you're making now it's going to be years before you see the sort of the outcome uh it's a little bit like with trainings and education and so forth so i think the key thing for us is as long as we can provide the framework in which they can operate uh and it's probably the survivability that is probably a key one but i'll look to patricia in case there's any any other measures that i've missed on that if i may just to add a couple more for context the high knowledge intensity industries is something that we look at also quite regularly which is why we when when it comes to difficult decisions and where to place the funding for specific support and advice we tend to focus in those companies with the highest potential to grow um similarly um our work with universities um especially encouraging those spin out kind of entrepreneur entrepreneurial initiatives new startups and helping those to grow um so we look at the startup numbers also on the business um pipeline alongside as council said the survival rate of those newly created enterprises those are some of the biggest ones thank you thank you uh richard moving on to gif the growth and innovation fund uh it says in the document that the um the fund is envisaged as a transparent mechanism what does that mean in in real terms and the funding framework will also make provisions for exceptional and strategically important projects well what are those and how do you identify those thank you so just in in part on the on the governance arrangements what we're proposing is that this select committee receives an annual report about the performance of the fund and um updates on funded projects as well um the strategically important projects will be identified through um the refresh of the the strategy um but it's one that we've really sort of placed an emphasis on the business leaders to set out where where they think the funding would help small medium-sized businesses grow uh most effectively and that's what that's happening at the moment um i mean the legacy funding from the leps has been ring-fenced so it will only be used for uh economic growth within surrey uh and that will be external to the county council to support uh private industry um okay thank you and uh last question i have a note of is from lance yes here's the last question hopefully um how how much will the strategic funding framework cost sorry county council so how much does all of this put together cost us if you can try and work better um and is there an external source of funding that the council can draw upon that covers some of the costs i'm going to have to look at patricia for the detail of that one but um the government as i mentioned they're allocating one-off amounts for the operation of this um i'll have to look to say what our funding has been so far for that that is 240 000 pounds on the transition so far and the development of the strategy and indeed the fund going forward and on your second point sorry uh any external funding i think it will just be the the government funding to continue going forward um unless there were any other uh questions or queries we can move on then to uh the recommendations um we'll have those up on the screen uh in a moment so members can uh peruse them very nice photograph of dilip very cool yes you've got to do it with the accent hey all right there we are on number two um endorses the reframe strategic priorities in the refreshed uh uh local economic strategy and i i i am i right in this i thought we heard that it is being it's being refreshed at the moment it's uh is that oh sorry have we got the yes because you've got the draft in front of you that's why so we haven't yet approved it okay stop uh that is that is that is the draft that is here have a few moments just to read through those um four items okay is everybody happy with those okay well thank you very much indeed everybody um just uh now to item nine uh which is the tracker and forward work program all members have had this within the uh agenda pack for the next couple of meetings february and april are there any comments or queries if not uh just to note that the next meeting is on scheduled for the 12th of february so all remains for me to do is to wish you all a merry christmas a safe journey home and a happy new year to one and all
Transcript
with, I have no doubt. I'd like to welcome everybody, members and officers, to this meeting of the Communities, Environment and Highway Select Committee. There is, you'll be pleased to hear, no planned fire drill for today. So basically, to summarise it, in the event of the fire alarm sounding, follow me out of the building. We'll be okay that way. Please ensure, which I will do in a moment myself, to make sure that your mobile phones are switched to silent. Everybody is perfectly welcome to use social media today, provided it doesn't disturb the business of the meeting. Today's meeting is being webcast to the public, and there will be a recording online afterwards. I'd like to also mention that this meeting allows for participation by video conference in Microsoft Teams, and that some attendees are participating remotely. For those participating remotely, if the chat feature is enabled, please don't use it, because it limits the transparency or the open discussion we want to have in a public meeting, and that chat facility isn't available to the public. For those officers who have joined the meeting remotely, please use the raise hand functions to indicate that you'd like to speak, and mute your microphone and turn it off the camera with not speaking, and if I don't notice you, just interrupt and tell me. For officers and members who are here in the room in person, may I please ask anyone presenting to speak clearly and directly into their microphones when called on to speak, press the right hand button on your microphone and start speaking when the red light appears. Please remember to turn off your microphone when you've finished, and if you're sharing a desk microphone, you may need to press the right or the left hand button, depending on which side of the microphone you are sitting on. Right. Right. So, we move on to apologies for absence. I believe that we've had apologies from Councillor Liz Bowes, who I can't see, so I think she's not been able to make it in. And also, we were expecting Mark Sugden, but he's not here, so we'll give his apologies. Were there any others? No. No, just those two that we're aware of. Okay. Minutes of the previous meeting. I'd like to ask the committee to, if they're minded, to agree the minutes of the meetings held on the 15th of October and the 19th of November. Are there any queries, or is those agreed? Is those agreed? Are those agreed? Okay. Declarations of interest. If any members are required to declare at this point, or as soon as possible afterwards, if they have any disclosable pecuniary interests or any other interests arising under the Code of Conduct for anything we're discussing at this meeting. Anything anyone has to declare? No? Okay. Okay. Right. Questions and petitions. We've had two questions, both from a member, a question from Councillor Bart. Councillor Bart, you've had the answer in writing. Can I ask if you have any supplementary question? Yes, please. On my first question about disposal of assets, I wondered what made the examples that have happened, what made them possible? And also when the collaborative asset management agreement that's being proposed, what sort of timescale is that proposed within? Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Bart. Thank you, Councillor Bart. The land that we sold was to Townbridge Council, and we put it out onto the open market, and they expressed an interest. And under Section 123 rules, we are allowed to sell at a slight discount to, obviously, local councils, and they're bringing forward a social housing development on the site. And we're actually, again, speaking to Tandridge about another site, again, within Tandridge. So, officers do have meetings all the time with their counterparts within the boroughs and districts. So, some of them, as we know now, don't have any money to spend on buying some land. But we always would consider an offer from them, but being mindful that there is only a certain amount of discount that we are legally allowed to give them. And in regard to the strategy or the policy coming forward, I have to be honest, can I come back to you on that with some definite specific dates? We can just catch up at some stage. Thank you. Sir, would it be possible? Sir, would it be possible? Sir, welcome. Sir, would it be possible? Sir, would it be possible? Sir, welcome. Yes, thank you, Chair. Thank you. Apologies I'm not there. Just to add to Councillor Bramhall's points. I was at Tandridge Council yesterday and did actually see their thoughts for the site that had transferred between the Council and Tandridge Borough Council. It was good to see that they were actually progressing the development thinking for the site in question. The second point, just to add to Councillor Bramhall's answer, in terms of the asset management agreement, we actually did review a timetable and we'll be looking to get something in place by April next year. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you both very much. Councillor Barth, you have a second question. Could I ask if you have a supplementary to that, Catherine? I don't have a supplementary question. Thank you very much for the answer. Very helpful. Thanks very much indeed. Right. Item five is the Cabinet response to select committee recommendations. We're asked to note the Cabinet responses to the committee recommendations following the budget deep dives and briefing sessions and invite any comments from anybody from that. Maybe we can pick up any comments as part of the budget item. Is that okay with everyone? Fine. Thank you. Right. We'll move on to the budget and medium term financial strategy. I did have a request before the meeting from our Vice Chairman that for all of the items on today's agenda there should be no discussion absolutely and that we should simply move to all the recommendations because that will save us all a lot of time. However, I tend to feel that people would like to have a quick word as we've all come to Rygate this morning. So Merry Christmas. Could I therefore move on and ask as he's very kindly joined us this morning and I know it was a difficulty with other meetings clashing and stuff. Welcome David Lewis, the Cabinet Member for Highways who is here with us and other Cabinet Members who are here today. David, would you like to kick off on this for us? Yeah, thank you Chair and good morning everyone. Just to be clear, I'm the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, not Highways. Sorry. Well, apologies to you and to Matt. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. No questions. Let's combine the two. Double or treble-hassing? Yes, thank you. This is in fact the third select committee this week and we're giving all the select committees an opportunity to review the draft budget and scrutinise the draft budget that was approved by Cabinet last week. And when we talk about the budget, we're talking about the revenue and capital budgets and the medium-term financial strategy. The budget for next year, 25-26 and the medium-term strategy through to 29-30. You've got a couple of slides which we've produced for the introduction and, you know, I think no surprises. You know, we're in, as a sector, local government faces some significant financial challenges. Surrey is not exempt or, you know, we face the challenges in the same way as other local authorities. And, as a consequence, the setting of the budget for 25-26, you know, has been a fairly difficult process and has required us to take some tough decisions in order to ensure the financial resilience of this council. And, you know, as we've said before, and I think you'll hear later today, I mean, we've spent the last sort of six years really building up that financial resilience of the, of Surrey County Council. And we don't want to jeopardise that for the budget going forward. We actually began the budget setting process immediately after the budget for this year was agreed at full council. So the, the, the, the process started in February of this year. And, and the way it works is that, uh, monthly iterations are produced, uh, which go to, uh, CLT and, and cabinet. Um, and in those iterations we, we, we work on a, a budget envelope, uh, approach. Um, we take into account the pressures faced by each of the directorates and we look at the efficiencies. And the intention is to, to then, uh, close the gap so that by the time we get to the, uh, the, the, the, the, the final budget, uh, as we're required to do from a legal point of view, we've got a balanced budget. So that process, that, that iteration process has been ongoing, uh, since February, uh, of, of this year. Uh, and, uh, we, we, we had this sort of mini milestone of, of, of, of the draft budget coming to cabinet last week, um, and, uh, and, uh, and being approved by cabinet. And that's, um, what we're scrutinising today. We do believe in the importance of engagement, um, and there has been multiple, there have been multiple opportunities for engagement on the budget setting process. Uh, both in terms of, uh, uh, this council, uh, so the scrutiny committees have all, uh, spent, uh, quite a lot of time looking at the budgetary process. Each of the scrutiny committees, um, has done, uh, uh, two deep dives. Um, and, and, and you chair referred to the responses to your deep dives, uh, this morning. Um, there's been, um, member briefing sessions. Um, the, uh, opposition groups have all been briefed. And we've also importantly consulted with our residents and organisations across Surrey. Um, the first consultation took place before the development of the draft budget. And the second process is open at the moment. And we opened it immediately. The draft budget was approved by cabinet last week. Um, and all, all that input that we receive as a result of that engagement and that consultation is considered and will be considered going forward in terms of sort of getting us from where we are at the moment with the draft budget to, to, to, to the final, uh, final budget. Um, in terms of your deep dives, as I say, you, you've had the cabinet responses, but these recommendations will be considered. Um, uh, they were considered, um, you know, when we're putting together the draft budget and, um, will, will continue to be considered as we get to the point of finalising the budget. Um, and in terms of the, the, the time scale for that, um, um, we have the local government, uh, settlement, um, which we expect to hear the details of exactly what grants, the, the, the, the amount of money we're going to receive from government, um, on the 19th of December. Um, and cabinet will consider the final budget in January. And at the budget setting for council meeting at the beginning of February, we'll ask council to approve the budget. Um, so today is an opportunity, as I say, to, to scrutinise that draft budget. And we are looking for your input. As I say, you know, we, we, we, we do value the engagement process. Um, so you would have seen that there is currently a 17.4 million pound gap in the budget, uh, in the draft budget, uh, which we have to collect. We've closed. We've assumed at the moment a council tax increase of 2.9%. The reason why we assumed that level is because we've only just received confirmation from government that we are going to be allowed to increase the level of council tax up to, uh, 5%. So 3% plus 2% for the adult social care precept without triggering a referendum. We had thought that would be the case, but we haven't had confirmation about that. We have now had confirmation about that, but the, in, in, in producing the, the draft budget, we've assumed the 2.99%. Um, so that gives us a gap at the moment of 17.4 million, which we do have to close. Um, I know there's been some comments on social media about the fact that the numbers don't add up. That is not true. The numbers do add up. Um, we do have various ways in which we can close that gap. Um, as I say, you know, we, we, we, every 1% that we increase council tax generates another 9, just over 9 million pounds of income. But there's other ways in which we can do it. We don't know exactly how much grant we're going to get from government. Um, we could look at deficiencies and so on. And although we wouldn't recommend it, there is the possibility of using reserves. And Rachel will talk a little bit more about that later on. Um, despite the difficult situation that we face in terms of the, the, the challenges of the financial situation, you know, we are still ambitious as an authority. Um, and we have ensured that within the, the draft budget, um, we've, we've ensured there is sufficient finance for some specific investments. And you can see on the slide, um, that, um, you know, some detail of where we will continue to fund, um, some, um, specific initiatives that we, as a cabinet, um, really believe, um, meet the needs of our residents. And I guess in terms of this select committee, you're interested in the, um, uh, demand responsive transport rollout. I know that was subject to, to, to, to, to one of the deep dives. And also the, uh, additional money that's going to be spent on our highways, particularly around the verge maintenance and the, the clean-up gangs. Um, so we, we, we, we've ensured there is money in the budget for that. Um, I've spoken about the need to, to close the gap. And as I say, we'll talk a little bit more about how we could do that, uh, later on. And also we just need to, to think, I said at the beginning that, you know, we're talking about not just the budget for next year, but we're talking about the medium term financial strategy. And if we think things are difficult at the moment, I think they're about to get even harder. Um, the government have, uh, indicated that, um, they will be looking at the, um, the fair funding review. Um, it's likely that the way in which the grants that we receive are calculated will change. Um, it's very likely that we will lose money rather than gain money. Um, resources are likely to be channeled towards more metropolitan areas. It's likely that deprivation indexes will be used to determine exactly how much money we get. And as a result of all that, you know, our anticipation is that, um, we will receive less funding rather than more funding as a result of any, any fair funding review. So looking ahead, you know, we are, um, you know, it, it, it will be very challenging. Um, and, and, and, and, and the, the numbers which are shown in the medium term strategy, strategy, uh, you know, indicate that. Um, but I think it's important to, to, to, to say that, you know, we, we, we do have, um, you know, we are driving efficiencies through this council. But at the same time, we have a major transformation program, which we're funding. Um, and I think the two things go hand in hand. It's really important that we realize that, you know, we're not talking just about cutting numbers or, or cutting costs. We're, we're, we're, we're talking about doing things differently. And that's what the transformation is all about. How can we provide the services that our residents want and need, but provide those services in a more effective and more efficient manner? And, and the, the, the final bullets on this slide ahead of you indicate the sort of scope of the transformation work that's, uh, that's ongoing. And, you know, as I say, I think it's really important that we bear that in mind that, you know, it's not just about finding efficiencies and finding, uh, cost reductions. They flow from the transformation work. So the two, two, two things work in parallel together. So at that point, I'm going to hand over to Nicky. Thank you. Um, before I just introduce, um, Nicky and, uh, Rachel, um, perhaps if I could ask a couple of questions that you could consider in your audience. Um, two points, um, arising from what David has said. Um, am I correct in saying that of the council's annual revenue expenditure, about 75% relies on the council tax income? Um, the other 25% I'm assuming is from our share from business rates and from whatever government grants are available. Um, so, and the other point is just going touching on the reserves issue, because a lot of the public tend to think, well, if the council's got reserves, why not use those to plug the gap? Can you tell me, because I know that a few years ago, this council was, and I'm talking about seven or eight years ago, so well before David's tenure of office, this council was down to about a year of usable reserves. Um, so how much does we, do we have in unallocated usable reserves now compared to a few years ago? Because I know a lot of work's been done on building that up. So if you could pick up those two points, at which point, uh, I'm very pleased to welcome, uh, Nicky O'Connor, um, and, uh, also Rachel Wigley, um, who have been involved with these matters for a considerable number of years. Um, I'm looking at Nicola, I think 15 years plus. But anyway, um, if you would like to kick off and, uh, give us an update from your perspective. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Yes, uh, so for those of you that don't know me, uh, Nicky O'Connor, strategic finance business partner for corporate finance. Uh, yeah, I've worked in finance at the council for beyond 20 years, actually, although I'm not always involved in budget settings. So thank you, thanks for that. Um, so in the interest of time, I'll just pull out the high level, um, revenue and capital for corporate positions. So the key messages in relation to that. And between myself and Rachel, we'll pick up both of those questions. Thank you, Chair. Um, so overall, the revenue budget envelope for 2526 is it is anticipated to increase by 34 million pounds to a total of just over 1.2 billion. So that's the increase from current financial year to next financial year. That is based on a huge amount of estimates at the moment in terms of our funding position, as Councillor Lewis alluded to. It includes a 2.99% council tax increase, um, and essentially a rollover of grant funding from this year to next. Um, so the policy statement issued by government last week did confirm that we can put council tax up to 5%, so up to 3% for core council tax, an additional 2% adult social care precept. Um, but the budget at the end of October from government and indeed the policy statement last week did give us an indication of what our funding would be for next year. It confirmed that 5%, um, and it gave, it indicated new funding sources nationally, including increases in social care, um, grants. However, what it didn't do and what we won't see until much later this month in the local government finance settlement is give specific allocations for specific councils. And there really is a huge range depending on what allocation methods and what formulas are used by the government to calculate those. Um, the policy statement last week did give a strong indication that government are saying for new funding sources, those allocation methods will be very targeted. They will be looking at areas of deprivation. They haven't suggested how they're measuring deprivation at this stage. They have also said that they will be taking into account council's ability to raise income through council tax. So, uh, as the chair has said, 76% of our current budget is raised through council tax. We have one of the highest tax bases in the country, which means when government formulas are equalized to account for the ability to raise council tax, our share of that allocation decreases. Um, so there is still quite a lot of uncertainty about how much of those new funding sources we will receive as a council. And it will very much depend on that equalization and the formulas used. Um, having said that, we are expecting an increase in the overall budget as, as I said, of 34 million. Offsetting that are pressures that have been identified across the organization of 108 million at the draft budget stage. And that would require therefore 74 million of efficiencies to be identified in order to reach that balanced budget position that we must. Um, at the draft budget stage, we've identified 57 million of those. And that leaves the, the gap of 17 million that we're talking about that draft budget. Um, so just moving very quickly onto capital, as part of the work to develop the 2025-26 budget, and indeed the medium term financial strategy to 29-30, we have, uh, reviewed the capital program. Obviously the capital program impacts directly on our revenue budget position. Um, you will all know the cost of construction has increased significantly over recent years. And successive interest rate rises has also increased the cost of borrowing. So we have seen interest rate reduction recently. And we are forecasting interest rate reductions through the next 12 months. But certainly not as steeply as they have risen over recent years. So overall the cost of capital has increased significantly. And that has mean that we've, meant that we've carried out a line-by-line review of the capital program. Looking at all schemes, particularly focusing on those requiring borrowing as a funding source. To ensure that the capital program is affordable in terms of the revenue impact of borrowing costs on the revenue budget. But also that it's deliverable and proportionate to our, to the overall size of the authority. I'll hand over to Rachel at that point. Thanks Nicky. Uh, good morning committee. Um, I'm Rachel Wigley. I'm Director of Finance, Insight and Performance. I was just working out my, uh, length of, uh, tenure in, uh, local government. And it's 35 years and counting. So, um, so yes, I, I'm, uh, I'm fully aware of, uh, the, um, the, um, the importance of, uh, select committees. And scrutiny of the budget. Um, so we, we've talked about the, the budget gap of 17.4 million. Um, and Councillor Lewis explained that there were different options that we could look at to close that budget gap. So one of the things, uh, that Nicky's talked about is the additional government funding that we may see, uh, within the provisional local government settlement. But there certainly isn't any, um, detail or certainty on that detail until we get that settlement. Um, and we're expecting around the 19th of December. So it's probably as late as it possibly could be. Um, but nevertheless, we will, uh, we'll, uh, look at what that means for us, uh, over next year and into the medium term. Uh, one of the other options that we are continuing to look at is to reduce, um, our pressures and increase our efficiencies wherever we can. And officers are continuing to work on that and will do so until we, uh, we write the final committee, uh, cabinet paper for the budget, uh, in next year. Once we know about the, the local government settlement. Um, Councillor Lewis mentioned, uh, the use of reserves and obviously we'll continue to look at those. So they're currently, the usable reserves are around 140 million. So that's 12% of our net revenue budget. Um, we, you, you're quite right. We had depleted reserves, um, um, and 20 by 2018. And we've worked really hard to increase those reserves, um, to weather the storms, uh, of difficult financial situation. Um, and we would not recommend using reserves for ongoing expenditure to only use them for one off expenditure. And then the, the other, uh, option that Councillor Lewis also, uh, also mentioned was, um, a potential increase in council tax. So within the, uh, draft budget, we have assumed 2.99%, uh, but we, uh, we could consider the additional 2% adult social care precept. And obviously that will, uh, that will be a decision of cabinet and full council next year. Um, and just a reminder, every 1%, um, um, equates to around 9 million pounds in income. Um, so they're the options to close the budget gap that we could look at. Um, if we turn to the medium term, there's, I think it's pretty obvious that there's significant, uh, uncertainty going into the medium term. Um, we've had many years of single settlements, single year settlements, um, government, um, have committed to, um, multi-year settlements going forward. Not for five, six, but from six, seven onwards. Um, and that will hopefully enable us to have, uh, a bit more certainty about our planning situation. Um, we've also mentioned fair funding and what that might mean. And so for now we have assumed flat income, um, going forward. But obviously, uh, that, that needs to be worked, worked through once we know any further details. We're not expecting, um, any changes to, to the fair funding reform before 26, 27. So in putting together the medium term, uh, financial strategy, we've obviously looked at our pressures. We've looked at funding and we've looked at where we, uh, can consider efficiencies. And at the moment we've got, um, 193 million pound medium term financial gap. So that's around 16% of our net budget by 29, 30. Now, obviously we focus heavily on 25, 26 because we have to, we have to set a balanced budget. Um, and we'll continue to iterate over the next few years as, as we go through. And we know more from, uh, from the local government settlements. Um, as we move forward and certainly from fair funding reform. Um, and just finally to, just to reiterate that, um, reserves have reached that sustainable level. Um, and we're not recommending that we use those on an ongoing basis. Thank you. Okay. Uh, thank you very much. Could I just ask if there are any, uh, other cabinet members who are here? Who wanted to make any other comments before we move on to, um, questions and comments? No? Okay. That's fine. Um, I will, um, kick off in that case. Um, because there is a large proportion of, um, EIG spending is on multi, large multi-year contracts. Um, can any more be done, do you think, to drive down the cost of those contracts, um, to at least ensure best value from them through effective, uh, contract management? Who would like to, um, take on that one? Sorry. Sorry. Oh, sorry. Uh, Lucy, um, money. Thank you. Online. Thank you, Chairman. So, um, other colleagues may want to add to, to some comments here, but I suppose just to remind, um, the committee that most of those contracts have actually been competitively tendered in recent years. Um, so we have done a great deal of evaluation to get to where we are, and then there's very much an ongoing, um, review throughout the life cycle, depending on how the different contracts are set up. So we do have the opportunity, um, to test the prices and the payment mechanisms as we go. Um, also I'd point out that, um, in recent years, we've put a greater emphasis on, um, translating value into, um, added social value, uh, reducing carbon costs and delivering continuous improvements. So lots of that is already locked into the contract model. So that gives us that ongoing opportunity to ensure we are getting best value, but, or, um, a best value might not just be cashable savings. I suppose is the point I'd want to make there. Um, lots of the costs that we, we include in our contracts, obviously is determined by, um, our own policy decisions on how often we'll do something or what our maintenance levels might be, for example, in highways. So we do have a responsibility ourselves, I suppose, to go back and check that our policies, what we're asking the contractor to deliver is appropriate. And whether there are other opportunities in there to reduce that or to use different technology, which, uh, enables it to be delivered in a different way and, um, recover, you know, cashable savings or other benefits, if you like. So an example, perhaps in highways, um, we're doing a lot on, um, collecting information about, uh, lining at the moment so that if we, uh, carrying on doing extra lining, we're only doing lining where we need to do it. For example, another example would be on the street lighting contract where, um, that's a PFI as many of you know, but we've actually saved quite significant sums through looking at part night lighting policies, um, and converting the lanterns to LED. So I think those are just a flavour of things that are happening all the time, um, on those longer term contracts, which, you know, there are mechanisms in there to drive it down. Other aspects like benchmarking obviously will continue. So, um, we've been doing some of that recently comparing our, our prices against other contracts, but it's, it's very dependent on the specification. I.e. what we as an authority are asking the contracts to deliver. So we do have to come back ourselves and, and be part of that challenge. Uh, thank you, Lucy. Uh, Simon Crowther also wanted to comment. Thank you. Yes. I mean, I agree with everything that Lucy has shared so far, just two other smaller points, one of which is, um, building on the point about, um, commercial contract management. We do have some internal governance now, which is looking at, uh, engaging much more so with our procurement colleagues post procurement. So we, we have that formalised and we'll be making sure that the levers that we have will be utilised against our, our supply chain. And then the second point is we do have the flexibility in these contracts to dial down the costs when we dial down the scope. So certainly in the land and property, um, space, we have the flexibilities and the contract arrangements to reduce scope, whether it's because we're reducing the number of assets or just dial down things should be needed. So we have those flexibilities as well. Thank you. Uh, thanks very much indeed. Um, I know have a couple, uh, sorry, David, uh, want you to come back on that. Just very briefly, Chair, just to, uh, to, to, to, to what Lucy and Simon had said. I mean, procurement is part of my portfolio. And, you know, I think we've reported, um, in the past about the new procurement act and, and, and the changes which will be coming into force as a result of that. That will increase the whole transparency around the procurement process. Um, so I think, you know, from a procurement point of view, that should be beneficial. And then in terms of the contract management, um, you know, we, we are focusing much more on, on, on, on, on contract management in terms of trying to drive the value. from, from, from, from the, uh, the contracts that we have. And, and also there's a lot of work. Denise is also involved in, in terms of sort of getting the, the, the full social value, uh, out of the contracts as well. Uh, which I think is an area where we haven't probably, um, benefited as much as we, we, we, we should have done. So there's work going on in that space as well. So just to say that things are changing, hopefully for the better, um, you know, as we go forward. Yeah. Absolutely. Because getting value for money is always a top concern for everything. Uh, Denise. Thank you. And if I could just add to that, we're recognizing the needs within our sort of voluntary sector and our ability to be able to distribute that social value. So we've got a social value marketplace and there's a lot of untapped resource that we're realizing currently, which will be made available through a, through a elevated platform. So we're trying to be as, as smart as we can with the opportunities that we have within our gift as, as a, as a major commissioner. Thank you. Can you put social value marketplace into plain English? Yeah. Apologies, chairman. So this is something we've been talking about for some time. So there's a platform that Surrey County Council have, which is populated by, um, services contracts. So there will be an offer of, uh, equipment or it could be time or it could be, um, services, resources, support. Um, but it's been quite discreet. So we've recognized, we've done a full evaluation of all of our, um, contracts and all of those social value commitments. Um, some of which have been, I mean, the highways particularly, they've been very active in making sure that those apprenticeships are available on the training and support equipment has been given to the voluntary sector. But actually, I don't think the visibility has been there with, within the county. So we're currently reviewing that. That's been refreshed and, um, that will be, and there'll be a lot of comms around it. So, so, so voluntary sector groups and, and local organizations will be able to benefit from, as I say, the rich, um, pool of resources that we have available. Maybe it needs rebranding, Chairman. Thank you. Plain English is always good. Um, I know that we have a number of questions from councillors. Um, so if I could firstly call on Richard Teer. Thank you, Chair. Um, top of page 32. Uh, there are pressures of 14.5 million identified, 25, 26. Well, what is the risk that these could be significantly higher, uh, than anticipated? And if there is a risk where those risk areas, please. Anybody? Anybody? Yes, Simon online. Thank you. Um, so, I think as we kind of touched on before and, uh, to date actually, um, a lot, a lot of our spend is within contracts. Um, so clearly there may be some contractualized terms in there about what the uplifts will be. So that would contribute to the pressures as well as our staffing costs. Um, we're also, um, doing more work in the environment in terms of virtual maintenance, visual improvements. Uh, so, so really it's, it's primarily, uh, scope changes, inflation embedded in contract terms. Staffing costs will be, uh, putting the pressures on our spend for next year. Um, but clearly we're working kind of intensively to mitigate those as best we can. Um, I don't know if Lucy wants to comment on things like, uh, fair highways pressures and concessionary fares. Thank you. Yeah, I'm happy to come in there. Um, one of the big pressures that we've, that's, that's covered in the report is the, um, five million pounds. So, um, that is manageable in terms of we, you know, we deliver to, to that value. One of the, the areas potentially at risk, I suppose, is the concessionary fares reimbursements. So we are applying a, um, a government and a DFT calculator. Um, and so that sort of sets our approach if you like. Um, but we are finding at the moment is, um, positively more people are using the bus. So, um, that's really encouraging, but that obviously means there's more reimbursements to be made on, on the fares. So that, um, so that's a risk, I suppose. So we're, so we're estimating, uh, in terms of what we're anticipating based on recent trends. So the risk is low, I suppose. But there is a difference, I suppose, in those, in those, um, pressures where we can, uh, cut our cloth to suit, um, what we're expecting. And where we are, some of those aspects are more outside of our control, but we will monitor as we go along, obviously, and report those pressures if they change throughout the year and seek to offset them. Thank you. And just on that, can you just update us on the latest concerning the bus fare cap? As we've raised the issue of buses. Is there a latest on that? Thank you. Sorry. Okay. Yeah. So the, the cap, the cap is changing from two pounds to three pounds, as we know. Um, and, um, beyond that, um, that, that will roll out next year. I think it's, it's next year. So, um, that, that's the change. So there's some, there's some impacts there for people, obviously, because where we have the two pounds, obviously more unattractive fare than three pounds. So we're looking at the moment, uh, working with operators to understand how we might publicize that and whether there are greater opportunities for residents to, uh, buy different types of fares rather than, uh, continue to use the bus using the fare cap. So that's a bit of work that's ongoing at the moment, really not, not entirely sure of the, uh, all of the details as yet. Well, perhaps we could not for the budget discussion, but for a future meeting of this committee, have an update on that because clearly a 50% increase for residents in the, uh, the bus fare, um, is significant. Um, and I don't know, not for answer now, but whether there are any implications at all for council, um, finances, um, within that subject. Don't expect, oh, David, if there is an answer now, even better. No, I wasn't going to answer that yet. Um, it was really just to talk about the pressures and, and, and, and to say that, uh, you know, we assume when we put the budget together a level of inflation, both in terms of sort of general inflation and, and, uh, staff, uh, employment, you know, costs, inflation, and then look at specific, uh, parts of the organization if, if there's specific inflationary pressures. But, of course, you know, we've got things like the national insurance, uh, rises and, and, and, and changes to the, uh, uh, national minimum wage. Um, and, and, and these will be feeding through, um, and, uh, you know, hopefully the, the assumptions we've made about inflation overall will, will cover those. But, you know, there's undoubtedly a risk, you know, particularly where we're talking about contractors. Um, I don't know whether Lucy or Simon want to comment on that, but, uh, there is a risk that, uh, you know, I think that, you know, some of those costs, some of those costs get, get, get, get passed through to us because, you know, they're real. And it's, it's, it's a result of, you know, the government decision to, to, to make these changes. Well, I'll come back to Richard, I think, because I, I, I, I think we simply say, Richard, are there any further comments or questions that you have, um, from your question? I think, uh, we all recognize that inflation and, and wage rises are going to be, uh, a big part of, of the pressure that we're going to get. Um, uh, and they'll feed through, as you say, uh, over time and nobody knows what the, the, the bottom line effect will be. I'm, what we're hearing anecdotally on the street is that people, uh, are shedding staff everywhere. Uh, and I think our contractors will probably look to do that too. So it'll, there'll be some balance, there'll be some mitigation there, won't there? Thank you, Chair. Uh, thank you, Richard. Uh, and our next question is from Catherine Bart. So, Catherine, would you like to, um, put your question and any other comments that you have? Thank you. Um, just, just picking up on the, sorry, the bus cap. If the bus cap goes up, does our, does our levels of reimbursement go down? Does it work like that? Just, just to clarify. Uh, Matt. No, so with the bus cap, it is, um, it's, it's a national policy. So the operators have to sign up to the scheme. Uh, they are reimbursed, uh, by the government, by the DFT effectively. Um, the interesting thing will be to see whether all the operators that are currently opted in remain in, or they use this as an opportunity to, uh, start having more flexible pricing. Out of our 22 operators, about half are in the scheme. Um, the other half aren't. We're doing, still trying to encourage them to join the scheme because it's better to have a flat fare for everyone. Um, just on your point on costs, Chair, the, the only ones we can see would be around our half price link card, uh, because we give a half price fare. So as it's going up to three pounds, it will be one pound 50 rather than one pound. Uh, but we'll manage that within our budgets, um, because it has a very good take up, and it's great for 21 of our lunders. Thank you. Um, so my question is, um, uh, we, we're, we're quoting 2.6 million of efficiencies, uh, set out in the draft budget. And, uh, efficiencies suggest that it's a way of doing the same work better. But obviously efficiencies also covers just stopping doing stuff that we've done this year, we won't be doing next year. Um, so my first question is, is, is that correct? The second question is, where does the balance between, uh, where have we got to now with the balance between doing the same stuff but more cleverly, more, more efficiently, and, um, just stopping doing things that we have previously done? Where are we now on the efficiencies, uh, in the draft budget? Thanks. Right, we've got, um, two takers, Lucy and Simon again. Um, yeah, it probably needs more than me to answer this, given the span of services we're talking about here. Um, in the, in the efficiencies in, um, the highways and transport area, um, in terms of what we've delivered so far, many of our efficiencies in recent years have been about, um, increasing surplus to offset other spend, I suppose. So, um, that, that continues to be, um, an ongoing element of the efficiencies we've got in the, in the budget. Um, so I guess we are continuing to deliver those, so it's not necessarily about, um, reducing services, if you like, in the same way that, um, may be the case for other services. Um, we've got some, uh, in terms of the confidence, we've got some of those are sort of secure already in terms of that transfer of the, um, 5.3 million, um, which is a fixed amount. So that makes it, um, much, much more doable than obviously an ongoing saving, which will need to be, um, planned through. So at the moment we're working, um, on our detailed plans to do the efficiencies. So, um, there's going to be a bit more rigor around how we're going to achieve that and what are they going to look like. So that, that's a piece of work ongoing at the moment. But as I said, in the highways and transport area, much of the savings we've been achieving have been about, um, recovering costs through things like parking inflation or the moving traffic violations rather than cutting budget, uh, activities necessarily. Okay. Thank you, Lucy. Uh, Simon. Thank you, Chair. And apologies. I've got a problem with my laptop. I can't put the camera on. Um, so just starting to, to Lucy's, uh, points and, and Councillor Bart's question. Um, again, back to our, a lot of our spend goes through our contracts. So as Lucy implied, you know, we can generate efficiencies by being more innovative. You know, back to the question about, oh, can we still deliver the same things with less money? Yes, we can through innovation in our contracts and in our supply chain, for example. Um, but it's also right that in order to try and hit our target, sometimes we have to either stop, pause, uh, or slow down some of the activities that we are, um, undertaking, uh, in order to hit the revenue targets that we face. So, so sometimes, yes, there will be some scope changes, uh, that may stop certain things. Otherwise it may be things that are paused or slowed down in order to hit our revenue targets. Um, and I think in terms of the balance, I think the vast majority of work will continue, but some things may continue at a slightly slower pace. Okay. Thanks very much. Thank you. Um, next question I have is from Councillor Lance Spencer. Uh, thank you. It's sort of follow on question from the previous one. So in the greener futures spending, it's intended to find, uh, uh, 0.5 million of efficiencies. Um, and I also understand that the, um, capital budget for solar investment, which is related to these efficiencies, it's been reduced to zero. Um, what impact will this have on the Council's ability to make its 2030 net zero goals and also the 2050 goals, if it makes any difference at all? Yes, Councillor Marissa. Thanks. Um, I mean, the efficiencies have come from the climate change team. Um, we can continue some of the work in partnership with the Southeast net zero hub, but I have put a question mark around this because I think we need to be sure about the impact, which is why I've asked to bring forward the 26 plan to start work on it now. So we can be very sure of that. The main issue is, you know, very well because you've raised it yourself is investment and funding from national government coming down as well to help us carry forward these projects. So I've asked for a deep analysis of that as well so that we can be very clear on where there may be potential gaps and what we need to do around that in terms of asking government for more investment. Um, the team, as you know, is very capable and one of our big objectives has been to find more partnerships and to work with private investment as well. Hence the point of the Greener Futures Board that looks to leverage additional resource and funding and the work that we've done in the Center for Sustainability bringing them in as a partner of the Greener Futures Board. So we're looking at a range of measures at the moment to ensure that we can come back next spring and say to you, this is where we are in terms of reaching the goals. Um, we know they exist and that, you know, they're set goals. We've got to find a way of reaching them. So that's what we're doing. But like everyone, we've had to take our, um, our hit on the budget and pay our share in this. And this is where we felt it's best place to do it in order for us to carry on with our program. Shall we come back on that, Lance? I do. I mean, in reality, uh, half a million pound of efficiency is in this team and it's a very small team anyway. So you're reducing the staff by 30% in that area, which is must have an impact. Otherwise, why would they start with? And this is a newish team because it's all been created, created in the last few years. Um, solar investment in my mind is one of the few areas that the council can invest in and get a return on because once it's in, it just generates funds. Um, so I'm surprised we've cut back on the capital budget for that in the medium term. Um, the combinator, the, the, the solar piece was a key component of, uh, sorry, County Council's net zero target 2030. Um, so my view is if you remove that from the plan, you're not going to be able to achieve the 2030 targets at all. Um, now I know that it's going, you're putting a new plan together next year. Um, but by the time you've done that, the staff will have gone, the capital investment's gone or you've taken out the budget. So even if the plan then says it can't be done, um, you know, how are you going to recover that situation? I mean, solar takes a long term, it's a long term investment, 20 to 30 years on return. So it's not that easy to invest and get the return in, but also don't forget, we're looking at different mechanisms around solar on land, solar on different buildings and things working with private sector as well to look at how we can do that in the partnerships I mentioned. So we haven't just been solar, but in a stretch of the imagination, it's a known tested and efficient, um, way to reduce our carbon and change our energy. So there's no change in direction in that. I mean, obviously all members of our team are valuable, but we still think we've got the strength within the team to carry on with the work we're doing. A lot of it was upfront work in delivering our strategy in the first place and setting out the different partners we were working with where we thought we've got some confidence. As I've said, the climate change commission center of sustainability and all these other organizations that are bringing in their expertise are absolutely invaluable and they want to be part of this. And this is a piece of work that Surrey County Council can't do alone. We've always been very clear about that. So we have put extra resource and time into doing that. And I think we've created a foundation. I'm not going to sit here and say there aren't risks. You know, there are risks, you know, you've identified them. I know there are as well. And I've been also very frank that we have been looking at what good quality offsetting looks like as well, because there are some elements that I am nervous about meeting. But the point of the plan next year is to really identify that and challenge the team and Surrey County Council as to what we're going to do about that. And I don't necessarily think the changes we're making now will adversely impact the consideration we're moving on there. I think the climate change agenda is constantly evolving and changing and we need new different skills and expertise brought into it. As you know, we've brought in five ecologists into our countryside team because natural capital is also a really important part of the net zero journey and the environmental journey. So we have invested as well. Caroline McKenzie, do you have any comments you'd like to add? Yes, just to add to that, that the roles that have been taken out that give the savings at the minute are primarily focused on our 2050 agenda and they're very specialist roles. And the fact that we had a green finance officer, we had a technical specialist looking at planning or we have and also someone looking at the data around low carbon infrastructure in generally across Surrey and in place. So they're quite technical posts. And what we're doing is, as Marisa said, we are linking up with the net zero hub, but also with various other bodies such as the LGA and collaborations with other local authorities to be able to get that technical expertise jointly between us so we can still have some impact there. And in addition, with regards to the solar, primarily related to that ground mounted solar where we've had issues around connection to the grid. And so the feasibility or the possibility of getting those projects in and delivered before 2030 is at the moment unlikely and will be, but we'll still be pursuing and looking at feasibility around that ground mounted solar. And the additional, we still have a portion of the budget around rooftop solar as well. So that's still within the budget. And just to clarify, the 2030 team and looking at our net zero for our own organisation is still the same as it was and has not been cut. So it's mainly spend related to the 2050 programme, which will be looking to work more in partnership with others to deliver. Thank you very much, Carolyn. I've got three councillors who'd like to comment. First of all, Andy McLeod. Thanks, Jeremy. I attended the meeting of the Greener Future reference group on Monday, which Lance now chairs, and I've been involved with this group for several years now, actually. And I'll say the background to the comments I'm going to make. I think we've got a good team of officers working in this and they've made quite a lot of progress and they're still trying to do that. But as Lance said at the meeting, they've had to focus up to now in the easier to do things that really get the greatest return. We're now heading into the really difficult things to do and we're faced now with this cutback in capital funding, which apparently means that we won't have funds to do feasibility projects and future projects unless we bid for them, which actually involves taking some of the resources to do that. One of the other things we learned is that if we don't achieve our government targets, we will face penalties and the team weren't able to tell us what the scale of these would be. I just wonder if the finance team, in working out the impact of all that's happening here, if they've looked at what the penalties are and if they can give us some idea of what the scale of these penalties would be. Because that would obviously offset some of the savings. Thank you, Joan. So we have no mandatory duty to meet net zero from national government. They haven't given us that power. We've actually asked for it. We've stood up and said, give it to us. It will give us more clout to be able to move forward with this work, but they haven't done. And so the penalties are on us because we as a council, us as elected members voted for net zero by 2030. And so we have to stick to that commitment unless we want to go back into the council and change it. And I think the evidence is quite clear. Residents don't want us to do that when you look at the polling. So we are considering ourselves what we need to do to pay back for carbon that we don't necessarily save if we don't meet net zero by 2030. And that's the point I made around quality offsetting. So if we we're starting to tease that out and in the planning we're doing next year, we're going to be very clear and kind of say these are the really big risks. These are the problems now. And if we don't get the investment from national government or we don't put the resource in as an authority, this is what we'd have to do in terms of offsetting. And we want to do good offsetting. Now, a lot of other people are going to be in this situation as well. So the market for offsetting will probably go up. And we want offsetting to be within Surrey, where it makes a difference to residents. And I don't mean to sound defeatist in this. I'd love us to get to 2030 without any offsetting. But that's the reality that we plan to map out over the next six months. Thank you. Thank you. Stephen Cooksey. Stephen, hello. Yes, thank you, Chairman. And I think my question follows on from the two previous questions in that at the Green of Futures meeting, that was the first time we'd actually seen the detail of what was being proposed. And I think it came as quite a surprise to us. So the question really is on communication. We've heard quite a lot about changes in capital funding. How far have local members been consulted about changes in capital funding that affect their divisions? Has that happened? Have we had discussions between the county and districts and boroughs where there are efficiencies being proposed? For example, just one at random, the recycling support payments. Have they been discussed and agreed with the district and boroughs? Or is that something that still has to be arranged? Yes. Yes. We have a group called the Surrey Environment Partnership where all of these things are discussed. It includes all the district and boroughs. So, yes, it has been discussed there. We also have the Green of Futures Partnership Board group, whatever we call it, which is where all the districts and boroughs key officers and key lead members come. There's always been an issue of communication, of things not being filtered down. We can take some responsibility for that, but it's also the responsibility of the district and boroughs who then don't cascade it through their leadership and through their teams as well. So we all need to improve that communication. In terms of capital in people's divisions, I'm not quite sure. I might need clarification on that, Chairman, because we're talking specifically here about are members of our team going in sailor projects. So I don't think that's relevant to individual members, but perhaps you can clarify that if I've missed the point. I might have done. I think the question on the capital program was a much more general one. Not necessarily for me. Okay. I don't know if someone else wants to step in then. Chair, could I? Sorry, you're sorry, Simon, your hand has been going up and down for a little while. Do you want to come in on this one? Well, so I had I had two other points. Thank you. I can perhaps touch on the capital point. Thank you. So if I can just go back to the point about, you know, the risk of what we've been talking about, things like feasibility studies, I mean, the team has been successful in raising quite a lot of grant monies to date. So I don't see that that should be prohibited through this. You know, we're much better writing business cases and being successful in raising funding. So I think we should continue to pursue that. The other point I'd quite like to make, please, is it's not just incumbent on the Greener Futures team to kind of deliver the 2030 targets. We've been very good at working across the authority now and establishing a net zero culture and mindset and working a lot with throughout our through procurement again. And bearing in mind how much of our services are delivered by our supply chain is to be thinking about social value and sustainability and the impact on climate change. So it's very much a cross authority theme in my mind. And then it just I mean, by way of example, I can't answer the question whether we've consulted with all our respective members on our capital allocation apologies. But but our capital programs certainly in LMP are are developed by theme, whether it's schools or adults and things like that. So we may, I suspect, been remiss in not updating councillors and where any particular project capital allocation may be. But we've certainly been working hard, I think, to try and keep members up to date on projects in specific areas. Thank you. Thank you, David Lewis. Thank you. I just wanted to make the point about consultation. I mean, as I said in my opening comments, you know, we were talking about both the revenue and capital budget, you know, and it's at a draft stage. And, you know, I indicated that there are various means by which we are consulting on the proposals in those draft budgets, both revenue and capital. You know, today's meeting was part of that process. We're also seeking, as I said, input from residents and other organisations. So the consultation process is underway. It's not complete. You know, the revised capital budget and the new revenue budgets haven't been formalised yet. That won't happen until the beginning of February. So there are opportunities to input views and comments. And if you think the priorities are wrong, now's the time to make those points. We're consulting, you know, as we speak. One point that arises from that is a question. Would it be possible for all divisional members to be advised if there is an item within the capital budget that is being considered that affects specifically their division? I think that was the essence of the question. I'm not expecting an answer now, but perhaps we can just pick that point up. Is that okay? In which case, back to Catherine. I think you had a comment on this. I do. Thank you. Firstly, a few questions. The first question is, in the Greener Futures team, there have been staff cuts and there are more staff cuts coming. So you said that the 2030 target, the 2030 team remains the same. Can you tell us that, therefore, none of the work towards the 2030 target is paused or has been slowed down? That's my understanding, but Carolyn, do you want to come in on that one? No, not at the moment. We are still delivering on our net zero, our public sector decarbonisation fund projects that we've got in place. The programme hasn't gone as quick as we would like for a number of different reasons, but it's certainly not been paused purposely. Thank you. And I know that that's not at the moment, but with the proposed cuts in the draft budget, do you see activity on the 2030 team next year having to be paused or slowed down because of the reduced numbers of staff proposed? No, not because of the reduced numbers of staff, no, because we look at capitalising our staff against the work we do on the estates. So it's all capitalised, which is one reason why we've been able to protect that staffing allocation. So I don't think that will be the case due to a lack of staff. And it's the same question for the 2050 target. Do you, with the proposed cuts to the Greener Futures team, do you see the work towards the 2050 target next year being paused or slowed down as a result of the cuts to the Greener Futures team? I think we'll have to be very smart about how we prioritise what we focus on and how we partner up with other organisations because they're obviously with losing four members of staff, that's less hands to do the work. But this is then about how do we work smarter. So, for example, the green finance role that we had in, there are a number of organisations that are looking at green finance and how to scale up finance in infrastructure. So we'll be looking to partner up with them to see how we can share their expertise. So I recognise your concern on that because it is areas around the planning side, around incorporating net zero into infrastructure, you know, how we do that and how we finance it all. But as we go through the resetting of the net zero 2030 and 2050 plans, we will look at where there could be potential risks and how we could mitigate those risks. Thank you. Thank you. Well, thank you to Lance for that question, which was a relatively short question, but we've had a lot of discussion on it with six speakers. I'd like to try and move on now. One quick one, Catherine. We are proposing, so my question is, would you agree that there is more value in supporting green futures team with 500,000 pounds than, sorry, that we could use the 500,000 pounds that we are cutting from the green futures team. We could pay that from the five million pounds extra that we are putting into weed control, grass maintenance, et cetera. And that in terms of value for money, investing in the future in our carbon net carbon targets is more value for money for residents than more weed control next year. I think both of the, yeah, I was going to say that, both of the cabinet members and all of the cabinet members have heard that point. I don't know that it's a matter that they will be able to answer today because it's an old chestnut. Every year cabinet has to balance what he said, but you've made the point, Catherine. There's a question though, do you, do you, do you, do you, do you, do you value for money, you know, what do you mean? Okay. I think that if government's so intent on meeting its net zero goals, they need to fund us and change the legislation so we can have someone working on planning all day long and someone working on solar until we get the grid connection, until we get the national planning regulations setting out what's required. We're only ever going to be able to move a certain distance. So I prefer my team now to focus on lobbying hard at government and saying, if you're so intent on meeting these goals, which I support, then you need to show us the money. And then if they give us more money, we'll be able to do the things that we really want to do and the ambition we've got. We're trying to balance the needs of residents and the demands that they've got wanting tidy streets as well as, you know, looking after our environment. It's a difficult balancing act, but our focus will be going very much on how we figure out the plan next year to get us to reach the next area. And we've got the resource to do that. And I think the team is thoroughly capable of doing that. And I think the discussion needs to be had when we've come up with that better plan. We've moved on since 2021 when we set this plan. So, you know, I look forward to the conversation then about what resource we need. Okay. The next question is also from Catherine Bach concerning budgets for road safety outside schools. The question which has disappeared under coffee at the moment. Oh, it really does. Oh, thank you. Thank you very much. So the question was in 2022, we announced a million pounds a year over three years to clear the backlog of recommended safety improvements. Outside about 49 schools outside Surrey. And since then, more schools have been assessed. There's 44 more schools with recommended safety improvements, and we're going to assess more schools in 2024, 25. So my question is, will funding be budgeted to avoid another backlog developing in the safety improvements that our officers have recommended outside schools in Surrey? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Matt. Thank you, Chair. Simple answer, yes. Oh, okay. We are looking to continue the program at a million pounds a year, so we can continue doing that. We are recycling some capital which hasn't been used, and continues into this instead. Thank you. I believe that Mark Sugden is with us online. Is that correct, Mark? That is correct. You have a question about spending on highways. I do indeed. Thank you very much, Chairman. Sorry I can't be with you today. I'm looking at the capital program 2526 over the medium term financial strategy. And firstly, I don't have the numbers for, I'm just looking at the highways capital total spend. I don't have the number for 2425. If someone has that, that would be a good comparator. But 2526 shows a total of 120.6 million pounds on highways, which in 2627 goes to 100 million. And thereafter, for the remaining three years, 2728 goes to in the order of 60 million. So, half in three years time to what it is now. How is that going to affect the maintenance and quality long term of our highways? Matt Ferris. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Tugson. So, as you know, we have been doing quite an enhanced amount of funding for a number of years now to bring our roads back into a good condition. We did quite a bit of modelling in 2023. And with the budget that is proposed going forward after 2627, we do believe that the amount that we have budgeted will allow us to remain at a steady state. We do have to caveat this, of course, because the modelling didn't take account for inflation, which has been quite sharply increased over the past few years. But we have modelled it over a 15-year period, and we do believe that budget would be sufficient. That's not to say that if I am still in this position in those years ahead, I won't be asking for additional funding to continue an enhanced programme. But we have seen a significant improvement to the roads. So we do feel that we can drop it down a little bit after those years. Mark, do you want to come back on that? Yeah, I'd just like to ask the Cabinet member. He used the word steady state from 2728 onwards. So we're talking about maintaining a level we have. We're not talking about improvements which may be needed. Is that correct? Correct. Correct. So what we will be doing is we will be continuing to maintain the roads at their state. So if a percentage of the A or B roads would remain in a steady state of 5%, a percentage of C and D roads improving condition would be 9% over a 15-year period. So actually it is a significant improvement. And we just have to take into account the fact that if we want to put more money into this area, where are we going to remove it from in other parts of the budget? Thank you. Thanks very much, Mark. And the next part of this budget discussion concerns community protection and emergencies. First of all, could I ask the Cabinet member, Kevin Deenas, if he'd like to make any introductory remarks, and also the Chief Fire Officer, Dan Quinn, who we welcome to the meeting as well. Thank you, Chair. And I won't have the limelight. For community protection, as I said in the slides, 90% of our gross budget is on operational personnel. And as you know, they're on national terms and conditions. So that gives us very little leeway. And we've obviously included provision for a 3% pay award. But again, that is a national agreed award. So anything over that will cause us a financial pressure. I think the information is... Admit it. Who didn't turn their phone off? I turned mine off after I'd reminded myself earlier. I think that should be cakes all round. The information is actually on the slides. I don't see the value in just repeating the information. I'm sure everybody's looked at it. I'm sure if there are questions, my able colleagues down the line will be able to go into any specific details. Thank you. Dan Quinn. Thank you, Chair. Nothing particularly to add to the information that's already presented on the slides. So, ready for questions. Wonders arise. You've referred, Kevin, to the fact that 90% of the gross budgets are staffing costs. And I've just wondered, are the staffing and the running costs of the Joint Fire Control Centre both likely to rise due to the inflationary pressures after 25-26? And do you expect those, either of you, to present a bigger challenge in future years? Yeah, I'll take the answer to that. So, just in case anybody's not aware, Joint Fire Control, we refer to as JFC, is a collaboration between Surrey, East and West Sussex Fire and Rescue Services, whereby we deliver call handling and dispatch services, which is a statutory duty on behalf of all three of the fire and rescue services. So, in short, yes, we are expecting staffing costs are likely to rise through inflationary pressures, but also for the earlier mentioned national pay settlement after 25-26. We naturally monitor those costs closely and continue to incorporate any projected sort of pay increases and inflation projections into our budget planning. So, given that, as you mentioned, the staffing costs account for about 90% of our gross budget, we do anticipate that these costs will present a larger challenge in future years. But we do make every effort to make sure that we address those effectively and that they don't affect the continued efficiency and effectiveness of the service. So, our collaboration with partners will constantly be reviewing its delivery and how we go about accommodating any pay increases. As already been mentioned, for 25-26, the pay inflation, we've applied 3%, and that's for staff on national terms and conditions of which Joint Fire Control staff are. And then that will be effective from July onwards, plus the full-year effect of the previous year's 4% award, which has also been factored in. We've then started to apply already a 2% increase for each subsequent year, taking into account both the full- and part-year effects. Thanks. Thanks. Thank you. Any other questions on Surrey Fire and Rescue aspects of this document? If not, the next section is dealing with customer digital and change, particularly regarding the registrations and coroner service. I'll ask Cabinet Member Denise Turner-Stewart to speak in a moment and also welcome Sarah from Coroner's and Registrations Service. The Registration Service customers to the meeting for any comments that you'd like to add. So, Denise. Thank you, Chairman. Kevin's actually responsible for the coroner's service, so he may wish to say some words. So, the Registration and Nationality Service is an income-generating service. It's a highly successful service. In 24-25, the income generation surplus is 1.7 million. That's down to fees and charges and ceremonies. Most of the costs are staffing costs. Those costs won't be attached to an anticipated additional 150,000 in income next year. So, that will be, hopefully, planned to be generated without increasing any costs. And we've just agreed a new operating model for the Registration and Nationality Service, bringing the service much closer to residents. We've currently got a number of individual facilities. We're going to be co-locating, optimising the use of Surrey County Council buildings. So, we're very close working arrangement with land and property to make sure that we're making the very best use of those assets. We've got officers here from the Your Fund Surrey team as well. So, just to mention, of the 42 million, we've allocated 19.3 million to date. You've got 8 million that's been allocated to individual members. So, we've still got 15.8 million to allocate to projects. So, we're very happy to see those applications still coming through. And to date, we've had 47 large projects funded and 317 small projects. And as I say, the officers are with us at the other end of the table. Thank you. Thank you. Kevin, my apologies. On the Coroner Service. No, I'll just add a few lines and I'm sure any questions there will be able to provide the details. So, just really talking about the Coroner's Budget. There are a number of issues which make it quite complex because we have special inquests which are out of our control and the costs are, to a greater extent, out of our control. I mean, this is a legal process, so we don't have choices in this. We are looking at providing digital post-mortems. I think that gives us lots of opportunities. We should be able to do approximately 70% of post-mortems digitally, which is obviously better for the family and for the deceased. It's got far more dignity. And that has the potential for some income generation in the future, although we're not sure what that income generation, how much it will be. So, there are risks, but we've also got some opportunities. So, it's about balancing them over the next few years. So, I'll leave it for questions. Sarah, is there anything you'd like to comment on at this stage? Nothing to answer. Very happy to take questions, Chair. Thank you. Thank you. The first question I have noticed from is from Councillor John Beckett. Thank you, Chair. Yes, as highlighted by the Cabinet Member, the Coroner's Service has significant non-staffing costs, procures services from limited providers and has highly specialised transports. Does this actually mean, then, that there are no efficiencies that can be safely implemented to reduce costs? Thank you for your question, Councillor Beckett. And as you've rightly identified, we operate in a very limited market for specialised services, including pathology and specialised transport. And while that undoubtedly creates challenges, it doesn't mean that we can't also look to find efficiencies and do that safely. We have very robust contract management processes in place, and we have an excellent understanding of the market that we operate in. So, we can identify opportunities in that way to deliver efficiencies. Just to give a practical example of that, we've recently changed our toxicology provider, and that will give us a saving of approximately £80,000 per year. So, again, that real understanding, that granular understanding of the market we operate in allows us to do that. As the Cabinet members said, we've also just recently received approval to proceed with the digital post-mortem service, and that's using CT scanning technology to undertake post-mortems. And the details of that can be found in the Cabinet report on the 26th of November. And this will provide us as a service further opportunities to look for efficiencies, we predict from year two onwards, because we'll be adapting our operating model to make best use of that technology. And just to add in terms of the position for 25-26, we've got plans in place to deliver £131,000 worth of efficiencies. And we've also, through in-year savings this year, reduced the pressure of £100,000 that we had against the budget. And we've been able to do that really through a mix of contract efficiencies, staffing efficiencies, and also, again, exploring digitisation through our referral process. So, really kind of streamlining and making our processes more efficient is allowing us to deliver some in-year savings. What that will do is make sure that we can keep our special inquest reserves, as Councillor Guinness mentioned, topped up, meaning that we don't have a pressure in future years. So, that's very much the strategy. So, short answer, yes, we will always look to find efficiencies, and particularly given this highly sensitive service area, do that safely. Richard's here. I think Denise has already rounded this up, property costs is something she said earlier, but it's quite a significant part of the cost of coroner's services, isn't it? And we provide a lot of them. So, is there anything that we can do to reduce costs here? I know we're our own landlord in many cases, but is there anything that could be done? Thank you, Councillor Tear. So, of the £31 million capital programme for customers digital and change, £2 million of that is portioned to the registration service, that's a self-funding capital programme. £1.2 million is to the coroners, which sits with Kevin. The remainder is the libraries and hubs programme, and again, we work very, very closely with land and property, every one of those, particularly the large investment projects in Weybridge, Zanes, Esher, and, sorry, Epsom, and Wharton and Woking, they've all been value engineered considerably. It was originally a £32 million programme, it's now about 26, because we were very keen to make sure that we made them as, you know, as best value as we possibly could. The two, Zanes and Weybridge hubs are due for delivery early next year. They are going to be significant community facilities, but every effort has been made to make sure that they deliver exceptional value. Thank you. Thank you, and I'll just say that as an individual whose family has recently had to use both the registration of death service and the coroner's service, how much I and my family appreciated the sympathetic and very kind way that the staff, Sarah, there dealt with all of our enquiries and matters, so please pass those thanks back. Thank you. The last section under the budget is to consider community functions, specifically adult wellbeing and health partnerships, and I'd ask the cabinet member, Mark Newtie, if he'd like to make some introductory comments on those. Thanks, Chair, and good morning, everyone. I think what I would just say is to champion the work that the communities team have been doing over the last few years. It sometimes goes under the radar of the work that they do, the CLOs, the LACs, because it's very integral to communities on the ground work, working with some of our deprived communities, feeding back, engaging, and that work is so important when we're looking at formulating strategy and looking at where our resources should be best used. So that work has been incredibly important. It's nationally recognised now, Surry County Council as one of the leaders in this field. Only two weeks ago I was speaking to Southwark Council and giving them advice and help on how they can start this process. So we are ahead of the game. I think it's fair to say that whenever the budget cycle comes around and you look and you have to look at efficiencies and you have to look at changes, it's never easy. And we have got a great team of people and that is going to have to change. So we will use that as a positive and we will flex and move with the changing environment that we're in. Obviously there's going to be potentially a lot of change in local government coming down the line over the next year to two years. And our communities teams will be very important in making sure that that change on the ground doesn't have a negative impact on our communities. Now we have at the moment one question and that's from Catherine Bart. Thank you. Just picking up on what's just been said, where do you see the main impact of the proposed changes and efficiencies falling? Obviously we have the priority objective to create empowered and thriving communities. Do you see the efficiencies and changes falling more heavily on one area than the other? Can you just give it a bit more detail, please? Thanks, Catherine. I think that's how we originally thought. It was like, oh, how are we going to deal with this? Because it will mean a reduction in some of the CLOs on the ground and various staff. So what we are looking at doing over the next year is to embed more flexibility in the way that we actually approach our engagements. Our engagements with our communities, something around place and communities officers which will be much more flexible and be able to cover bigger areas, almost firefighting where there are issues and going in. So we will look over the next 12 months to how we can flex and make that work. We've got funding for another 12 months. Obviously I'll be banging the drum very hard to keep that funding going in the future. And also it will enable us, as I said earlier, to flex with the changes coming down the line in government, be that total reform or not, or how that's going to work. So from a positive, I suppose we'll take that and we will change the way we operate and flex and hopefully be able to spread ourselves across the county in areas where we need to. It would always be lovely to have more money and more officers on the ground, but that's just not how it's going to be going forward. So there will be impact. We are very much looking forward to the challenge of making this a positive impact, not a negative impact. And I will be asking all councillors to advocate and to operate within their areas, as I know many of them do, and to feedback and engage with us on where issues are arising and the positive feedback that we get as well. So I think we all take some responsibility as elected members to operate within our communities. So I guess I'm going to be knocking on your doors a bit more as well to be that voice for your residents. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Mark. And we have had an hour and a half discussion on all of the various aspects of this committee's remit in terms of the budget for next year. I'll ask if we can put up some draft recommendations onto the screen so that we can all peruse those. And I will also ask that we add in the point made earlier about whether a report can be sent to all divisional councillors concerning changes to capital items that affect specifically in their divisions. Give us all a few moments. Do you want to just, when the screen can be moved down, for members just to read through all of those? Thank you, Mark. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. No, sorry. The, the… That's alright. Get the right one up on the screen. Okay. Technology marvelous sometimes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. While we're just sorting that out, Jan, did you want to comment? Jan, microphone. Thank you. So all the years I've been here, one of the threads which has gone through all of my council life here has been communication. So many times I've heard, we didn't know about that. Then I've been told at another meeting, oh, they've got the Riding for Disabled, it's in your division, they're getting something. But you see, I've never been told. And the result is that when I meet people, they're thinking, is she going to these meetings? Is she a real councillor? Because she's not telling us what we want to hear or what we should be hearing. So I know we're saying it now about communication, but I really think at some stage we have to say, stop, we want communication. I mean, we've got a communication team here. Many smaller councils don't have the benefit of many people on a communication team. But I believe we have it here. And I think we should be informing councillors, not in the deep, deep, deep, but perhaps highlighting the things that they should know about. And therefore, if residents ask them a question, they're able to answer. So that's my big concern over the years. Thank you very much. Thanks, Jan. Right, we've now got the draft recommendations up on the screen. And one that I mentioned earlier is being added to the bottom. So if we all have a few moments just to read through those. Yes, the Vice-Chair was just asking me if it's possible to re-order these. The biggest point of discussion this morning was on greener futures, and it's the last item. So can you make item five move that up the list to become item one? Basically, wasn't it? Yes, to switch them. So to reflect the discussion that we had earlier. Okay, that's done on the screen. Are there any comments from anyone? Councillor Lewis? Yes, thank you, Chair. I've got three comments. One relates to the wording. The original one was paragraph three, where it talks about capital expenditure habits. I don't think that's an appropriate use of the word habit. We have capital expenditure plans. And I think perhaps that would be more appropriate to use that terminology. I'd be quite happy to change habits to plans. That's a relatively minor point. Secondly, in terms of the recommendation about the... I mean, you're expressing concern about the deprioritization of the greener futures spend in the budget. I think to be responsible, if you want that to be prioritized, you need to indicate where you are happy for a further deprioritization to occur. You can't have one without the other, as we explained right at the beginning, we're operating within very tight financial constraints. And the final comment is around this recommendation about the capital program. I'm not certain that that's actually practical in terms of what's being asked, because in terms of the program, in many cases, it's an overarching sum of money that has been agreed for a program. And it's not necessarily, at this stage, detailed down into each individual, divisional levels. In some cases, it clearly is, if it relates to perhaps a specific school or something like that. But generally, I think that level of detail is not necessarily available at this stage. It will be for the directorates to work that out as a program is implemented. So I think you just need to be a bit careful about that recommendation in terms of the ability to actually deliver it. Thank you, David. I think we've said that we're quite happy to amend the word habits to plans. I don't think that's an issue. I don't agree with you with regard to the committee's responsibilities. We are giving you a comment. It's for the cabinet to then look at those comments, as is your role and responsibilities, to see if the item can be reconsidered for prioritization or not. I don't think we can here and now go into, again, as with the deep dives, the huge subdivisions of the budgets to make that suggestion. Are there any other comments from anybody? Sorry, Catherine. Yeah, could we add the word very concerned about the depriorization of the green future spend? I think it was a bit stronger than... Given that it was the largest item of discussion, I don't think that we're going to quibble about the word very being added. It makes the point and it reflects the discussion that the committee has had when this goes back to cabinet. Okay? Right. With those amendments, is everybody happy with that? Okay. Well, could I thank you very much, all of the speakers who have come for that item specifically. Can I suggest that we just take a five-minute break now to catch our breaths before the next item? Thank you. And the purpose is to receive a report by the Chief Fire Officer, which presents this plan for 25 to 30. Witnesses, again, welcome to Councillor Kevin Deenas and Dan Quinn, the Chief Fire Officer, but also in addition Sally Wilson, the Assistant Chief Fire Officer, and Lee Spencer-Smith, the Area Commander responsible for protection in the Community Risk Plan. I think everybody's here in person. Do we have any of your colleagues online? We have Sophie Whitfield online, who's a Senior Communications Officer. Okay. I'll ask Kevin and Dan if you'd like to make any comments in introduction. Thank you, Chair. I get the easy roll, and that's just to give a few comments of introduction. So our Executive Director and Chief Fire Officer, Dan Quinn, will be providing the committee with a brief introduction to the way in which our Fire and Rescue Service manages and deploys fire engines. Thank you to you, the Chair, for suggesting this. I'm hoping it helps members understand it. However, before this, I'd like to stress that the seven proposals are not the whole Community Risk Management Plan. They are the key changes proposed for the next Community Risk Management Plan 2025 to 2030 that required public consultation. What our Fire and Rescue Service actually deliver is much more. Preventing emergencies in the first place, protecting businesses, developing our staff members, and ensuring that they can bring their true and whole selves to work, embracing technology and equipment, and so much more. In addition, I'd like to reiterate that the Fire Standards Board, which is the board that oversees the development of professional standards for fire and rescue services, they define the desired outcomes of a Community Risk Management Plan as a fire and rescue service that assesses foreseeable community-related risks and uses this knowledge to decide how these risks will be mitigated. I truly believe that our Community Risk Management Plan for 2025 to 2030 does that. We've had external auditors, Nottingham Trent University, who are leaders in this field, and they've assured the approach and methodology for assessing community risk, confirming that Surrey Fire and Rescue Service has undertaken a robust process to develop the plan for Surrey. So, information and data provided as to why each of the proposals have been designed, and evidence as to what respondents said, and why Surrey Fire and Rescue Service are suggesting we take the proposals forward as set out in this draft plan. So, this service-wide strategy for the next five years aligns to our No One Left Behind vision. So much that is mentioned from the start on the front page and the Surrey Way embedded throughout the Community Risk Management Plan. I would strongly encourage this committee to provide county-level scrutiny on the final proposals contained in the Plan 2025 to 2030 to ensure a balance of fire and rescue cover for the County of Surrey. I will now hand over to Dan to talk through the plan. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Dan Quinn. And also, I would ask you if you can just cover the aspect of the fact that there are many, many towns and villages throughout Surrey that do not have their own local fire station, and explain how your resources are deployed and allocated to wherever they are needed when there is an emergency. Okay, so firstly, thank you, Chair, for advising and allowing us the opportunity to remind the committee of how Surrey Farm Rescue Service response services work. Surrey Farm Rescue Service is rightly dedicated to serving the entire County of Surrey and provides its response for services based on that principle. So, this approach ensures that all of the emergencies receive an appropriate response to the incidents based on risk, regardless of their location within the county. So, this county-wide coverage is crucial for effective emergency management as it allows for coordinated responses to incidents and ensures that no community is left vulnerable due to localised response resource limitations. So, to enable us to meet this risk and demand, we use a tool called the Dynamic Cover Tool. Now, ironically, during the Community Risk Management Plan consultation responses, which we'll be discussing, I'm sure, a respondent actually suggested that we should use this tool to aid our emergency response, and we do and we have done for many years. So, it's pleasing to see that recommendation. And what the tool allows us to do is to have a view of the current location and the availability of every fire engine and other resource in real time. It provides us with a live, whole-county picture of risk based on what is happening within Surrey and the incidents that have been experienced over a five-year period. So, we can move our resources to where they're most needed proactively. If we know there's an upcoming event, we can also do that in pre-planning. But equally, from a proactive lean nature, we can do that to react to incidents that are occurring at that moment. So, where the resources are best placed based on risk is where we would align to make sure we have the fastest and most appropriate response. So, this is why, when sometimes we talk about fire stations, we actually refer to them as being base locations, and that's essentially because that's where they start and finish their working day. The crew will also be, at all times, out in the local community doing community activity, business safety activities when they're not responding to incidents and or undertaking their risk-critical training, which is required all of the time. So, the fire engine serves Surrey. Our firefighters are Surrey firefighters, and we as a fire and rescue service must provide a service for a county, not for individual towns or villages, and our kit, such as a dynamic cover tool, allows us to do that. Thanks, Chair. Thanks both for those introductions, which I hope explains to anybody watching the basis of the Community Risk Management Plan and what it's all about. I have a number of questions that I've had notice of. First of all, from Richard Teer. Thank you. This sort of goes into a little bit more detail about your providing cover in a dynamic way and refers to the Banstead Fire Station and the Cambly Fire Station. Perhaps you can just enlarge on the changes there. And what the consultation that you've entered into has brought back to you from those local areas, please. Yes, certainly. So, in terms of the Community Risk Management Plan, essentially what that's telling us is what our community risk profile looks like, where the risk is in the county, and how, therefore, we need to respond to it. So, for all of the proposals that we've put within the Community Risk Management Plan, they all essentially are underpinned by that risk analysis. And as our portfolio holder cabinet member has said, is that risk analysis has been externally verified by Nottingham Trent University, which not only are applying their academic rigour, but also are the people that effectively developed the national methodology for fire and rescue services across the country to use. So, if I give you some examples, the risk requires us to respond from material changes to the response model. And, for example, we've already mentioned Banstead and Cambly, but there are others. For Hazelmere, we found there's a very, very low risk area. So, the proposal to establish a change there, but also to do things like a seasonal response model, didn't exist previously. So, we need to be able to respond to those. The development of a Community Risk Management Plan naturally takes time. Absolutely, it should do. And we've been working at this for a number of years in order to make sure that we get a robust analysis undertaken. And the Community Risk Profile that I've mentioned underpins that, and that is updated on an annual basis. So, as an example of the change in risk, in 2023's Community Risk Profile, what that showed us that there was a change in risk of a night time, particularly at that point within Spellfone and Elmbridge boroughs. And this had differed from previous Community Risk Profiles, so it wasn't evident beforehand. And obviously, as part of the previous CRMP, it also wasn't evident. It now is, so we need to respond. So, therefore, Proposal 1.3 was developed to look at removing the daytime-only fire engine based at Cambly Fire Station and effectively moving that to either one of those boroughs to ensure a 24-7 cover of risk in a slightly different way. Now, what that means is we're going to be relocating part of the cover at Cambly Fire Station, which is the day crew development, to either of those boroughs. And that will be the crew and the fire engine effectively going into the north of the county. You'll notice that will also go particularly into the night time to compensate for that risk rather than from the daytime that it currently provides. Now, in the 2024 CRP, as we said they're updated annually, what that did was further identify two pockets of additional risk that were emerging in Runnymede. So, that's the reason why you would have seen from the pre-consultation document to the post-consultation document and the final proposals is that we've included Runnymede to also be considered within the Norfolk County, Spellfall, Elmbridge and Runnymede. So, this point particularly responds directly to the consultation and the risk analysis that we've had updated. And ultimately, what we will be doing is updating our CRP annually and we will have to respond to that depending on what it tells us at that time. I hope that in part answers your question. It's gone a long way towards it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Catherine Baruch is next. Thank you. You mentioned the developing, the new risks that you've identified in Spellthorne and Runnymede and Elmbridge. And I just wondered if, looking forward into 2025 further, do you see any more emerging risks that you're having to keep your eye on and having to analyse, you know, just what do you think is coming towards you to have a future? Thanks. Yes, thank you. So, certainly when it comes to the community risk profile, we're trying to make sense of what emerging technologies potentially pose to us, what things like climate change, et cetera, are implications for the service. So, it constantly looks at those type of macro factors that may well result in a change for our response model that we need to do locally. Now, the community risk profile tries to take lessons as well from the past. It also doesn't look just at what's affecting Surrey, but the wider sector as well. And so, we're not looking at it with a narrow view, but certainly have mentioned about emerging technologies, things like managing electric vehicles, dealing with changes to road infrastructure, et cetera, and climate change, particularly in the context of wildfires and flooding. What we found through the CRP is that the main three risks within Surrey, if you ignore for a moment the risks surrounded by the built environment, so I know last time that we were here we were talking about the Grenfell Tower Phase 2 report. And if you ignore for a moment the built environment, which is relatively consistent in terms of other areas, what the main three risks for Surrey are is water, wildfire, and road. And particularly from a context of we lose more people on the road than any other incident type that we respond to, so there's a big emphasis around what we do from a prevention perspective, particularly in road safety, and that's part of the reason why I took on the role as the National Road Safety and Road Rescue Lead for the fire rescue sector, was to try and get some of that learning back into the organisation. Water, we have similarly an unacceptable level of loss of life when it comes to water. People enjoy our waterways, not just in terms of flooding implications, but also during the heights of summer when people want to take a dip in our rivers, et cetera, or go open water swimming, for example. But wildfires as well, one of the things we're looking at is the urban-rural interface that we have within Surrey. So many of our partners around the country, fire and rescue-wise, will be able to deal with their incidents of wildfires in slightly different ways. They might be geographically remote, for example, from people or places, whereas what we have to do is a very different type of response in order to make sure that we mitigate the spread of those types of incidents. So there's three examples, really, of key risks that we've seen emerging that we are keeping cognizance of moving forward. But if anything else comes up as well, we're not looking at just what it looks like for Surrey, we're looking at whether it comes up elsewhere in the country and trying to see what the effect could be. Thank you. Next is Councillor Cameron McIntosh. Thank you very much, Chair. A sort of more general question, because I know in there there's a comment around Whiteleaf, and I just wondered what are the chances of finding an appropriate or affordable site in that area? Thank you. So you'll be aware that we've conducted previous searches within the local area for our colleagues within County Council Land and Property Team. That took place prior to this consultation, and then that led to this proposal being included within the current CRMP. However, following the feedback from the consultation, we are suggesting that we would go out and have another look to see if there is anything that is appropriate and affordable since that previous review was undertaken. So we'll work with our colleagues within Land and Property to ensure that we understand what our operational requirements are and that we'll develop that specification for a site search. We'll then instruct through Land and Property a third party to undertake that review to ensure that that is a thorough review and looking at suitable sites within that area. We will continue at the same time to undertake the development work at Godston Fire Station should there not be anything that comes forward from the searches that are undertaken. at this time to say whether we're likely or we're unlikely. I couldn't say. I think we've got to wait to see what the outcomes are from that search. Yes, of course. Councillor. Thanks. Two questions as the Banstead member. Why will that second look not include Banstead and surrounding? And when it comes to Whiteleaf or Godston, I mean, there's nothing in it, is there? I mean, they're next door to each other from a Banstead perspective. So in answer to your first question, the reason why we're not looking in Banstead is because the risk analysis doesn't dictate that we do. So the risk dictates that we need to look into the Whiteleaf area, which is where the risk we now know from the CRP processes that we've done over the last two years. So there's no benefit in us finding a location within Banstead on the basis of risk. So that's the reason why we're not looking in Banstead. In terms of the difference between Whiteleaf and Godston, you're right, geographically, if you look at it, it looks like there's a short distance. But the difference is in terms of the risk that exists within the Whiteleaf area. If you take Tandridge as a borough for a moment, the way that Tandridge is structured in terms of our resourcing is that you've got Godston as a 24-7 fire station that's around about sort of junction 6 of the M25. And what happens is when they get poured north to respond into that area, which invariably at the moment Banstead get pulled to the east to respond to that area as well, then that strips cover out from the rest of Tandridge Borough District Council. So what we're trying to make sure that we do is where the risk is is where we're more likely to provide a timely response that is because it's more likely to be needed for those that are more vulnerable in the event of a fire. So hopefully that's at least answered your two questions, but we're not looking in Banstead because the risk doesn't dictate that we stay in Banstead. If I could just come back, how does moving to Whiteleaf or Godston impact the response in Banstead? What will the net effect of it be? So picking up on the earlier point that we mentioned, we're providing a Surrey-wide response. So we've already shared publicly, and I think it's detailed within the consultation documents, the difference in terms of a Surrey-wide response time, and I think the impact is about 40 seconds to Rygate and Banstead Borough Council and there's a slight improvement with Tandridge. Now the reason we're doing that is because Tandridge District Council at the moment is one of the least well-served response time areas, whereas the likes of Rygate and Banstead and Epsom and Yule, for example, are some of the better served. So it's about balancing the cover across Surrey. John Mason. Well, you all know that I'm from Epsom and you all too, but my argument has been for all of this time, I get fed up, I've sat through so many meetings where I get this, oh, the projected number is this, that's the number from our plan and all this, and I always say, what a load of rubbish. No one can know when they're going to set a pan alight in their kitchen and cool something, and also is anybody taking any notice of that this government and the previous one are imposing on Epsom? We're being looked at something like 15,000 homes and all I'm saying to you is are you saying that in five or six years' time we're going to look at all of this again and have to find somewhere else and then you're going to have to move another pump back to Epsom because it needs two pumps if it's going to cover Banstead because Banstead is gettable, I guess, but I mean, I go up to Banstead quite a lot, the lovely shopping centre there. Anyway, that's not the point. My point is you're not looking to the future on this. You're looking at what's there now and what we can cope with. Well, anyone who lives round where I live will tell you it's gridlocked with traffic, absolute mayhem. Can't get anywhere round, even round Bygate, where I get down now is taking a while. I'm saying to everyone, don't just look at the figures now. If you're looking at this as some long-term project, as you should be, you should be looking at the figures that this government is imposing and I can't tell you not what anyone thinks, they're saying they're going to build on every inch of Greenbelt. So never think that it won't happen to us because it blooming well will. If this Labour government get hold of anything and they find there's a piece of land in Epsom or a piece of land in Rygate, we'll be off. And then you're all through the day that you've withdrawn services because then you've got to find new depots and new pumps and more importantly, trained personnel. Because, you know, you're not just a firefighter overnight. This takes years and also a certain type of person to be a firefighter. Not everybody wants to put their life on their hands to go in and rescue someone. So there's several complex things here which I'm really worried about and have been that we're not dealing with for the future. They're going to give me this idea of we've looked at all this projected plan for that project. No, wait till this government get hold of Rygate and Banstead and Epsom and Yule and we'll have double the numbers of houses. We'll have very little and plus the fact Epsom's got a triple SI site which is important. It's the Epsom Downs. It's a huge area. Highly valued and we've got Horton Country Park that's the nature reserve. Loads of Tinder stuff one match and it'll set it alight. So I just don't understand where Epsom's down down to one but also Epsom's now going to cover Banstead logically and well I don't know what man and his van or in this case what man and his pump will cover. I can't see it. I don't feel this is a really credible plan to do what they're suggesting. That's my moan but you all know me anyway about I'm protecting you can't ask fire officers and firemen to do the impossible and if they've only got one pump then they've got to go to two fires and we can't get there. They're wanting to get something quite serious but I'll deal with that but thank you that is my my point is that there's lots of I don't want my pump to go I want it kept here I want it kept at Banstead et cetera et cetera it's not about that it's I'm talking about projection of numbers of homes and then that comes with numbers of people and probably be several elderly care homes I know there's a couple in Banstead I go past so I'm not sure numbers on a bit of paper cut the ice with me now I'm sorry but I don't think this is credible and I don't vote for it ever. Dan would you like to reply to that including I think you referred to an annual review earlier yeah I'll try to respond to the points that were being raised so just in terms of clarity we recruit and train firefighters so just in terms of the terminology that's being used we also have female firefighters and we're really proud of them in terms of the CRP so community risk profile I would implore having a look at the detail that that actually includes because some of what you're talking about is absolutely detailed within it so in terms of our understanding and appreciation of the building of housing or any other premises we are as a fire rescue service a statutory consultee so we know about the projected building of all premises that are going to pop up within Surrey whatever their occupancy type is going to be so we do include that the community risk profile is updated annually so I appreciate your point in terms of looking at the longer term but the imperative the requirement upon a fire and rescue service is to develop a community risk management plan on at least a three yearly basis and we're choosing to do one that's longer term that provides a bit of a longer term vision over five years rather than three in answer to your question about are we going to be back here in five years time it might be sooner than that because if the community risk profile changes we need to respond so as much as we accept that this is a plan for five years if it changes again next year or the year after it's imperative is upon us to do a review of the community risk management plan just in terms of the sort of response that's being provided the purpose of talking through about how we actually do our response services and we find this a lot there is an absolute fixation with fire engines sitting in fire stations and that's predominantly where they're waiting to respond to or respond from they don't do that they're moving around all of the time and in terms of the cover that we provide to the county we always prioritise risk in terms of your locality of Epsom Epsom is actually one of the best if not the best served borough in the whole of the county so in terms of the cover that we provide again this is all covered within the documentation but just to try and reassure you in some way at least that the level of due diligence that has gone into developing this plan we've chosen to use Nottingham Trent University who wrote the national methodology for every fire rescue service to tell us whether there's anything that we're missing and what they provided back in terms of feedback which we've published in the public domain since 2023 to 2024 we've now evolved it even further so I am confident as the chief bar officer that what we're presenting to you as underpinned by risk analysis is a comprehensive plan plan thank you thank you councillor lance spencer thank you chair one of the main community risk management plan proposals is the development of a seasonal response model Can you describe what a seasonal response model is, because it sounds wonderful, and is a seasonal response model best practice across the sector? What challenges are associated with developing this approach, and are there any cost savings that can be made from implementing it? Thank you. I'll take this one for you. Our community risk management plan as a whole is based, as we said, on the risk and not predicated on cost savings for this instance? However, as a service, we always will be and aim to be as efficient as possible. This proposal aims to create an additional layer of resilience when we have those seasonal demands, and seasonal demands could be in relation to wet weather or dry weather. So we're looking at flooding and the seasonal associations with wildfires. It does not necessarily reduce response times. What it adds to it is a level of resilience. As you can imagine, these seasonal incidents can take longer times to deal with. They can be protracted incidents, and we need more resources over a period of time to deal with them, not necessarily at the same time. This means that our crews can remain at the scene for longer times, and we need to rotate crews to make sure that they are in the best and safest place they can be for delivering those incidents. By having this additional layer of resilience, we can provide more timely release for the crews who are working hard and ensuring that they get adequate rest facilities, and we provide that cross-county cover as well, which is important. When we're dealing with an incident, we still have to make sure we provide cover for the rest of the county, and that's what the SEASL model will provide us. In addition, as Dan has alluded to, all of our crews are highly trained, they have specialist kit, they have specialist PPE at their disposal, and therefore having the additional resilience should in turn allow us to make sure we have the right resources in the right place, at the right time, for the right reason. I think we can agree that this is an inhibitive way of looking at stuff, and a slightly different way to the extent that we believe we are an early adopter of a seasonal approach and a different approach, and we akin it to the Army Reservist model, where we can have additional resources, additional people that we can draw upon in the moment of seasonal variations, as we said flooding and wildfire. And this has been picked up on by His Majesty's Inspector of Consaggery, when they are looking for us to look at new ways of delivering our service, and look at efficiencies within our service, which I think this proposal does for us. Thanks very much. Next question is from Mark Sugden, who's online. In fact, you've got two questions, Mark. Yeah, the first question, and I will do them separately, Chairman. First question is, the Service Fire and Rescue Service intends to work more closely with health partners, including South East Coast Ambulance Service. There are a large number of hospitals and GP services across the county. So the first question here is, how will this work be coordinated? Thank you. You're absolutely right in terms of the coordinated effort that we need to do. So what we're committing to in terms of South East Coast Ambulance Service and health partners, including South East Coast Ambulance Service, and I'm grateful that South East Coast Ambulance Service actually took the time to reply to our consultation and are in complete support with this proposal, which is great. We'll also need to work with not only our partners, but also staff and trade unions, which understandably will need to be included to make this achievable. So the first thing is, we're planning to build on already strong relationships and programmes with health partners. So just for example, we currently already work with care partners in the community. We already have relationships with our general practitioners, our GPs, and we support with homelessness and other vulnerable groups as well. So we've recently started a trial in relation to hospital discharge processes and how we can support people to ensure that their homes are safe upon return from hospital. And we've referred to that as being a situational vulnerability, so not necessarily people that would automatically feel a criteria of vulnerability, but certainly somebody who's been post a significant operation, for example. Furthermore, we've engaged with CECAM to see how we can better support their burns management guidance, reflecting a very good piece of guidance that's called Saving Lives Is Not Enough, and the principles that that presents. So importantly, and worth noting, is that our fire and rescue cover is not intended to be impacted by this support. So I'll caveat that. Surrey participated in the National Emergency Medical Response Trials in 2015, and what we did was implement a county-wide co-responding scheme as part of that trial. Now, during the trials, CECAM, Southeast Coast Ambulance, could request effectively a fire and rescue service asset for specific health emergencies, such as cardiac arrests. And during that trial, we trained 400 of our staff in order to be able to respond to emergency and trauma scare with the relevant skills and equipment. And that included on fire engines, it included managers like myself in their vehicles, it included four-wheel drive vehicles that we had. And we have still retained that medical equipment and the defibrillators, for example, and all the training that goes with it since that time. Now, that trial concluded in 2017 due to national conversations that were taking place. However, we've still captured that learning in order to be ready to apply it more recently, subject to, obviously, the advancements that our ambulance colleagues have made. So effectively, to implement all of the CRMP proposals, just in terms of your point about the coordination, we have a structured project management approach that we will be adopting for each one of the proposals. And so we're going to be setting clear objectives that are outlined to clear goals, as you would expect, and ensure really robust governance around the work that we're doing and also the accountability and responsibility to make well-informed decisions. So collaborative planning with partners and key stakeholders, including CCAM, trade unions and other staff, will be essential and will be included from the outset. And the final point is that with all of our priority projects, we have a regular process of ensuring transparency, providing real-time visibility of the projects. So we have trackers that are able to keep us a live sort of assessment as to what stage the project delivery is in, along with things like risks and independencies, as you would expect to be in place and be monitored as well. And then it was picked up earlier around communications. I think Councillor Mason mentioned particularly about communications, which I entirely agree with. The channels and the proactive engagement that we'll be using will be looking to foster positive working relationships, not just with the partners, but also with our communities, in terms of what services we'll be providing on behalf of our broader health partners. But to be candid, we see this particular proposal as being a real contribution to enabling communities to become more resilient as well. So after we've had an interaction, we want to be able to leave somebody with an ability to look after themselves even better. And that's a principle that we apply to our prevention services all of the time. But this will allow us to have a much wider connection with our community. I hope that answers your question. Mark, can you have any come back on that question? Because you have another speaker before your second question. No, I didn't. Other than to say thank you for a very comprehensive reply to that question. Okay, thank you. Catherine, you wanted a query on that? No, it's just to say that, Dan, were you aware that... Are you working with the Red Cross, who also have a programme for looking after people who have been discharged from hospital? I'm sure you have. Thank you for that. So I wasn't aware that they work with people post-hospital, so that's great. We will connect. We do have British Red Cross actually as part of our Epson fire station. And what they do is they respond. And, yeah, so they respond to, in event of fires, to basically assist people to work through their insurance documents, to make sure they've got the appropriate temporary accommodation, et cetera. It's a fantastic group to be part of. We're well connected from that perspective. So I will continue that. I will send you the name of the person who's local, and then you can make it. Thank you. Mark, you had another question. Yes, I did. Thank you, Chairman. The report states that the primary objective of the Community Risk Management Plan is to enhance the safety, resilience and overall well-being of the community by proactively addressing potential hazards, vulnerabilities, et cetera. So my question is, does the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service foresee that increased investment in resources for prevention and protection will reduce the need for fire service responses? So we're building really from the previous response where we're talking about how we can ensure that we're working with partners to make sure that people are well within our communities, our core aim is always to make sure that we prevent incidents from happening in the first place by targeting those that are most vulnerable within our communities and working with our partners to do so. When we look at the most recent Home Office statistics, it highlights that when it comes to the number of fires that are being attended, that they've actually fallen by around two-thirds over the last 20 years. So it's approximately about 140,000 fires were attended last year, and that is the lowest since the year 2000. However, that's only part of the story because there's also non-fire-related incidents, and we have seen an increase in those of approximately about 4% from the previous year and nearing up to 60% over the last decade. And that really highlights the importance of our other preventative work, which is around ensuring that we focus on how we can prevent road traffic collisions and also how we're supporting individuals within our communities who need support in terms of flood-prone homes and the impacts around flooding. So every effort goes into preventing incidents and protecting our communities within Surrey, and it is about trying to, you know, that aim to stop that incident from happening in the first place. However, operational response remains essential, and, you know, that's quite key from the conversations that we've had today. And our current response model for Surrey is designed to make sure that we can effectively meet the risks within our county. And we believe that the response that we have is appropriate, and that's already been covered by Dan's responses earlier today. And what we will do is obviously continue to keep that under review as we do those annual review processes that we've spoken about, too. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much, Mark. And the final question I have is from Councillor Cameron McIntosh. Thank you very much, Chair. Yeah, so the CRMP, it talked about obviously people being one of the service's greatest asset, and I just wondered with that in mind, are we confident enough that we have the breadth of skills and knowledge currently in the service, particularly, for example, technical expertise such as fire engineers? I would be interested to know that. And with a greater sort of emphasis on prevention in areas such as the built environment and with the government speeding up house building, are we confident that we've got those skills for prevention, such as fire engineers, going forward into the future? Thank you. Yes, I mean, as a service, we're currently working to make sure that all of our staff have the right levels of training, the right skills to deal with emergencies, interactions, and particularly in our protection team. As you know, they play a key role in ensuring the built environment is as safe as it can be. We're continually looking to upskill our protection specialists, fire safety inspectors trained to the competency framework. We have our auditors and we have our business education officers too. So, as legislation changes, regulatory reform order, we always work with premises to make sure we advise, we guide, and we enforce against regulatory reform order, but making sure that our key, all of our key people in the service have the right training, the right skills to do, to deliver that aspect of their role. As you've alluded to fire engineers, we don't have fire engineers in-house, but we do have contracts with fire engineers to deliver that aspect of the engineered solutions for us. We do have level five qualified engineer technicians, and that's how we work it within the service, but we make sure we have the right skill set to look at what we need to be looking at at the time, particularly in that protection field. Again, with prevention, we always make sure that we have suitable training to assist our communities through prevention, protection, and response. We have our prevention specialists, and they work with our communities to look at that community fire safety, home fire safety checks, and safe and well visits to make sure we're not just looking at the built environment, we're looking at the round, so we're looking at the environment and the people themselves as well. I think moving that forward, I think as part of our investment in our training, you know, we do have the new development of our £14.5 million investment in our training centre to ensure that our training is a bit for purpose, moving that into the future, and that's again about protection, prevention, and response. And, you know, if the mood changes within the service, within our people, we can look at that, we can see that, we can adapt to those changes to make sure we do employ the right people with the right skills, and train to the right skills in the future as well. Can I just come back quickly on that, Chair, if that's okay? So, specifically in relation to using the service using technical skills contractors that provide fire engineers, are we confident that there is enough supply that we are able to tap into? Because, I mean, I think there's only like 250 fire engineers in the country. It's quite a low figure from the IFE, and I just wondered if we're confident that, you know, there's people in the system that we can rely on those technical expertise, and again, particularly going back to my point around an increase in building and protecting people in homes, that we're able to tap into that going forward. Yes. Lee, can you speak closer to your microphone, please? Yes, we do have a retainer with a fire engine there to make... No, I meant into the microphone. We are guaranteed... ...so everybody else can hear you. ...that level of response, and we're continuing looking at our process, to make sure we can meet through response of the engineered environment. Thank you. Can I add to that, Chair? Dan, yes. Yeah. It's just worth sort of appreciating. I understand the point you're making in terms of the sort of narrow resource that we're all accessing. So, one of the things that we do is work very closely with our partners. So, if I use a particular example in the field of protection and the connections that Lee has got, we have the 4F, which is us, East and West Sussex Fire and Rescue Services, and Kent. And, you know, in terms of particularly like the Brighton and Hove area, there's a huge amount of high-rise considerations to take place down there. So, I've recently taken over chairing that group in order to try and make sure that we get that coordinated sort of effort, and we tap into the resourcing that individual services have. Because while we don't have fire engineers in its purest form within the service, and we have a contracted mechanism to do that, others do. And so, if things come up, we can then share resources. So, if I give you a practical example where that's actually applied, unfortunately, during the events of Operation Bridge, when obviously Her Majesty the Queen, unfortunately, passed away, Royal Berkshire asked for some assistance with regards to an immediate sort of requirement to audit their hotels that were in the area, because they knew they was going to get obviously a huge amount of extra people. So, they reached out to the region, and we all provided qualified auditors to be able to go up and do a really concerted effort in that area. And the same principle in terms of obviously supporting each other through collaboration will operate in all areas of the service, but particularly in protection where certain skills are very, very niche. So, I hope that just adds to it. Yeah, it does. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Well, that brings us to the draft of the recommendations that we'll have. So, if I could ask for those to be put up on the screen, that would be great. Thank you. Okay. And if members take a few moments just to read through those. Oh, sorry. And while those are up, yes, Jan. Yes, I'm not adding to anything here, but it was something crossing my mind that if Epsom has got all these open areas with Heather and all the things that, once they're lit, they will spread like wildfire, and we've got Epsom Downs, I'm sure the other ten boroughs, other than perhaps the most built-up ones, must have something similar. And I would have thought somewhere along the line there ought to be a form, a formal thing you could put at the entrance of every area saying, beware, you know, of fires. And making people aware, because I don't think they do. They eat or drink and whatever, out it goes out the window. And my argument is, if only we could try and remind people that things like ground cover and all the heathers and that and these beautiful wildlife areas this county's got, if we remind people of their actions, because they don't think very often, then we might have a chance. And I think every area, whether it's in Woking or wherever it is, should have a specific sign that is recognised by the fire service that goes up at the entrances, reminding people of their duty of care, because otherwise it's another couple of fire engines being turned out that stops it going from somewhere else, like banks did, so they will moan. And it just goes on. I just think, is there a possibility anything could be done about this? Richard Teer? Chair, we've got them on top in common, and they're very much appreciated. Perhaps the chief fire officer could take that point up directly after the meeting with Councillor Mason, as there is precedence. Righty-ho, we've got back up on the screen the three of the draft recommendations. If everybody has had a chance to look through those, are we happy with those? Yes. Okay, everybody agreed? Thanks very much indeed, and thank you to our witnesses from Surrey Fire and Rescue for this afternoon's session. Okay, we will now move on to item eight, which is economic growth. We have with us still Matt Furness, last cabinet member standing, or sitting, rather. And also still with us online is Simon Crowther, and also in person is Patricia. Patricia Hurtus-Saridia, who's head of economic programmes and localities. So welcome to all three. Now, who would like to just introduce the paper? Will you do that, Matt? Thank you, Chair. Yes, I'll be very brief. I mean, at the end of the day, I think what we can say is the team have been brilliant. We've hit the ground running. We've now got our business Surrey single portal set up. We've had our second festival of skills. And we are really sort of moving quite well ahead with the transfer of the assets from the EM3 LEP, Coast to Capital. You've got some questions on, so I won't delve into that one too much. But it's also good to see that the government has confirmed commitment for funding for next year as well. I think we're just waiting on the detail of that. But all I can say really is the response from the business community has been very positive. I think the team are making some excellent connections. And we've got a huge number of business leaders now joining us on our business leaders forum, which has been fantastic. So they're really engaging. They're coming from all sectors. And we're working very closely with our education partners as well, who are talking to the businesses, which is part of the key point on skills, which we're very keen to progress. But you've got about 10, 12 questions, I understand. So I'll stop there and let you and the committee ask them. Well, we'll crack through. Patricia, is there anything you wanted to say at this stage? Okay. So our first question is from John Beckett. Thank you, Chair. As we know that we've got two local enterprise partnerships or LEPs, as they're called, within the Surrey area, one of which is Coaster Capital. They've now decided to become or continue as a private company. So I've got two halves of a question. What are the implications of this decision? And will Coaster Capital now become a private competitor to the Council's support to businesses? Thank you. So, as I mentioned a little bit earlier, the continuation of Coaster Capital as a private company has slowed down the transfer of the assets from that LEP to the three local authorities, because they cover three areas. Surrey County Council, West Sussex County Council, and Brightwood, Hove City Council. I don't see them as a competitor personally, if they continue to operate, because their focus has pretty much through their existence always been focused around the Brighton and Hove area. We've actually received very little funding within Surrey for businesses, or support for businesses within Surrey from Coaster Capital. Their focus has been primarily West Sussex and Brighton and Hove. Brighton and Hove, I think, has received the greatest share of the grant funding from them. So, as the accountable host body, I'm sure that they're very happy with that, but we've got much more success and much more funding coming across from, sorry, the, it's gone out of my mind, EM3 LEP, where actually there's significant amounts there. We're not expecting more than, I think, unless Patricia corrects me, about £600,000 from Coaster Capital. Sorry. Still to be determined, but, yeah, we are not expecting much, because we have the smallest proportion of the split. Yeah, so, at the end of the day, I think we just need to look at, sort of, what happens with final accounts, but we've got the biggest share coming from EM3, so, to be honest, that's where our focus has been. Okay, Cameron. Actually, I don't have a question on this, Chair. Richard Teer. Thanks, Chair. Terribly sorry, I was mistaken. It's not Cameron, it's Andy. Sorry. Thank you, Chairman. Yeah, again. Okay, continuing on the transitional arrangements, I think the arrangements with Enterprise M3 in Hampshire are pretty well explained well in the report. Just one small point now, is there any liabilities that have to be divided as well as assets? So, I'm going to ask a question on that. In terms of the more complex arrangements that have been required, as I explained in the report, with Coaster Capital, as a private organisation, will they retain any of their assets? And what are the liabilities from the previous role? Because they were really previously completely funded by government, as I understand it, unless I've got that wrong. So, will they be disposing of all their assets and passing them to the local authorities? And, again, liabilities, do they come into it as well? Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Andy. So, as I mentioned, the funding has been shared between the upper-tier authorities based on working-age populations. So, that means a 51-49 split between ourselves and EM3. From the EM3 element between us and Hampshire County Council, slightly more complicated, as Patricia said, and a 54-26 split between Brighton and Hove, West Sussex, and Surrey. So, not so much there. With Coaster Capital, we are pressing the accountable body, which is Brighton and Hove, to effectively outline what the liabilities, the assets, and everything are. Because they were looking to go private, that's why it's been a lot slower. But our pressure is on Brighton and Hove in particular for that. And that includes the monitoring of previous grant investments and loans with government reporting going in. In the case of EM3, there are Longcross Park in Runnymede, which is an enterprise zone, which we will be responsible for with Runnymede Borough Council. It's probably the biggest change. EM3 did have a number of investments, and we are sort of looking to divest from those and convert it back into cash that we can reinvest locally in Surrey businesses. But we've been very clear, the businesses are to set out where they would like to see the money spent, because it is meant to be for business and skills. I hope that helps. Thanks for that answer. Are Brighton and Hove still going to have a continuing involvement with, because in this private organisation, you're sort of implying that they're closely connected with them. Will they continue to be a part of the private set-up, separate from them? No, they won't be part of it, but they will have to wind down and then monitor any legacy grants or projects, because it's still, as you say, public money, therefore they would still have to report that back to government. Thank you. Sorry for the confusion there between the McLeods and the McIntoshes. Richard's here. You may have partially answered this in the Brighton and Hove arrangements and the possible competition, but is there anything that we can do to make the reasonable assurance view on the internal audit? Is there any way we can strengthen what we're doing to make that go higher up the scale? Thank you very much. It was very much on what's happening in Coastal Capital, and that's why it's taking that little bit longer to tease out all the assets and liabilities. Got it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mark, you have the next question? Thank you, Chairman. The report states that the Council has successfully launched the Surrey Growth Hub, which offers high-growth businesses with free tailored one-to-one support, and that 280 businesses have taken up this service. Two questions. Are you happy with the 280? Is it beyond what you expected, or is it short? And what is the feedback from those recipient businesses to date on the free tailored advice that they've been given? Thank you, Captain. So the team has sort of done a little bit of a look through all the responses that we've got about levels of satisfaction, and they've given me two quotes, and I'll read those out. So the first one, who has been supported through higher-intensity advice, said that working with Business Surrey is like having the board you can't afford, which is very good. And another, reflecting that thanks to all the links that you gave me, I've got a really good idea of what I need to do now, the direction I need to take things to get up and running. So I think it's important to say that we're not going to be able to focus on all 110,000 businesses in Surrey, but it's good to see that the businesses that we are, who are coming to us, and we're getting a regular number of people contacting us through our single portal, which is fantastic, they are saying that the advice and the direction that they are being given is helpful. We do have a comprehensive analysis of our events so far. They include high-level supports with many small and medium enterprise and partners, and they are saying that they are recommending the service to their networks as well. So I think it's sort of fingers crossed, but it's a good start, and one which we can keep building on. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed, Mark. Catherine. Thank you. Could you explain how we're supporting Surrey's green economy and indeed our net zero targets in the context of also supporting high-growth businesses in Surrey? Thank you. So, within the growth hub, we do have a dedicated specialist to sustainability for help high-growth SMEs to go green. It's also done as part of the help and advice for businesses just starting up as well, and the greener futures team works very closely with the business support team as well to give advice, and both teams actually share some of the advisors that we employ. So it's a consistent level of advice that's going out to all of them. We've also enabled and facilitated connections between the relevant networks and advice networks, such as UK Business Climate Hub, decarbonise your business, which is a free course for SMEs, greener future grants, and then the net zero places innovation network, which is a rather long one. So it is a large factor of what we do, and we do provide that. And if businesses are saying that's an area in which they would like to see some of the grant funding go towards, that's something that we will consider as well. Given the cuts to the greener futures team that we heard about earlier, do you see that impacting the support that they can give to the economic growth activities as well? No, because most of it is advice around policy and sort of directions on where they can receive the grant funding. But as we've got our specialist dedicated advisors, which are looking for them in a business context, that support will still be there. John Beckett. Thank you, Chair. Yes, with the government funding for this service ending in April 2025, what is the position and what happens next year after this date? So I think I mentioned it a little bit earlier, so the government has confirmed that funding is going to continue. We're just waiting on the detail for the amount, as I think we all across the council, really, from what they're proposing. We are planning that Business Survey continues as the single gateway to support. So, I mean, we actually started the service in the first year without any government funding being guaranteed. So that's why we were so far ahead of other up-to-tier authorities. But it's good that the government has confirmed funding again, so we can continue with that. Thank you. Catherine? Catherine? This is a couple of questions here. The council's economic strategy identifies that businesses in Surrey, some businesses in Surrey, lag behind our neighbours, and some businesses have contracted significantly. And the council's proposed three priorities to deliver economic growth, and I'm just interested to know, you know, how they were developed. And the second part of my question was, I wonder if you could just explain the mechanism by which the county council directly benefits financially from putting our resources into supporting economic growth in Surrey, just, you know, just, you know, for my clarification, you know, how does that money directly come back for up and go off to central government? I might have to look to Patricia for the second part a little bit there. So in 2020, we set out our Surrey economic future to 2030. That was published, and that was built on building on the work from the Lord Haran Commission, the future Surrey economy commission, which Lord Haran had chaired. And there was independent economic evidence as well. It's all on our website if you're interested, or we can send you the links. There's, I think, about eight documents in total, and the University of Surrey has just done one about inward investment into Surrey as well. So a lot of people are looking and analysing this. So there were four sort of key points which were developed through these pieces of work. So they are growing the leading edge, supporting growth for innovation economy, a whole-place approach to growing and sustainable quality places, maximising opportunities within a balanced, inclusive economy, and capturing the potential of a greener economy as well. So it's been in there, green has been in there from the start. I think it's fair to say that when this was all set out, we had lockdowns, COVID, and everything else. So things have fundamentally changed. But I think that the key principles are there. And we are doing a bit of a refresh at the moment, looking at sort of how we reframe the priorities. Is there anything that we're missing? And what the future economic landscape could look at? In your second point about direct return, I think it's important to say that when the government dissolved the leaps effectively and returned the powers to the upper-tier authorities, we became responsible for the local and regional economy as upper-tier authorities. So although we may not directly see a direct return on our investment, unless it's through a loan that we give out and it's returned to businesses, it's more about how are we making sure that the local economy is able to thrive and grow. Two of the biggest items, two main ones that businesses continually say when you ask them what you need, it's housing and it's skills. And those are the two that keep coming up again and again. They really struggle to keep people in Surrey for more than two years. And two years is our benchmark. If we can get people to stay in education or in work for two years, they're most likely to stay in the area. At the moment, a lot of skills are being imported and then leaving. Because people can't afford to live in Surrey. I suppose just to add to that point, if I may, that it is really about gross value added produced across the county. So when the specialist support that goes into advice to SMEs in particular and the high-growth industries is really focused on that productivity growth, which could be around turnover for that company or indeed the number of employees for that company. So I suppose it's the whole ecosystem that comes around that growth. Indeed, more people moving into Surrey to take on Surrey jobs or to take on skills development within Surrey. So it all contributes to the larger economy of the county. Obviously, when we also work with startups, we also look at business births. So the pipeline of business increases business rates and other services and so on increase alongside with that. Just to highlight a whole ecosystem that we encourage. Cameron, you had a point. Just as the cabinet member was mentioning the importance of skills, and obviously there's been some discussion around government funding, I'm aware that I think government are looking at either cutting or changing level 7 apprenticeship funding, and I just wondered if that is something that has been fed back to yourself through businesses, whether that's going to have an impact on skills across Surrey and into the future. Thank you. Thank you. So not in terms of level 7s, which is mostly the universities will be doing those level of degrees. The bigger concern is actually 1 to 3 on apprenticeships, because as people are upskilling, the universities are getting involved with masters and degree level apprenticeships, which is 5 upwards. And now that the further education colleges can also do the degree level, there's a little bit of concern about the drop-off at 1 to 3. I don't think there's been any change in funding for that. I think it's more just the offering. So when we're looking at that, we're looking a little bit as a county council, how do we step in to support that? Just making sure that you've got that through flow of learning, rather than just having it all focused again at the upper levels. Andy. Thanks, Jim. You're obviously intending that the councils and initiatives as well positively influence economic growth in the county. I'd just like to know how you intend to measure this. What will you see as success? What will the measurements of success be in terms of what you're carrying out and all the councils and initiatives? That's a slightly difficult one. We do have a couple of metrics, and as Patricia mentioned, GBA is used as the main measure. So I think it's probably that number of businesses that are surviving and the number of people employed as well are probably the three main ones that we would look at. It's a difficult one, because any decisions that you're making now, it's going to be years before you see sort of the outcome. It's a little bit like with changes in education and so forth. So I think the key thing for us is, as long as we can provide the framework in which they can operate, and it's probably the survivability is probably a key one. But I'll look to Patricia in case there's any other measures that I've missed on that. If I may, just to add a couple more for context. The high knowledge intensity industries is something that we look at also quite regularly, which is why when it comes to difficult decisions on where to place the funding for specific support and advice, we tend to focus in those companies with the highest potential to grow. So similarly, our work with universities, especially encouraging those spin-out kind of entrepreneurial initiatives, new start-ups, and helping those to grow. So we look at the start-up numbers also on the business pipeline alongside, as the Chancellor said, the survival rate of those newly created enterprises. Those are some of the biggest ones. Thank you. Thank you. Richard? Moving on to GIF, the Growth and Innovation Fund. It says in the document that the fund is envisaged as a transparent mechanism. What does that mean in real terms? And the funding framework will also make provisions for exceptional and strategically important projects. Well, what are those and how do you identify those? Thank you. Thank you. So just in part on the governance arrangements, what we're proposing is that this select committee receives an annual report about the performance of the fund and updates on funded projects as well. The strategically important projects would be identified through the refresh of the strategy, but it's one that we've really sort of placed an emphasis on the business leaders to set out where they think the funding would help small, medium-sized businesses grow most effectively. And that's work that's what's happening at the moment. I mean, the legacy funding from the LEPs has been ring-fenced, so it will only be used for economic growth within Surrey. And that will be external to the County Council to support private industry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And the last question I have a note of is from Lance. Yes. At least here's the last question, hopefully. How much will the strategic funding framework cost the County Council? So how much does all of this put together cost us, if you can try and work better? And is there an external source of funding that the Council can draw upon that covers some of the costs? I'm going to have to look to Patricia for the detail of that one, but the government, as I mentioned, are allocating one-off amounts for the operation of this. I'll have to look to say what our funding has been so far for that. That is £240,000 on the transition so far and the development of the strategy and indeed the fund going forward. And on your second point, sorry, any external funding, I think it will just be the government funding to continue going forward. Catherine? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. No. Unless there were any other questions or queries, we can move on then to the recommendations. We'll have those up on the screen in a moment so members can peruse them. Very nice photograph of Dilip. Very cool, yes. You've got to do it with the accent. Hey! Right, there we are. On number two, endorses the reframe strategic priorities in the refreshed local economic strategy. Am I right in this? I thought we heard that it's being refreshed at the moment. It's... Is that... Oh, sorry. Have we got the... Yes, because you've got the draft in front of you. That's why. So we haven't yet approved it. Okay. Stop talking. Stop talking. That is the draft that is here. Have a few moments just to read through those four items. Okay. Is everybody happy with those? Okay. Well, thank you very much indeed, everybody. Um, just, uh, now to item nine, uh, which is the tracker and forward work program. All members have had this within the, uh, agenda pack for the next couple of meetings, February and April. Are there any comments or queries? Um, if not, uh, just to note that the next meeting is on, scheduled for the 12th of February. Um, so all remains for me to do is to wish you all a merry Christmas, uh, a safe journey home and a happy new year to one and all. Do you know? Do you know? Do you know? Do you know? Do you know? I can tune in. You know. I can tune in. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. All right. Matt, come to
Summary
The Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee met to discuss four key topics: the draft budget and Medium Term Financial Strategy, the Community Risk Management Plan for 2025-2030, Economic Growth in Surrey, and a review of the forward work programme. The committee made a total of nine recommendations to the Cabinet.
The Draft Budget and Medium Term Financial Strategy
The Committee scrutinized the draft budget for 2025/26 and the Medium Term Financial Strategy for 2029/30. Councillor David Lewis, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, explained that the Council is facing significant financial challenges.
Councillor Lewis reported that the council had received confirmation from central government that they would be able to raise council tax by up to 5%, but that this had come too late to be factored into the draft budget which included a 2.99% increase. The policy statement from the government indicated that government grants would be calculated using a new “Fair Funding Review”. It is likely that this will disadvantage Surrey, as funding is anticipated to be directed towards areas deemed to be more deprived.
Councillor Lewis also confirmed that a “Transformation Programme” is being funded to optimise how the council operates. This would affect: customer engagement and improvements to customer experiences and outcomes, organisation redesign to review ‘the way we do things’ across the whole council, data and digital to leverage emerging and innovative technology, place and communities support to improve outcomes for residents, and the development of the performance and culture that underpins the organization.
The draft budget identifies pressures across the organisation of £108 million, and requires £74 million of efficiencies to be found to deliver a balanced budget. The committee was informed that the process to identify efficiencies has been ongoing since February 2024 and that £57 million of efficiencies have already been found, leaving a provisional budget gap of £17.4 million.
The committee was informed that there were a range of options available to close the budget gap: Identifying additional funding from central government, containing costs and identifying further efficiencies, drawing on the council’s reserves, and raising council tax. It was reported that £140 million of usable reserves are available, equivalent to 12% of the council’s net revenue budget. Rachel Wigley, Director of Finance, Insight and Performance, reported that the council would not recommend using these reserves for ongoing revenue expenditure but would consider their use for one-off expenditure.
Councillor Lewis reported that the draft budget included investment in improvements to Children, Families, Learning and Lifelong Skills, particularly the continuation of the Early Help and Family Support services, additional Digital Demand Responsive Transport, and the cost of additional verge maintenance and cleanup gangs.
The impact of inflation
The Committee questioned the impact of inflation on the draft budget. Simon Crowther, Executive Director – Environment, Property & Growth, confirmed that a large proportion of the Council’s expenditure is in large multi-year contracts that include contractual uplift clauses. In particular, Lucy Monie, Executive Director of Highways, Transport & Infrastructure, drew attention to the £5 million pressure on the concessionary fares budget.
Concerns about the de-prioritisation of Greener Futures
The Committee discussed the £500,000 efficiency proposed for the Greener Futures programme at some length. There was concern about the impact of the efficiency on the ability of the council to achieve its net-zero targets.
Councillor Marissa Heath, Cabinet Member for Environment, reported that the roles cut as part of this efficiency had been involved in the 2050 net-zero targets and were very specialist. She explained that the work would continue in partnership with the South East Net Zero Hub and the LGA. The capital budget for ground mounted solar has also been reduced to zero. Councillor Heath reported that this was due to issues with grid connection and that the feasibility of these schemes being delivered before 2030 was very low. She reported that the council was still exploring options for rooftop solar schemes, and was working with private partners to explore alternative solar schemes and offsetting. She also reported that the council had lobbied central government to provide Surrey with the power to mandate net-zero targets in planning applications.
Councillor Lance Spencer expressed his concern that the 30% reduction in staffing would severely impact the ability of the council to deliver on its 2030 net-zero target. He also expressed concern about the reduction in capital budget for solar investment, suggesting that solar was one of the few areas in which the council could invest and achieve a return, as it would generate funds once installed. He stated his belief that, without the ground mounted solar schemes, the council would not be able to achieve its net-zero targets.
Councillor Andy MacLeod raised a concern that, as easier wins had been achieved, it would be more difficult and expensive to achieve future net-zero targets. He reported that, at a recent meeting of the Greener Futures Reference Group, the committee had been informed that there would be no funding for future feasibility studies and that the council might be penalized if it did not meet its government targets. He requested information on the scale of any potential penalty.
Councillor Heath responded that the penalty would be on the council, as they had voted for a net-zero target by 2030, and that the council would need to consider quality offsetting if they did not achieve their targets.
Councillor Stephen Cooksey questioned whether members had been consulted about changes to capital funding that affected their divisions and if the Districts and Boroughs had been consulted about the efficiency in the Recycling Support Grant. Councillor Heath confirmed that the Districts and Boroughs had been consulted as part of the Surrey Environment Partnership.
Councillor Catherine Baart asked if the work towards the 2030 target was being paused or slowed, and Councillor Caroline McKenzie, Director for Environment, confirmed that the 2030 target had not been cut. Councillor Baart then asked if the work towards the 2050 target was being paused or slowed as a result of the cuts. Councillor McKenzie confirmed that, with a reduction of four members of staff, they would need to partner with other organisations and prioritize to deliver the 2050 target.
Councillor Baart suggested that the £500,000 cut from the Greener Futures budget could be taken from the £5 million allocated to weed control and grass maintenance, arguing that investment in carbon net zero targets offered better value for money. Councillor Heath responded that both cabinet members had heard that point, but that it was a difficult balancing act, and that the council would focus on the next stage of the plan.
Road safety outside schools
Councillor Baart asked if there would be funding to address a potential future backlog of recommended safety improvements outside schools, and Councillor Matt Furniss, Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth, confirmed that there would. Councillor Furniss reported that the council would continue the programme at £1 million per year.
Highways Capital Budget
Councillor Mark Sugden asked about the Highways Capital Budget, noting that it fell from £120.6 million to £60 million over the life of the Medium Term Financial Strategy. He asked how this would affect the maintenance of highways. Councillor Furniss responded that the council had carried out modelling that concluded that the proposed budget would be sufficient to maintain roads at their current level and that they were seeing significant improvements in the condition of roads. Councillor Sugden pressed Councillor Furniss on this point, noting that he had used the term “steady state” and that this implied no further improvement to roads. Councillor Furniss responded that the modelling showed that, at a steady state, a percentage of A and B roads would remain in a steady state of 5%, and that a percentage of C and D roads would be improved by 9% over a 15-year period.
Community Protection and Emergencies
Councillor Kevin Deenas, Cabinet Member for Fire & Rescue, and Resilience, reported that 90% of the Fire and Rescue Service's budget is for staffing costs. The draft budget includes a provision for a 3% pay award, which is a nationally agreed award, and therefore there is potential for pressure if a larger pay increase is negotiated.
Councillor Deenas was asked about the inflationary pressures on the Joint Fire Control Centre (JFC) and he confirmed that these are factored into the draft budget, reporting that a 3% increase in pay inflation had been factored in for JFC staff, effective from July 2025.
Registration and Coroner Services
Councillor Denise Turner-Stewart, Cabinet Member for Communities and Community Safety, reported that the Registration and Nationality Service is a highly successful income-generating service, reporting a £1.7 million surplus in 2024/25. She reported that a new operating model had been agreed for the service to co-locate the Registration Service in Surrey County Council buildings. She confirmed that the council would be working closely with Land and Property to make the best use of their assets.
Councillor Turner-Stewart also reported on Your Fund Surrey, noting that of the £42 million allocated to the fund, £19.3 million had been allocated to projects and that £8 million had been allocated to individual members, leaving £15.8 million to allocate to projects. The Your Fund Surrey team were present at the meeting and the committee was encouraged to apply for projects to receive funding.
Councillor Deenas reported on the Coroner’s service, highlighting the complexities caused by special inquests, which he reported were outside the council’s control, and noting the potential of digital post-mortems, which he reported could deliver both cost savings and improved services.
Councillor John Beckett asked if there were any efficiencies that could be safely implemented in the Coroner’s service and Sarah, from the Coroner’s service, responded that the Coroner's service was operating in a very limited market for specialised services, but that there were still opportunities to deliver efficiencies through robust contract management. She reported that the service had recently changed toxicology providers, delivering savings of £80,000 per year.
Sarah also reported that the service had recently received approval to proceed with a digital post-mortem service using CT scanning technology, and that this was likely to deliver further efficiencies from year two onwards, as the service adapted its operating model. She reported that the Coroner’s service had already identified £131,000 of efficiencies for 2025/26, and had delivered £100,000 of in-year savings, achieved through contract and staffing efficiencies and digitisation.
Councillor Richard Tear asked if there was any potential to reduce property costs associated with the Coroner’s service, and Councillor Turner-Stewart confirmed that the Coroner’s service has a capital programme of £1.2 million, and that the Registration service has a self-funding capital programme of £2 million.
Adult Wellbeing and Health Partnerships
Councillor Mark Nuti, Cabinet Member for Adults and Health, reported that the Communities team in the Adult Wellbeing and Health Partnership department had been doing good work, but that it sometimes went under the radar. He reported that Surrey is a national leader in the field of working with deprived communities, and that he had recently been advising Southwark Council on how to begin similar programmes.
Councillor Nuti reported that the budget for the Communities function included in the draft budget was £3.6 million. Councillor Catherine Baart asked where the main impact of the changes would be, and Councillor Nuti responded that the council was planning to implement a more flexible approach, with Place and Communities officers covering larger areas and being deployed to “firefight” specific issues as they arise. He reported that the council had funding for the next 12 months, and that he would be advocating strongly to retain the funding in future. He also reported that these changes would enable the service to adapt to any future changes in central government policy.
Committee recommendations on the Draft Budget and Medium Term Financial Strategy
The Committee welcomes the Council’s ongoing focus on the Transformation Programme and requests an update on progress against this programme in 6 months’ time.
The Committee requests a further update on the 20 mph policy and the implications for the Council’s finances by end October 2025.
The Committee is very concerned about the de-prioritisation of the Greener Futures spend in the budget. It requests that the Cabinet reconsiders this de-prioritisation.
The Committee requests that all divisional Members are advised if there is an item within the capital programme that is being considered which affects specifically their division.
The Community Risk Management Plan for 2025-2030
Councillor Deenas and Dan Quinn, Chief Fire Officer for Surrey Fire and Rescue, presented the draft Community Risk Management Plan (CRMP) for 2025-2030.
Mr Quinn reported that the CRMP had been subject to a full 12-week public consultation that had concluded on 6 September 2024, and that the responses to the consultation indicated a high approval rating for six of the seven proposals. Two of the proposals had been amended as a result of feedback from the consultation.
Mr Quinn gave a brief introduction to the way in which the Fire and Rescue Service manages and deploys fire engines, explaining that they respond to the whole county and do not have fire stations allocated to specific towns or villages. He reported that they use a system called the Dynamic Cover Tool to allocate resources proactively, responding to live information about incidents and risks across the county. The system uses data gathered over the past five years to identify where resources are needed, enabling the service to move their fire engines to the areas they are most likely to be needed.
The Committee heard that the service has 25 fire stations across the county, but that these are referred to as base locations because they are the locations at which the fire crews start and finish their working day. Crews also spend time out in their communities, carrying out prevention work and training, when not attending incidents.
Mr Quinn confirmed that the CRMP takes account of changing demand and that the service is aware of a number of emerging risks that it is monitoring. He explained that Surrey’s main fire and rescue risks were water, wildfire and road traffic collisions. He reported that Surrey loses more people to road traffic collisions than any other incident type and that he had taken on the role of National Road Safety and Road Rescue lead for the fire and rescue sector to try to improve road safety in the county. He also reported that Surrey has an unacceptable level of loss of life in water-related incidents, particularly during the summer, and that the service was developing strategies to address this. In relation to wildfires, he reported that Surrey has a unique challenge due to the urban-rural interface, meaning that fires often occur closer to homes and businesses than they do in other parts of the country. He explained that this meant that the service needed to respond differently to other parts of the country to mitigate the risk of fires spreading.
Councillor Richard Tear asked about the planned changes to Banstead and Camberley fire stations and Mr Quinn explained that the proposals for these stations had been developed in response to the community risk profile. The most recent CRMP shows that there is an emerging risk during the night in Spelthorne and Elmbridge and that there has been a material change to the risk in Haslemere.
Mr Quinn reported that Proposal 1.3, which concerns the relocation of the day crew and fire engine at Camberley Fire Station to either Spelthorne or Elmbridge to enhance night-time cover, had been amended as a result of the 2024 community risk profile to include Runnymede as an option. The 2024 community risk profile identified two additional areas of risk in Runnymede, around Egham and Englefield Green.
Councillor Catherine Baart asked about other potential risks the service was monitoring and Mr Quinn responded that, in addition to the three key risks outlined above, the service was also analysing data and gathering intelligence on emerging risks from technology and climate change, such as the management of electric vehicles, changes to road infrastructure, wildfires and flooding.
Councillor Cameron McIntosh asked about the potential for finding an appropriate and affordable site for the fire station in the Whyteleafe area, and Mr Quinn responded that the service had previously carried out site searches in partnership with the council’s Land and Property team and that the proposal to review this again was a direct result of feedback from the public consultation. He confirmed that, while this review was being conducted, the service would continue with plans to develop Godstone Fire Station to accommodate the crew and fire engine from Banstead Fire Station.
Councillor Luke Bennett, the Banstead member, asked why the review would not include Banstead and whether there was much difference between Whyteleafe and Godstone, noting that they were next door to each other. Mr Quinn explained that the service responded to risk, not geography, and that the risk profile for Whyteleafe dictated that they review this area for a new fire station. He also explained that the risk in Tandridge was very different in the north of the district than it was in the south, meaning that relocating resources to Godstone would improve response times in the north of the district without significantly impacting response times in Banstead.
Councillor Bennett then asked how moving the station from Banstead to Godstone would affect response times in Banstead, and Mr Quinn explained that the relocation would result in a 40-second reduction in response times in Reigate & Banstead, and a slight improvement in response times in Tandridge. He confirmed that this was because Tandridge is currently the least well-served area in the county in terms of response times, whereas Reigate & Banstead was one of the better served.
Councillor Jan Mason expressed her concern about the reduction of fire cover in Epsom. She reported that she had sat through many meetings in which projected numbers had been used to justify reductions in fire cover, but that she believed these numbers to be inaccurate, as no-one can know when they are going to call the fire service.
Councillor Mason also expressed concern that the plan was not taking account of central government’s housebuilding targets and the likely increase in demand that would result from additional housing. She expressed her belief that, if the Labour government were to find land in Epsom, they would build on it, and that the council would then regret removing services. She expressed her concern that it takes many years to train firefighters and that a certain type of person is required for the job, and that the council would struggle to recruit additional firefighters quickly if needed.
Councillor Mason reported that Epsom had a number of sites at high risk of fire, including Epsom Downs, which she reported is a triple SI site and a huge area, and Horton Country Park Local Nature Reserve, which she reported has “loads of tinder stuff”, and would be very vulnerable to wildfires. She questioned how a single fire engine could cover both Epsom and Banstead, stating her belief that the plan was not credible.
Mr Quinn responded that the service recruits and trains both male and female firefighters and that he would implore Councillor Mason to look at the detail of the CRMP which does take account of projected housing growth. He explained that the service is a statutory consultee on all planning applications and therefore has data on all premises that are likely to be built, including their occupancy type.
Mr Quinn reported that the Community Risk Profile, which informs the CRMP, is updated annually. He explained that there is a statutory requirement to review the CRMP every three years, but that Surrey had opted for a five-year plan to provide a longer term vision. He confirmed that the service would review the plan sooner if there was a significant change in the community risk profile. He also explained that the service prioritizes resources based on risk, and that Epsom is currently one of the best served boroughs in Surrey.
Mr Quinn confirmed that the service used Nottingham Trent University to audit the community risk profile and validate their methodology, noting that Nottingham Trent University is the author of the national methodology for Community Risk Management Plans.
Councillor Lance Spencer asked about the seasonal response model, and Sally Wilson, Assistant Chief Fire Officer for Surrey Fire and Rescue, responded that the proposal is not about cost savings, although the service is committed to being as efficient as possible. She explained that the seasonal response model was an additional layer of resilience that would enable the service to respond to incidents associated with specific seasons, such as flooding and wildfires. She reported that these incidents tend to take longer to manage, requiring additional resources. The seasonal response model would enable the service to release crews after longer shifts and provide cover across the county. She reported that the model was innovative and drew comparisons with the Army Reserve.
Councillor Mark Sugden asked how the service would manage their increased collaboration with health partners and Mr Quinn responded that the service would build on their existing strong relationships with partners, including South East Coast Ambulance Service, who he reported had responded to the consultation in full support of the proposal, GPs, care partners in the community, and those working with vulnerable people, such as rough sleepers. He reported that the service had begun a trial with the NHS, looking at how the service could be involved in making homes safe for vulnerable people being discharged from hospital.
Mr Quinn reported that the service had also worked with the South East Coast Ambulance Service on their burns management guidance. He confirmed that fire cover would not be impacted by this work and explained that Surrey had taken part in the National Emergency Medical Response Trial in 2015. This trial saw 400 Surrey Fire and Rescue staff trained to provide medical support to the ambulance service, and a number of fire engines were equipped to attend medical emergencies. The trial concluded in 2017, but the service has retained the equipment and skills that they developed as part of the trial, and will look to put these to use again, in partnership with the Ambulance service.
Mr Quinn confirmed that the service would adopt a structured project management approach to each of the proposals in the plan, working with trade unions and staff, to ensure that there was appropriate governance in place and that decisions were well-informed. He reported that the service would provide regular updates on the projects and make them transparent.
Councillor Sugden asked if the service envisaged that the increased investment in prevention and protection would result in a reduction in the need for fire and rescue responses.
Mr Quinn responded that the core aim of the service is always to prevent incidents from happening in the first place, but that an operational response remained essential. He reported that recent figures from the Home Office show that the number of fires the service is attending has fallen by two thirds over the last 20 years, with 140,000 fires attended in the last year. He also reported that this figure was the lowest since the year 2000.
Mr Quinn reported that, at the same time, non-fire related incidents had risen by 4% from the previous year, and had risen by 60% over the last decade, highlighting the importance of the service’s prevention work around road traffic collisions and flooding. He reported that every effort went into preventing incidents, but that the service believes the response model they have for Surrey is appropriate to the risk level in the county. He confirmed that they would continue to monitor this.
Councillor Cameron McIntosh asked if the service was confident that it had the right level of skills and knowledge to meet the challenges set out in the plan, particularly in relation to technical expertise such as fire engineering. He asked if the service was confident that it had sufficient skills in place to meet the increased emphasis on prevention, particularly in relation to the built environment and the government’s drive to increase housebuilding.
Mr Quinn responded that the service was working to ensure that all of their staff have the right skills and training in place, and that the Protection team is responsible for ensuring the built environment is as safe as it can be. He reported that the service is continually upskilling protection specialists, and ensuring that fire safety inspectors are trained to the competency framework. He confirmed that auditors and business education officers are also kept up to date as legislation changes.
Mr Quinn confirmed that the service does not employ fire engineers in-house but has contracts in place with fire engineering consultants to provide specialist support. The service also has a number of level 5 qualified engineer technicians, ensuring that the right skills are in place to meet current need.
Lee Spencer-Smith, Area Commander for Protection, explained that the service also prioritises prevention and response work, noting that the service has specialists who provide community fire safety advice, home fire safety checks, and Safe and Well visits.
Mr Quinn explained that the service also has a new training centre that is under development, and that the service uses apprenticeships at all levels, providing workplace adjustments where required, to ensure that staff have the appropriate skills and knowledge for their roles.
Councillor McIntosh pressed Mr Quinn on this point, asking if the service was confident that they would have access to a sufficient supply of qualified fire engineers in future, noting that there were only 250 qualified fire engineers in the country. Mr Quinn responded that the service is part of the 4F, a collaboration with East and West Sussex Fire & Rescue and Kent Fire & Rescue. He explained that this collaboration enables the services to share resources, particularly in areas of niche skills, such as fire engineering. He reported that he had recently taken over chairing the 4F to ensure that these arrangements were as effective and efficient as possible.
Mr Spencer-Smith then added that the service has a retainer in place with a fire engineering consultant to guarantee a certain level of response and that the service is continuously looking at their processes to ensure that they can manage the risks associated with the built environment. Mr Quinn then added that a recent example of these collaboration arrangements working well was during Operation London Bridge, when Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue requested assistance in auditing the safety of hotels in their area.
Councillor Mason then raised a concern about the fire risk associated with the open spaces in her division, Epsom and Ewell. She asked if the service could install signage at the entrance to parks and heathland to remind people of their duty of care. Councillor Richard Tear responded that they already have signage at the entrances to commons, and that it was much appreciated.
Committee recommendations on the Community Risk Management Plan for 2025-2030:
- The Committee welcomes the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service’s continued focus on risk and demand data to inform their Community Risk Manage- ment Plan and commends the process they have followed so far in developing their plan for 2025-2030.
- The Committee welcomes the additional one-year lease agreed on the Banstead fire station to enable an updated, extensive review of any options within the Whyteleafe area to be undertaken.
- The Committee thanks the Service for their comprehensive answers to questions and queries throughout the session.
Economic Growth in Surrey
Councillor Matt Furniss, Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth, updated the committee on progress in relation to economic growth. He reported that the team had hit the ground running and had established a single portal for Surrey businesses: “Business Surrey”. The service has also held its second Festival of Skills.
Councillor Furniss reported that the government had confirmed its commitment to fund the service in future, although the council was still waiting on detail of how much funding they would be receiving. He also reported that the response from the business community has been very positive and that the council is working closely with their education partners on skills.
Transitional arrangements from the Local Enterprise Partnership
Councillor John Beckett asked about the implications of Coast to Capital LEP becoming a private company and if this meant they would become a competitor to the council in supporting businesses. Councillor Furniss responded that the decision had slowed down the transition of assets from the LEP and that he did not see them as a competitor. He confirmed that Coast to Capital had largely focussed on Brighton and Hove and that the majority of funding for businesses in Surrey had come from Enterprise M3 LEP.
Councillor Andy MacLeod asked if there were any liabilities to be divided between the council and Enterprise M3, and if Coast to Capital would retain any of its assets, and what their liabilities were. Councillor Furniss reported that the council would be receiving a 51% share of legacy funding from Enterprise M3, and that the council was pressing Brighton & Hove City Council, who are the accountable body, to set out their liabilities and assets. He reported that this process was taking longer than anticipated, as Coast to Capital had decided to go private.
In relation to Enterprise M3, Councillor Furniss reported that Surrey and Hampshire would be jointly responsible for Longcross Park in Runnymede, which is an enterprise zone. He also reported that Enterprise M3 had a number of investments that the council was looking to divest from and then reinvest in local businesses. He confirmed that the council would be asking businesses to set out their priorities for this funding.
Councillor Richard Tear asked if there was anything that the council could do to improve the Internal Audit opinion of “Reasonable Assurance” to “Substantial Assurance”. Councillor Furniss responded that the audit report was focussed on the arrangements with Coast to Capital, and was not a reflection of the governance in place at Surrey County Council.
Surrey Growth Hub
Councillor Mark Sugden asked about the take-up of the Surrey Growth Hub, which offers free tailored support to high-growth businesses, noting that the service had supported 280 businesses to date. He asked if the council was happy with that level of take-up, and what the feedback had been from businesses. Councillor Furniss responded that he thought it was a good start, and that the council was pleased with the positive response from the business community. He reported that businesses had described the service as being like “having a board you can’t afford”.
Supporting Surrey’s green economy
Councillor Catherine Baart asked how the council was supporting Surrey’s green economy and net-zero targets. Councillor Furniss responded that there was a dedicated sustainability specialist working in the Growth Hub, and that this specialist worked with businesses to help them go green. He confirmed that the green economy was a priority from the start. He also reported that the Greener Futures Team were working with the business support team and that they shared some advisors.
Government funding for Economic Growth
Councillor John Beckett asked about government funding for the service, noting that the current funding was due to end in April 2025. Councillor Furniss reported that the government had confirmed that funding would continue, although the council was awaiting detail of how much funding would be available. He explained that Surrey had been ahead of the game in setting up the Growth Hub, as they had begun providing the service before government funding was guaranteed.
Financial benefits to the Council
Councillor Baart asked how the council’s economic strategy was supporting businesses in Surrey, noting that some businesses were lagging behind their neighbours and that some had contracted significantly. She asked how the three priorities in the strategy had been developed and how the council directly benefits financially from supporting economic growth.
Councillor Furniss responded that the council’s economic strategy, Surrey’s Economic Future 2030, had been developed in 2020 and was based on a report by the Lord Haran Commission and independent economic evidence. He reported that the strategy was being refreshed to take account of the changed circumstances since the pandemic. He confirmed that the priorities in the strategy had not changed significantly: Growing the leading edge, supporting growth for innovation economy, a whole-place approach to growing and sustainable quality places, maximizing opportunities within a balanced, inclusive economy, and capturing the potential of a greener economy.
Councillor Furniss explained that, when the government dissolved the LEPs and returned the power to upper-tier local authorities, they became responsible for the local and regional economy, but that there is not a direct financial benefit to the council. He noted that the two biggest issues raised by businesses in the county were housing and skills, and that the council was working to address these issues.
Patricia Hurtus-Saridia, Head of Economic Programmes and Localities, then added that the economic strategy was focused on gross value added. She explained that the council was seeking to support businesses that had the highest growth potential, and was working with universities to support spin-out businesses and start-ups.
Level 7 apprenticeship funding
Councillor Cameron McIntosh asked if there had been any feedback from businesses about the potential cut in government funding for level 7 apprenticeships. Councillor Furniss responded that he had not received any feedback on level 7 apprenticeships, but that he was concerned about the potential drop off in levels 1 to 3 apprenticeships. He reported that this was something that the council was considering how to address.
Measuring the council’s impact on economic growth
Councillor Andy McLeod asked how the council would measure the success of its initiatives in supporting economic growth, and Councillor Furniss responded that the council used Gross Value Added as its main measure. He also reported that the number of businesses surviving and the number of people employed were also key measures of success. He explained that any decision made now would take many years to see results, and therefore it was difficult to measure the impact in the short term. He confirmed that survivability was a key indicator and asked Ms Hurtus-Saridia to comment on any other measures that he had missed.
Ms Hurtus-Saridia responded that the council also looked at high knowledge intensity industries and worked to support start-ups and spin-out companies, measuring the number of businesses being created, the survival rate of businesses, and the impact of their support on business rates.
Growth and Innovation Fund
Councillor Richard Tear asked about the Growth and Innovation Fund (GIF), noting that it was described as a transparent mechanism. He asked for clarification on what that means and how exceptional and strategically important projects would be identified. Councillor Furniss responded that the committee would be receiving an annual report on the performance of the fund, and that strategically important projects would be identified through the refresh of the economic strategy, but that the council was placing an emphasis on the business community to set out its priorities.
Costs of the strategy
Councillor Lance Spencer asked how much the strategic funding framework would cost the council and if there were any external sources of funding. Councillor Furniss responded that the government had provided a one-off grant to support the transition of the LEP functions and that this was the only external source of funding available. He reported that the council had received £240,000 for the transition and that the government had confirmed funding would continue in future, although the council was waiting on details of how much would be made available.
Committee recommendations on Economic Growth:
- The Committee notes the progress that has been made to conclude the LEP transition process.
- The Committee endorses the reframed strategic priorities in the refreshed local economic growth strategy.
- The Committee endorses the approach to create a Strategic Funding Framework as the mechanism through which investment decisions are made using the LEP legacy local growth funds.
- The Committee approves the role of the Committee to receive an annual report about the performance of the Surrey Growth and Innovation Fund and updates on funded projects.
Tracker and Forward Work Programme
The committee reviewed the tracker of actions and recommendations and the forward work programme. It was noted that the next meeting was scheduled for 12 February 2025.
The Chair and Vice-Chairs then wished everyone a Merry Christmas, a safe journey home and a Happy New Year.
Attendees
Documents
- First Supplementary Agenda Thursday 05-Dec-2024 10.00 Communities Environment and Highways Selec other
- Minutes Public Pack 19112024 Communities Environment and Highways Select Committee other
- Member Question Sheet for 20241205 ver 1.0 other
- Agenda frontsheet Thursday 05-Dec-2024 10.00 Communities Environment and Highways Select Committ agenda
- 1. Actions Recommendations for December 2024 ver 0.3 other
- 2. Forward Work Plan December 2024 Working Draft ver 0.2 other
- Public reports pack Thursday 05-Dec-2024 10.00 Communities Environment and Highways Select Commi reports pack
- 1. Cabinet Response to the Interim Recommendations from Select Committee Budget Deep Dives
- Minutes 15102024 Communities Environment and Highways Select Committee other
- 2. Slides-2025-26 Draft Budget and Medium-Term Financial Strategy to 2029-30
- 1. 2025-26 Draft Budget and Medium-Term Financial Strategy to 2029-30 - Report
- 1. Community Risk Management Plan CRMP 2025-2030 - Report
- 2. Community Risk Management Plan for 2025-2030
- 3. Community Risk Management Plan for 2025-2030 Consultation Analysis
- 1. Report - The Councils Economic Growth Leadership Role