Transcript

start. Could I take this opportunity to welcome members of the committee? This is a meeting of the Environment Communities and Highways Select Committee. Could I also welcome the cabinet member and officers this morning? Could I take this opportunity also to remind colleagues to switch off their mobile phones? And also a reminder that this meeting is being broadcast by webcast and a recording will be made available online subsequently. In the case of a fire, colleagues are reminded to exit the room using the door through which you entered earlier and then exit the building to your left. If you have a comment or question members of the committee, please don't forget to raise your hand and I promise to get to you. And could I take this opportunity also to remind that when you speak, please do use the microphone. Committee clerk, good morning to you and could I ask whether we have any apologies and all substitutions? Thank you. Apologies received from Councillor JOHN BACOT. Thank you very much, Clare. Now the minutes of the previous Select Committee on the 7th of February should be with you and you should have had an opportunity to review its contents. Are there any comments or queries over factual accuracy? They are not. Are you happy to approve the minutes as a true and accurate reflection of that meeting in February? Great. Thank you very much. I will sign those minutes then. Are there any declarations of interest? No, they're not. Clare, have there been any questions or petitions to the committee? No, they haven't. Thank you very much. Without further ado then, let's then move on to item 5, the Surrey Connect Digital Demand Responsive Travel Service which is on page, the report that is on page 17 to 28. Could I take this opportunity to welcome our witnesses who have joined us this morning, Matt Furnace, the Cabinet Member Responsible, Katie Stewart, the Executive Director Responsible at Lucy Monney, the Director of Highways and Transport and Paul Millin, who is the Assistant Director Strategic Transport. Welcome to all of you. Now before the committee has questions that we would like you to answer, could I invite one of you to provide an introduction to this report if you would like to and any general questions or queries and comments from any of you? Thank you, Chairman. I'll be very brief because hopefully the report is quite straightforward. What you have before you at the meeting today is essentially an update as to where we are with our Digital Demand Responsive Transport or DDRT. It gives you information on progress, our plans for the future and some information around future monitoring and performance which we'd like to bring back to the committee. So reasonably straightforward introduction, so very happy to take any questions that you or the committee may have. Thank you very much, Paul. Well, look, I will start and let me ask all of you the efforts to boost numbers of users and take up of services is a key initial line of inquiry for this committee. We have noted in the report that the number of registered users in different zones varies greatly. What can we do to boost numbers? Thank you, Chairman. Yeah, it's interesting. You're absolutely right that registered user numbers do vary across the different DDRT zones and that's primarily due to the population differences in each zone. So if you take Mulvally, which is the scheme that's been running for the longest time and now covers the whole of the district, that serves a population of around about 120,000 residents. And if you compare that with the West Guilford scheme, that serves a population of around 5,000 residents. So that's J.G.Y. You've got the differences in numbers. I'd add that every household and every business received publicity about the service in their area in their zone through the letterbox before the DDRT service started. But absolutely, I think I and the team who are working on DDRT, except that ongoing promotion, publicity via traditional and digital and social media methods are absolutely needed. And that's part of the communications plan that we're developing for the DDRT services. And we're also looking at other local initiatives to try and encourage greater ridership to be looking at discounts. Can we look at group travel offers and so on to actually make the service more attractive. And the recommendation in the report is to bring back the comms plan and that information if the select committee would like to see that. So absolutely comms is still really important in the service. And I would stress and I'll probably say this two or three times through the questions. It's still a relatively new service. So it's still growing across Surrey and we're still learning and we need to apply that learning to encourage more users to use the DDRT services as and when they're introduced. Thank you. Thank you very much Paul. You mentioned a comms plan. At that point, I'm going to hand over to Andy McLeod, followed then by Lance Spencer. Andy over to you. Thank you, Jim. Paul, you've partly answered my question already, but could you just expand a little bit more on the communications plan, what you're actually doing and how successful you feel the communications plan is being. Because it's obviously very important to make this service a success. Thank you. Thank you. I mean, numbers are rising, both in terms of people subscribing to the scheme and usage and the report itself gives some information. So we're working with our comms team. We're also working with the University of Surrey to see how can we nudge, influence, get more users on to DDRT. So it's still very much work in progress and what we would like to do is bring back the more detailed comms plan first scrutiny to the committee if that's something that you would like to see. Very happy to do that. Thank you, Andy. I'm going to go to Catherine Bount, followed by Lance. Catherine. Thank you. Just returning to the first question about the differences in usage in the different areas, am I right in thinking that Mall Valley was set up as a door-to-door service and the others are set up as a stop-to-stop service and Mall Valley is still a door-to-door service. And is that a reason for change in population? Thank you. That's a really good question and that's been part of the learning because when we did set the original Mall Valley service up, which was North Leatherhead in reality and it's obviously now covering the whole of the county with full vehicles compared to the two previously, we were offering essentially door-to-door trips. We're now offering stop-to-stop trips. So the stop's not necessarily a local bus stop. It could be, but it's not necessarily. It could actually be the end of the user's road. It could be the local centre of the village wherever we think is going to be convenient. And if an existing or a new user wants to suggest a new stop to be picked up, absolutely we can assess that and we do that all the time. The information's on the county council's website of how to contact us. I'll find the email address in a second. But if there is a desire for a new stop, absolutely we'll go out and assess that. Make sure it's safe. That's the number one thing. And then we can make that available to all residents to use for future travel. So it has been a slight shift from door-to-door to stop-to-stop, but it makes the service much more effective in terms of availability to residents because you're not going right up to somebody's house. And I think that's the difference between DDRT and Dylorite, which is very much a home to destination service, often with the Dylorite driver and/or escort, helping the resident on the journey from the front door to the end of the drive and then onto the vehicle. So they're very different things. This is a small local bus service, it's not a Dylorite service. Hopefully that answers your question. It already is moved to a stop-to-stop. Exactly. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Catherine. Lance, over to you. Thank you, Mr Chairman. So the report notes that currently between 10 to 15 per cent of the cost of running the services is recovered. Once they're fully established, and I appreciate there's a lot of learning going on, what do you think is the realistic cost recovery ambition? And do you have an indication of how much per journey we're subsidising the journeys for Mulvally where it's established and has been running for some time? Thank you. Yeah, I would start by saying that DDRT's not been introduced with the view to becoming a commercial offering. I think that's fundamental. What it tries to do is provide residents with a new and more flexible transport offer, quite different from what's been provided before, and it's often really successful in areas with relatively low levels of public transport, so it helps residents to access key services via a more sustainable mode. So as DDRT becomes more established and more embedded in the communities that they serve, I think, and also as we try to optimise how the DDRT service itself works, process of learning, because I say again, it is still relatively new. I think it would be reasonable that if we achieved somewhere between 20 and 25 percent in terms of return, we're currently, as you say, between 10 and 15 percent as set out in the report, but in terms of a yield of income from fares to revenue, 20 to 25 percent seems pretty reasonable. I can't give you a direct answer on the cost of passenger trip from all valley. I'd have to go back and work that out, but I'm very happy to provide that via the scrutiny office back to you to give you the accurate answer to that question. If you'd like to follow up further, you can happen with that. Thanks very much. Thank you. I've got Keith followed by Catherine Keith. Thank you very much indeed, Chairman. Your report describes almost £5m budget allocation for DDRT in Phase 2 this current year and just over £3m for Phase 2. Can I just ask you what proportion of that will be funded through government funds, and is there further government rural mobility funding available? Chairman, I'll have a second follow-up question if I may. Thank you. The rural mobility fund ground, which was the ground that we were allocated to set up the Mulhally DDRT service, that was a two year ground that we received, and that will finish in May of this year. So it's imminent and that ground will be fully utilized. The other ground that we're using to support the services is B-sit plus funding, or B-sit Phase 2, is it's being rebranded by government now, and we're applying around £2.4m of B-sit plus funding to DDRT across the program, and that's for the current financial year that we've just entered, and the next financial year coming 2025, 2026. So they're the two government grants that we have applied and are applying in the case of rural mobility fund and latterly, B-sit plus funding. So fall is that sustainable after this round of government funding is coming to an end, there is new funding. What about the future? What's your gut feeling? I mean, can Surrey afford to continue this if there were no further government funding? I see Katie smiling. Well, it's a practical question, I think, because it's all very well doing all this good work, what happens when the government funding finishes, as has happened so often in the past on so many different things? So I can answer that to a partner, I'm sure Matt or one's coming from a political perspective, and I'll try not to strain to politics. Probably get a thump from both the left and the right, if I do. So to answer your question in terms of a budget setting perspective, we have been absolutely transparent in terms of what the costs of DDRT are currently for the programme that is set out and the report and for the future ambitions of the council in terms of more DDRT, covering more of Surrey, and that's all been fed into the medium-term financial plan. So there's absolutely transparent in terms of what the future costs are. So Matt, might want to comment on the politics. Thank you, Chair. Yes, it's something that we're very committed to as a cabinet. We have put that money in the budget side for this. Let's not forget, we've said very clearly, we're not aiming to make this break even. It would be delightful if it was, but bear in mind, we're providing public transport services in non-commercial areas of the county, and it's really to meet the fact that no one is left behind, but also are targeting our transport climate change emissions. So it's got a dual aspect here. It is actually one of the key things that I'm always asked if I do go and speak about DDRT. The first thing I look like an authority will ask is, will this be cheaper than a subsidising a fixed bus route? The answer would be no, but it is more flexible. We can target more people than the fixed bus route. And as Councillor BAP was saying, it's closer to a door-to-door scenario. It's stopped to stop, but it is closer, so it provides that flexibility. The money is there. We are committed to this. There will be some savings that we can make, such as in your own area, Councillor Wissam, where the subsidised route was being withdrawn. We were able to switch it all over onto DDRT. It's now more successful than when Stagecoge operated the fixed bus route, and they carry more passengers. So it is very successful going across the board. But I think we just need to remember, it is a very flexible offering this in which members of Surrey, or residents of Surrey, are able to use this instead of their car in rural areas where commercial services will not operate. So we will have to have that budget and we will have to commit to continuing that budget. What I will say is it is far less than our subsidised fixed bus commercial network, which is only 11 million in the think at the moment. So I would say it's actually very good value for money. One bit that Paul didn't mention, but I am going to mention it, is to a previous question. The Mulvally Rural Mobility Funded programme was the best performing government subsidised programme in the country. And I don't think we shout about that enough. The fact that actually, despite you saying about the varying numbers, it was the best performing in the country for all that money. And I do think, with time, the other areas will grow to those levels and more as well. Thank you, Joe. Thank you very much, Matt. Keith, any follow-up to those comments? Yes, thank you, Chairman. In fact, part of what Matt said leads into my follow-up question. Because on page 23 of your report, at the bottom, you have the number of passenger trips between last September and March for each of the newly introduced schemes. What I would like to see, if it's not here, is some comparison with what happened before each of those new schemes from September through to March. Because I know that in the West Guilford scheme that Matt has alluded to, there has been approximately a 45 per cent increase in the number of passenger journeys every week compared with what was in existence up until last August, which was the old stagecoach number 17 route service, which was itself a commercial route, which was itself taken over from a river five years before, and so on and so forth. So it had a history of not being very good. This is great, but for the others, I would like to see a similar comparison. How has this actually improved for each of those areas? Yes, that's a really good question because following the big public and stakeholder consultation that we took place while we were asking residents about a number of things, including the expansion of DDRT, seeking to understand what residents thought and where we should be looking at in terms of expanding DDRT. There were a number of socially necessary services that we subsumed into DDRT. So we can get the data on those in terms of passenger numbers and then we can compare those to what's happening in the various zones of DDRT that they were operating to show what the difference is. Noting, of course, DDRT is still relatively new and patronage is still growing, but I think in the main you will see a significant increase. One of the other things that we're going to do as part of engagement with users is to survey them and understand how they were making their journey before, so what really were driving in the main to understand what the shift has been into DDRT in a more sustainable way of travelling. So we can get that information and come back to the committee. That's great. Thank you. And for the benefit of the team here, I would simply say that since the introduction of the West Guilford one, which primarily serves the village of Wood Street plus the local felons area, the only feedback that I have received has been 100% positive. Because of the history of the problems of that route, before there were a number of people who were not sure about it before it started and grasping the concept of a bus that doesn't have a route or a timetable was not easy to begin with, but once it started, if you've got used to it, purely positive comments. Well, I'm sure that's music to your collective ears. Thank you very much, Keith, right. I'm going to go to Catherine followed by Andy. Catherine. Thank you. So we kind of counsel is now funding DDRT, subsidising some of the established fixed bus routes, and then the bus companies are collecting the profit from the commercial routes. So is any thought being given to a Surrey County Council bus franchise for the whole of Surrey? Yeah, that's a very topical question, actually. Committee will probably remember that through the National Bus Strategy, Bus Back Better, when it was published back in March 2020, four years ago, how time's flown. All local transport authorities in England, they were asked to assess as part of developing the bus service improvement plan, and we talk about that in the next agenda item. Whether they wanted to pursue or explore franchising or whether they wanted to pursue or explore an enhanced partnership model for bus operation in their particular area. And as we know, the Surrey County Council chose to establish the enhanced partnership model, and that's where we are. But if you look at the county deal framework, there's an opportunity, you know, expressed in black and white that those local authorities, which include Surrey, could consider bus franchising. And I would say that all the opportunities that are available to the council in terms of the county deal are being assessed as to whether they're going to be a right fit for the council and a right fit for residents. And if you did look at franchising, the initial step for county site Surrey would to be secure approval from the sexually estate in principle before you could actually develop the concept along the pathway that's set out in terms of developing franchising. And I would suggest securing that initial approval from the sexually estate is quite a significant task in itself. It's also worth highlighting that the cost of moving to franchising model is significant, and there's different levels within that, depending on the choices that the respective local authority wanted to make. So around ownership of deproes, ownership of fleets, and so on. So it's quite complicated, and it can be at various different levels of intention and therefore cost. But I'll conclude by saying that no county council today was implemented at bus franchising model. And I'd add that around 70% of bus journeys in Surrey are actually made on commercial services without the county council's involvement. So I think there are two really important points that any local authority needs to think about if they're looking at franchising. Thank you. Thank you, Paul. Catherine, any follow-up? Question or comment? Thank you very much. Right, Andy, over to you for a follow-up. Thank you. I'd like to ask about what measures of success we were setting ourselves on in this service. Firstly, in terms of patronage, is there a specific, I understand it's going to be a subsidized service, but is there a specific number of passenger journeys per day for vehicle that we're aiming to achieve? At that point, we regard the scheme as successful. And secondly, are there any other measures of success that you have apart from the simple one of the passenger numbers? Now, do you have a follow-up question I'd like to ask after that, Chairman? Thank you. Yeah, I mean, all measures for success have, I mean, there's still being developed as we learn from, I'll say, again, these still relatively new schemes in terms of the DDRT and that we've delivered and is proposed for further expansion across Surrey. And they absolutely will include things like passenger satisfaction ratings, and it's really encouraging to hear from council with them about what's happening in his patch, and I think that's mirrored across the piece in Surrey. It's also about understanding the improved geographical accessibility for residents in terms of their access to a new form of public transport, how vehicles are utilised during the day, and currently the average number of passengers per operating hour across all the DDRT services is 1.55. And what we've done is we've set a target to try and achieve passengers for an individual operating hour between two and a half and three. That's where we want to get to across all the DDRT services in Surrey. Again, I'd come back to passenger satisfaction. It's very, very high. At the current rates, 95%, which is really good. We're very pleased that residents using the service clearly enjoy everything about it, which is great. We can always get better, but 95% is pretty good. So overall, the performance targets are still in development. Once complete, what we'd like to do, and it's part of the recommendations to the committee, is come back and present those to the committee for their scrutiny and comments so we can refine them further, if that would be helpful. Thank you, Paul. I think the answer to that question is yes, most certainly. A follow-up, Andy, you've got one. Thank you, Jim. I'd like to slightly change the subject and the way that I was speaking to, after our pre-meeting, I was speaking to Cass and Pearl, who's a good leader of our route over the weekend about this service. As she does, I think Cass and has been looking into this thing. She has an overall concern about whether or not we're using this valuable post as imaginatively as we could do. I mean, how are we actually looking at it from the point of view that it could be a whole day-type service, that it could start in the morning helping commuters and children going to school during the day, could be focused on shoppers and community service. And again, in the afternoon and evening, it would switch back to children school travel, commuters and so on. Are we looking to use the thing as imaginatively as possible? And she pointed me to a service that already exists, which I hadn't actually heard of, which is in carbon. It's run by a charity. It's called, and you're probably familiar with it. It's called Chatter bus. And apparently, according to Cass, they operate in this way. Of course, that's different because there will be loads of volunteers involved with this service and that type of thing. And Surrey are one of the sponsors of the service along with other organisations. Is there anything in that model that would help Surrey run this service better, make more use of the facilities and so on and so forth? I understand it's a very general question. It was put to me at the weekend by Catherine some extent asking this question on her behalf. So, can I put that to you, Paul, for a response? Thank you. Sorry, Paul, just before you answer that, there is a question that I know that Catherine Bard wants to ask following on Andy's comments, and they relate specifically to home to school transport. So perhaps if you could take Catherine's question and also Andy's question together and no doubt, might want to comment as well. Thank you. Yeah, I'll go to you next Catherine and then perhaps both over to you. Yes, it was obviously because of the amounts of money that the council is facing on home to school transport and I have read the part in the report where you explained why it's not being used for home to school transport at the moment. And I just wondered whether there are opportunities, for example, to transport children to a place where they can then get a commercial bus to school or a safe walking route to school. So it gets them perhaps off the rural lanes where there's no pavements terrible to walk along, but it gets them somewhere where they can do the rest of the journey safely and free up the bus to go and help commuters. Thank you. Thank you. I'm straying into school transport, which I'm not responsible for, so you'll have to bear with me. And it might be a question that equally could be posed to our colleagues in children's as well if they wanted to express a view. But I'll tell you what my view is. Yeah, sorry, connect DDRT. It's not a school transport service. Passengers are not able to travel to or from school. That's the number of where we are. But passengers can make bookings to transport nodes from a travel. So if you take the Mulvally scheme, for example, residence in Mulvally, and can book a journey to take them to Dorking Deep Dean Station, so that a young person attending Rygate College, for example, who lives in Mulvally, can book a journey to get them to Dorking Deep Dean, and then they can transfer on to the Great Western Service to come to Rygate, and then short walk to Rygate College. So that's completely possible. But what we don't offer is a home or a local pick up point to school. For the reasons that's set out in the report, it really would distort all sorts of things in schools from school place planning, catchment areas, and so on. To try and answer your question around the cost of home to school transport, because there we're talking about these children who are entitled to travel support rather than children who are not entitled in terms of the various acts of parliament, principally around distance. So if you look at mainstream education, the vast majority of children who are entitled to travel assistance are travelling on buses and coaches. That's the most effective in terms of cost and groups of children and young people are to get them to their place of learning, unless they're being provided that travel allowance and their parents and carers are taking them to school. If you look at taxis, and I think that was one of the issues that's been raised, the vast majority of taxis that the County Council is procuring for travel assistance for children who are being educated in a special education needs setting. So if it's really not simple to try to transfer SCND children onto DDRT vehicles given the safeguarding, the support measures that absolutely have to be in place of children who've got a wide spectrum of physical and learning needs, all of which needs to be recognized and supported when travel assistance is being provided. So I really don't think DDRT is a good fit. Moreover, if it were used for that purpose and it comes back to Council Council's question, essentially what you would be doing is taking DDRT out of service for an hour and a half in the morning and an hour and a half in the evening or tea time. So three hours of an operating day, all other residents wouldn't be able to use DDRT because it's being used for home to school transport. So people who are trying to get DDRT to the local station for their onward commute get DDRT to start work at half a state quarter to nine in the morning in the local village or the town centre. Other people travelling to medical appointments at 9 o'clock at their local GP surgery, they simply wouldn't have access to DDRT because we would have decided that actually we're going to use it for home to school transport in one way or another. I really think that would defeat the rationale for why we set DDRT up in the first place. It absolutely wasn't intended for home to school and that is where we're at now. It's also a small mini bus, so you're not going to get lots of children using it. And I do think it's not the answer, particularly the special education needs transfer of the children and young people to education. But colleagues and children may have a different view. Yes, two things. Chatabas, I forgot, apologies. Chatabas, we've been working with Gerry Acher and others in Chatabas for many years. In fact, we essentially helped them set the service up. We did the timetable for them. So it's a service that I know very, very well. And they have got a different operating model. You're right. But what they've chosen to do is to provide a need to a local school for a period of time in the morning, which essentially takes that vehicle out of service for the rest of the community. But that's how they've chosen to develop their model. And it seems to be working quite well. It's serving the local community who really like Chatabas. It's not a DDRT service. It's a scheduled bus when it's operating. But I think there is absolutely a place for Chatabas in that area. Matt mentioned, I think, safe routes to school? Yes. So a review of safe routes is underway at the moment, looking at individual schools across the county in terms of entitlement of children. And looking at the routes to see is there an opportunity to make some of those routes safer by interventions, which aren't necessarily high-cost. Not with Sandy a point about country lanes in the absence of footpaths. That's completely recognised by the team undertaking the safe routes to school investigations. But there are instances where we can work with colleagues in countryside, for example, to see are their rights of way that we can actually open up to those children travelling to school, ensure that they're properly investigated and assessed. And we can make a decision as to whether they are available for the community to use, to get them to school in a safe way. Matt, would you like to comment further? What is that? Just on improving the service, whilst we've explained very eloquently why we have chosen not to do it for school runs effectively, we are looking, because there are several pots of money where you have similar services being offered. The districts offer the dial the right service in most cases, not all. And the NHS also has their non-emergency patient transfers, for example, when they're discharged. So we are doing a piece of work with our operators just to see, actually, because those are flexible, other services, we are seeing whether we can actually maximise the use of the DZRT by combining those pots of money together, as I think the NHS is a more challenging one of those partners to work with. But as they are starting to tender those particular services, we can start looking at how we can actually improve and expand the offer across all walks. Very interestingly, we saw in Mulvally that there was a very distinct pattern to medical appointments using the DZRT service rather than a taxi or a fixed bus route, particularly I think it was our appointments in particular, because they knew they could get pretty much door to door. So it's something that we are exploring to see how we can further improve. Thank you very much, Matt. It is something I would suggest, we would suggest that you continue to explore. And I appreciate the tension between distorting the DTRT offering in the way that you've described, but also being imaginative and also, dare I say, maximising the use of the service across a wider piece. But thank you for those comprehensive answers. I'm going to go to Richard next, followed by Cameron, and then I've got Buddy. Richard. Paul, you've already covered the answer in the main about how to access the service and where to go if you want to where to stop or a hub. But what's the publicity behind that? Are we telling people that that's available? What is the comms plan for that, please? Thank you. Yeah, just to reiterate, I think something I said earlier, the comms plan is being developed, and that's something that we very much like to bring back to the committee in full for scrutiny. The web address, all the contact details of Surrey Connect are on the public website. And the email address, the general email address, and this includes where residents want to request an additional pick up point in their locality is Surrey Connect at SurreyCC.gov.uk. So hopefully reasonably straightforward. But yeah, we'd like to bring the comms plan back to the committee and for scrutiny. As a subject of medical appointments being mentioned, and thank you for that, we have a lot of trouble locally in being able to access appointments at the West End surgery, and this might be one of the reasons why your long cross service isn't as well used as it might be. I thought I just mentioned that. It is a name problem, and the team and I have been talking about how we can improve that. So it is work in progress, but it's a good point. Thank you. Thanks, Paul. Thank you, Richard, and Paul. Keith, you had a question? Yes, following on from the discussion earlier about the number of passengers increase in each of the areas. A similar point, is there an analysis that you have showing within each of the catchment areas. If there are specific geographical locations that are not really taking up the service, I can think in my division there is a particular geographical area that is wasn't really part of the old commercial service, and it's on the geographical fringe of the catchment area, and I would love to know if that has been taken up, or as part of the Commons plan, if those patches could be given a bit more attention to make more people aware that they have this service? That's a really good question, and absolutely in the Commons plan, we will be identifying areas where we think we need to give it another push, so we can actually get residents in those areas using DDRT. So if members do believe perhaps on the fringes of a DDRT area, there is a particular cohort of residents that they would like us to do, but if a publicity push, very happy to look at that. And equally, you have seen the map in the main body of the report. If there is an opportunity to slightly extend the operating area of DDRT, because we think we can bring in a new community that isn't actually going to adversely impact how the service operates in terms of efficiency, then we can look at that absolutely happy to do so. Thank you, Paul. Thank you, Keith. Right, I'm going to go to Cameron followed by Buddy. Cameron. Thank you very much, Chairman. So I think there's always been quite some talk about sort of extending the DDRT operating hours, looking at its reach, etc. But I suppose it's more of an operational question. What options exist for extending more regular services during the afternoon? So particularly with more flexible working, people working from home, and certainly, you know, with recent train strikes as well, you tend to have sort of a bit of a fall off on services during the afternoon. I mean, I've used DDRT quite a bit, probably three times a week, but I noticed that sort of afternoon period to be quite quiet, and when I need to rely on that, it's not as regular as it is maybe sort of during the morning or maybe late afternoons. So I wonder if that could be taken away and whether that could be sort of looked at a bit further possibly. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. I mean, in any DDRT area, we've got the same number of vehicles operating throughout the day. So all the Surrey Connect services are currently operating 7am in the morning to 7pm Monday to Friday, and then 8am to 6pm on a Saturday. So I think that afternoon period is still well served. And we, as I said, we've got the same number of vehicles operating on each of the services. And within the main body of the report, there's some information on the use by hour throughout the day. And you can see it does ebb and flow a little bit. And it comes back to the point I made about school transport. You can see the hours around 8 o'clock and 9 o'clock. There's a lot of people using DDRT for whatever purposes it is to get to work, to get to the local railway station, to get to the local GP surgery. So very happy to look at that and see what we can do more. Some of the areas we're actually introducing more vehicles. So the ability for users to, current users and potentially future users to use DDRT, is going to increase. So that's really encouraging our hope in the future. Thank you, Paul. Cameron, any follow-up to that? No, that's really helpful. I think maybe just a very brief follow-up. So obviously when there are other public transport services that aren't operating, for example, through rail strikes and stuff, maybe looking at sort of doing more regular routes or sort of more frequent sort of services during the afternoon when we just have rail strikes and stuff will be really helpful for residents. Yeah, I mean, that's clearly understood as a rail use of myself. I know what the impacts are on when you're just trying to get to work, do you work, whatever it is. It's very difficult because what you need is you need the resource available to provide the replacement service and with sometimes very little notice in terms of the publication of what the rail strike timetable is going to be. And it's even more complicated when it's an overtime ban because you're even further divorced from what the reality of what the service is going to be. But we do work with the operators to see what it is we can do, but it's very, very difficult to respond to a national road to speak. Sorry, that sounds really negative, but it's a long distance. Thanks, Cameron. Right, I'm going to go to Buddy followed by Catherine and then we'll move to the recommendations, Buddy. Thank you, Chair. My question is around the further expansion of DDRT service. On your report on the page number 21, you spoke about the expansion into part of Enbridge, Eigate, Bansterdens, Pelton. To have any particular time frame as to when this will be rolled out in these areas, particularly I'm interested in Pelton because our local recent association have got a great interest in this service. So any heads up on this will be much appreciated. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, I mean, the areas that we indicated in the report and you've mentioned which ones they are, Pelton is included in there. We've already started to look at Enbridge, Rogate and Bansterd and Pelton and a few others to see what the opportunities from DDRT are. The services that will start, and I can't say which ones, it's definitely going to be yet because there's processes that we have to go through, not least ensuring the available funding is there to support further DDRT. They'll start in 2025. So it's not that far away. It's likely that they will be September 25, but I'm sure there'll be a political push to do it earlier. So I completely understand that, but 2025, September at the latest. Thank you very much. Good news. Thank you, buddy. Right, Catherine, over to you. This is a question about the PADAM. I have been told that although the feedback option is valuable, the comment is that if you tried to book a bus but you couldn't book a bus, you can't feedback that information. What's the capacity? Do we know what the capacity of the services? Do we know what if people can't tell us that they couldn't get a bus? How are we going to increase capacity? That's a really important point. The two learning points that we're trying to get to grips with in terms of our development of DDRT is that point that if a resident can't book a trip because the bus has already been booked, how do we know that and how can we learn from that? That's really important. That's something we're working on with the PADAM at the moment. And the other one is short-term cancellations. So if you are booking a trip but not paying for the trip, we have a significant number of short-term cancellations and we need to work our way through how we deal with that. I think part of it is getting residents to understand that if you have booked a trip, yes, we understand some may need to cancel a short notice and it may be because some of the is ill, their plans change or they're getting a lift. But the more notice we have the greater opportunity then we can open up that slot to somebody else who is going to benefit from it. So they're the two big things that we're working through with PADAM and I think once we resolve those, the availability of the vehicle and the utilisation of the vehicle and the scheme overall will be better. So both of those things are fully acknowledged. Thank you, Paul and thank you, Catherine. Right. We have had a good dialogue, I would suggest broad range of questioning but it's now time to move to the recommendations. So what Claire has done is put those in draft on the screen, which I hope that you can read. Essentially what we are recommending as a committee is that we wanted to see a clear set of performance measures, targets and metrics around take up. There was a line of questioning for you on that. In addition, we also are most concerned about a communications plan and this means some questions, Paul, of you in particular around that and you mentioned that you are working on a plan and that you would be happy for that plan to come back before this committee. So with the permission of the committee, I would suggest Claire that we weave into the draft point number two, a commitment by you to bring back that plan to this committee. And the question for you then back at you is what the timeline you might suggest would it be reasonable? I would have to talk to the team because it's not just my team, it's obviously colleagues who work in communications and engagement but I think the sooner the better is the honest answer. So I can liaise with colleagues in democratic services and perhaps suggest a date back to you as a chairman which you can say aye or nay to if that's a sensible way forward. How does the committee feel in response? Is that acceptable? Okay, that would be fine. So we'll reference it in that second recommendation without pinning down a date now. And then thirdly, it's about ongoing monitoring of the success and take up of the service is critical and requests the committee is kept up to date on progress and that a report is submitted in six months time. That's really by the end of October 2024 and I'm stressed that in pre-committee meetings the committee was clear on that and I really would put that back to you on that side of the chamber how you might respond to that timeline. Absolutely fine. Thank you very much. In which case is the committee in agreement on those recommendations? Anything else to add, amend in any way? Yes. And Claire has added some additional wording into two. Okay, although those recommendations then agreed. Thank you very much. Good. Thank you. We will move on then to item number six which is the bus service improvement plan update clearly linked to the previous item. We have the same witnesses before the committee this morning. Would any of you like to provide some introductory remarks before we move straight into what move into the questioning? Anyone? Very briefly again, if I may, hopefully again the report is quite straightforward. Government produced in the end of January actually a new requirement on local transport authorities of which sorry is one to update their bus service improvement plan which came as a bit of a surprise to all those local transport authorities and particularly when the deadline was given as the 12th June to do this. Normally there would be a significant period of time in terms of engagement consultation and so on but we didn't have that. In fact the templates from government in terms of what was being requested of us, it's still not complete. However, we needed to respond to what government were asking and we understand why government were asking us to do this by the 12th June. What you have before you is the proposition in terms of the refresh of the B-SIP which will be our third refresh from what we had the original then we had a refresh so this will be the third iteration of the B-SIP. I'm very happy to talk members through the content and what we're proposing to do and the way forward but it was important that we met the Department of Transport's deadline because the suggestion was from government if we didn't then the B-SIP plus funding or B-SIP phase two as it's now called there was a potential for this year's funding which was £3.9 million could be withheld so all the proposed areas of investment which are set out in the report potentially will be at risk if we didn't meet that deadline. We've tried to do our best and hopefully the report sets that out. Thank you. Thank you. That's anything from you? Thank you very much. The committee did note the new timeline, the challenging timeline of June of 2024 and with that in mind and given the 12 national priorities for bus service improvement could I take you to page 30, that's page 7, sorry paragraph 7 page 30, what do you think are the priority areas for improvement in Surrey? This is having regard to the 12 national priorities for bus service improvement. I'd actually think about what residents really think are the most important things that we look to invest and improve on in Surrey. If we look back at the previous consultations that we've undertaken in Surrey asking residents what they thought about our bus service investment plans and what we were doing with our bus service improvement plan and also the results of your bus journey survey which was undertaken by transport for focus. What residents have highlighted to us is the desire for buses to be more reliable and always number one, buses to run where and when people want to travel, buses are a bit of frequent enough that they're seen as a viable transport option and affairs are set at a level that makes bus travel attractive to regular and potential new customers and then in support of that if you talk to our bus operators, the key issue for bus operators is the need for more bus priority measures which supports bus reliability so it comes back to the number one issue that buses are more reliable. So all of this along with our greener futures priority that focuses on decarbonising public transport and the investment that I know the committee are well aware of in electric buses, hydrogen fuel cell buses and so on which is set out in the report. They are really the priority areas for our B-SIP and the investment in the county council is making and I think that reflects very strongly in the 12 priority areas that the national bus strategy is set out. Thank you very much, Paul. Right, I'm going to go to Richard followed by Lance. Richard? I'm interested if you've got a scoring mechanism for funding schemes in accordance with the priorities. How do you actually decide where you're going to put the weight of your money? That is a really good question. We don't have a scoring criteria in that sense but we have a governance framework in that we have the enhanced partnership board and then we have a stakeholder reference group which I think is there to scrutinise and cajole the board into making appropriate decisions on behalf of those stakeholders and indeed residents who also sit on the board. Matt chairs the board, we have the two big bus operating companies in Surrey along with an SME who are representing the interests of all bus operators. If you think about the money that we're investing and it comes back to what residents have told us are the most important things that they want to see. We are investing in bus priority measures to help buses be more reliable. We are investing in bus enhancements alongside bus operators that make buses more attractive and more frequent and that will help grow patronage. We're investing in the fair offer and I think we've seen that with the really successful Surrey Link Club that was introduced last year supporting those residents age 20 and under to access half the adult bus fare and in terms of those young people at their point in life when they're either moving into college or further education or perhaps an apprenticeship or their first period of employment to help them get to their apprenticeship or get to college or get to their first job is really important if we can do that by making it much more affordable. It removes the burden from the family or the wider family and obviously we're investing in more zero emission buses as part of delivering our greener future and more real time information so residents can make better and more informed travel choices. So an awful lot is going on and hopefully that is set out in the report and the county council is investing in a huge amount of its own money both revenue and capital in terms of making buses really a first choice for many many residents in Surrey and more can always be done absolutely and we're really hopeful that some more funding will come from the government and we've been successful in 7.8 million pounds of B-SIP plus funding coming to the county which we are investing in a wide range of initiatives principally including existing local bus service but hopefully we'll get more from government and hopefully when they read our B-SIP when it's complete they'll see actually the commitment from Surrey and the commitment from our bus operators to invest and make bus travel really the first choice for more more residents in the county thank you. Thank you Richard any follow-up will you perhaps wander away from that wanted to add anything in that direction no good no covered comprehensively thank you. Thank you very much Richard right over to you Lance followed by Keith thanks. So in terms of consultation can you take us through what which stakeholders have been involved so that's I'm particularly interested in members I know you've done work with residents but there's a question about how much involvement members of that and also I'd like to understand the relationship with Surrey and Hans buzz partnerships stakeholder reference group which must be the longest title of any organisation ever which seems to be having set on a couple of other times for an article about their level of detail that they go through in terms of looking at what services are offered so I'm interested in how that was brought together to inform what we are doing on the 2024 B-SIP update. Yes so let's get with S-R-G for stakeholder reference group trips up the tongue much easier yeah in the normal course of events I think we would have had much more engagement with members if I'm honest but time has meant that we haven't had that opportunity I said that the guidance was published in draft at the end of January we were given a deadline of the 12th of June and obviously there's internal processes that we have to do obviously scrutiny is part of that today the B-SIP will be signed off by matter at the end of May at a cabinet member decision meeting but what I would say it is disappointing absolutely but I think we need to collectively recognise what was fed into the original version of the B-SIP back in October 2021 it meant me certainly correctly when the first B-SIP when the first B-SIP was adopted and then it was later refreshed in 2023 last year the vision the priorities what we are hoping to achieve has been consistent so it isn't something that's new what we are able to update is the additional investment that's coming forward and where we are with the investment that was planned back in 2021 and 2023 so the priorities are the same we haven't changed those but we're able to update more on what we've invested in terms of real-time information plus priority measures and where we are with those and that's set out in the detail of the report along with hydrogen fuel cell buses and EVs so I would like to have done more engagement we simply haven't had the time but we haven't really haven't changed the plan the stakeholder reference group it has been invaluable how many include reps from bus operators disability groups county councillors bar and district officers as well and they've been consulted on the B-SIP update and that's part of the agreed governance for the enhanced partnership which again is set out in the main body of the report and previous reports that we've brought to a scrutiny committee the interesting thing is DFT have confirmed that there's no longer an expectation that we will update our B-SIPs annually that was the expectation each B-SIP will be updated and by October of each calendar year so to then to be asked to do it in June was a surprise to everybody because we have a plan to do so but now they're saying what we've done this in June we only need to update it when there's something significant has happened so significant new investment or there's significant changes to the local bus network they would both qualify or if I think politically with a small P we thought we needed to update the B-SIP because something else has happened so that going forwards gives us the opportunity to do what we would like to done this time which is a more detailed consultation which we didn't have the time for I think pretty much all local authorities have fed back to their stakeholder contacts at the DFT that really not quite good enough this time around and we need to do something different going forward so that's where we are. Thank you Paul, that was a follow up. Yes very briefly I do think communicating with the members about this was an opportunity to get them more engaged and I do think there's an opportunity to better engage with members about the bus services improvement program and bus services generally so I get good feedback on highway issues generally and I can pass that through to my social media channels that be really good to have the same sort of thing about bus services changes improvements because there is a desire out there to hear about it and I think members are a good communications vehicle for that information. Yeah I would agree with that and where we make individual changes to bus routes and there's quite a few set out in the body of the report where we're investing the £7.8 million B-SIP plus funding we do contact all the individual members where the bus route goes through and that can be often two, three, four members because if it's a route there's going quite a way across the county and encourage them to promote those changes locally using sexual media and so on and generally they do. We've also had a number of member development seminars on B-SIP improvement plan. We have those when we were first developing the B-SIP and again they've proven to be really positive so there's always more we can do. I think Lucy wanted to come in. Lucy? Yes please if I may. Just to add when we were talking earlier about a communications plan for DDRT what we're expecting to do is work with corporate colleagues to produce a communications plan that cuts across lots of the bus services so there's an opportunity there to make sure that we're doing more in addition to what Paul's already said but we can perhaps reference back again and how we are providing members the opportunity to promote more of the bus services and the changes and you know those opportunities going forward so we'll include that as part of that communications update in a wider sense. Thank you very much Lance and Lucy I'm going to move then on to Keith followed by Catherine Keith over to you. Thank you Chairman I'd just like to explore with you the challenges of the enhanced partnership arrangements and ask if you think that the governance and the stakeholder feedback the mechanisms that you have are working well. Thank you I mean since the enhanced partnership itself so that the formal partnership that we've set up that started in November 2022 and I think it has been effective in the key decisions that it's needed to make which have been channeled through the the enhanced partnership board and I mentioned already the the introduction of the link card sorry link card which is offering cheaper bus fares to all young people aged 20 and under in Surrey. The board also being considered and supported the expansion of DDRT again a really important decision from the board and the program for bus priority measures are particularly important to residents because they want buses to to run to time and for bus operators because they want the buses to run to time so it can grow bus patronage and we've got a program over the next three to four years which is detailed in the body of report of the report in terms of where we're investing in bus priority measures and that support is supported by what residents told us to the big consultation that we undertook some 18 months or so ago. I think that the borders look less at performance against the B-SIP and the targets that were set that responsibility has fallen on us as County Council officers and we in turn have been reporting to the DFT. Coming back to the stakeholder reference group I mean it's got broad representation from across the county and from different stakeholders and I think it could be even more representative so we've got some work underway currently with the Surrey minority ethnic forum to help us use that forum really as a conduit to linking with other groups other groups that they work with and to encourage them to work with us and that's right across the county and we're also working with colleagues in customers and communities to try and get young people more engaged and we were quite successful in doing so probably this time last year and slightly before because they were massively enthusiastic about the Surrey link card and in fact they helped us design it in terms of the look and feel of it and what it offered and we now need to see if we can tap into your good people in the county more and give them a voice on the stakeholder reference group and then upwards to the board and in terms of how we frame the governance going forward we're proposing in terms of the board meetings and the stakeholder reference group meetings that they'll be regularised to three a year and the reference group meetings will probably take place in January June and September one of which will be in the evening to encourage greater uptake at least one in the evening and then the board meetings will follow one month on from the respective reference group meetings so the other thing that I want them to do is focus more on performance of the enhanced partnership overall and the achievement that the county council and partners are delivering against the BSIP targets so I think there is more that can be done absolutely it's still relatively new in the partnership was only set up in 2021 and we want more people engaged particularly younger people I would suggest and those from minority groups in Surrey I think that will be to the benefit in terms of our overall decision making thank you thank you very much Paul I'm just conscious of the time and I want to move on to the question of funding which the committee feels is an area that we want to ask you about but before I do that I'll move straight to Catherine and then I'm going to ask Stephen followed by Andy to ask some questions on funding indeed thank you it's a question about the the inclusivity recommendations coming from the what I what I referred to as the bus user group which I that's all right bug and I know that the but the bus charter it isn't binding and it has a phrase that people can expect to see more improvements in which is which is a bit woolly and I just wondered where somewhere in the department is there a list of bus bus stops that are going to have their curves looked at for example and a and a and a deadline or target to make the changes and I am interested in this the business of the audio announcements of the the bus stop coming up whether there's a time scale for introducing that and you know where are the commercial bus services on on doing that on helping you to do that thank you just on boarding and the lighting of bus stops in terms of improvements and generally bus stop improvements I can get the team to pull together a big long list of things that maybe once that we've done over the last six or twelve months and those that are planned over the next couple of years and it's a long list so I'm quite happy to get the team to pull that together and share that via democratic services if that will be you can see what we're doing in terms of all audible announcements at bus stops and that's an initiative within the overall enhanced partnership scheme so which is essentially the things that we would like to do it's currently not funded but it remains there certainly there's some at least two or three members of the stakeholder reference group of keen advocates for this and a promoting this Stephen Rolf is one of those I'm sure you might be mentioning I suspect he knows Stephen locally and it is something that Stephen is pushing he's right to do so absolutely and so I I will it is something that will remain on the agenda we need to make sure that we have some significant funding to deliver that sorry Lucy no seat I was just pointing out there is some regulation changes in terms of information provision actually on the buses so there is a requirement for the bus operators to provide some of the facilities I think you're talking about in terms of announcing bus stops on the buses the operators obviously depends on the age of the vehicles so that is supposed to be introduced I think over the next couple of years it depends on the age of the bus we can share a little bit more of the detail of that rollout not all operators will be able to do that from day one depending on the age of the bus they're running so there so there is a drive to improve that provision of information on the buses rather than the bus stops so that may overcome some of that aspect thank you Catherine and Lucy now I want to move on to funding I'm going to hand over now to Stephen followed by Andy Stephen yes thank you Chairman clearly the availability of future funding is a matter of genuine concern to to everyone the report stage that significant government funding is required to deliver all of the plans aspirations in full how likely is it that the capital and revenue request totaling over 45 million capital 30 million revenue submitted in 2021 will be met by government and clearly a difficult question to answer because with the general election we really have very little idea of what the consequence of that would be but assuming that's unlikely and I suspect that's an assumption you've taken on board which elements of the plan would you choose to prioritize thank you I mean it's absolutely no guarantee that new funding will be available made available from government or or indeed if a new chance of funding does come forward and that sorry would receive an allocation within that chance but we will absolutely continue to make the case for investment in Surrey to government and that will be bolstered by our proven track record on delivery and I think if if you consider two recent government announcements on the zero emission bus fund zebra to as it's called Surrey's benefiting from two positive awards from government one one as our supporting colleagues in in West Sussex Kent and elsewhere which will see even more hydrogen fuel cell buses coming to Surrey but also are the bit that we led as a county council which will see 19 new electric buses coming to Surrey with two SMEs which is to my knowledge the only such bit that governments ever funded all of the money has been channeled through the main groups for reasons I understand but we've now got two SMEs that are going to have 19 electric buses so that clearly government sees what's happening in Surrey and they see it as being really good because otherwise it wouldn't be investing in zero emission buses so coming back to where our focus needs to be it's what I said out before really it's bus priority measures in the agreed locations that will grow bus patronage and that's been supported by residents and stakeholders at consultations more zero emission buses and mini buses more real time information so residents can make better and inform travel choices expansion of DDRT and maintaining support for the Surrey link card I see those as being the priorities for Surrey and our investment and hopefully that's reflected in in the BSIP and in the main body of report that that you've seen before you today thank you Steven any follow-up no no chairman that was clearly an impossible question to answer but it's an important yes absolutely and a very comprehensive answer given as well so thank you Paul right Andy over to you thank you German I've got two questions actually the first is a fairly simple question what do you see is the impact of the end of the national bus fare cap in this November and what effect do you think that will have on bus services yeah it's a it's a really hot topic at the moment in in local authorities and and in the bus industry and if you look at the data the DFT data shows that over ninety percent of all journeys outside of London are currently being made using the two pounds fare cap so clearly it's been embraced widely across and across England and residents of Surrey a part of that which is brilliant to see but but I guess there are some issues with it government and transport focus have said it is for passengers making regular shorter journeys they're probably not getting as good a deal as from the fare cap as people traveling less frequently and making longer trips because they're paying two pounds to make those journeys so I think there are some options I mean government could allow the fare cap to end and then we would go back to operator set pricing models local authorities local transport authorities could be asked to fill the gap in funding and to maintain the two pound fare cap excuse me that that would obviously require additional funding that's not in the budget absolutely not for Surrey or I would suggest most of the local transport authorities if government suggested that was the way forward we could look at other ticketing offers nationally season ticket options other discounts family group or other types of group travel or of course government could look to maintain the two pound fare cap or perhaps move to what was proposed last year that it was going to increase two pounds fifty and but from from my point of view what whatever decision government chooses to make in it and it is a government decision I hope that there will be sufficient notice that local transport authorities can plan locally and can respond including communicating to residents that things will change because I expect not every residents understands that their two pound bus fare is actually part of a government scheme they may think it's a county council scheme we absolutely is not but it's a decision for government but it's it's proved incredibly popular and relative in terms of cost it's not that much money I'm sure they're thinking about those two things thank you very much Andy and thank you Paul right I'm going to move on to Cameron sorry Richard yes of course sorry yes of course I'm just conscious of the time apologies my second question actually relates back to a previous discussion to some extent about school to transport I do accept the answers you gave actually that DDRT wasn't necessarily appropriate for children who had a right for school transport but the point I'd like to make is there's an awful lot of children go to school who don't have a right for school transport and they have to make their own way and then this is becoming bigger and bigger problem actually in the area I live in I've got a very successful a primary school in the road I live in and there's also special need school which deal with their own problems to do with many buses just around the corner there's a Catholic school that's got a very wide catchment area and every day in the morning in the afternoon the whole area is becoming more and more clogged up with with cars because no one seems to walk to school these days apart from the children who live very very close and it's becoming more and more of a problem and at one time we had a Pegasus bus service actually which was very successful we had two or three very nice big buses which came to these schools every day completely full they were subsidized but that had to be abandoned because it wasn't it couldn't be afforded at the time but as we can subsidize DTRT and quite I totally support that I don't understand why we can't subsidize school transport for the children who have to make their own way it would take an awful lot of cars off the road in the same way as DTRT does and I think that should be reconsidered actually as part of our bus policy whether we should be bringing school transport back because I'm sure it's a problem elsewhere in Surrey it's an enormous problem in the road I live in I had to leave very early to even get here this morning and I wouldn't have been able to make the meeting at all so I wonder if you could think I know it's a slightly off piece for what you're talking about but I think it's a very important question thank you chairman it's almost how long have we got with that question but yeah at school transport it isn't hugely important to local communities and obviously the children and the families within which they live we already support a good number of local bus services either which are specific school specials they're any running in that the morning and that tea time journey to get large numbers of children to school and there's obviously local bus services which are running all day that go past one or more schools that support a wide range of children to get to school and they're both supporting scholars that are entitled based on distance principally and those that are not entitled to support so lots of children are already travelling by bus to school and of course we could do more you mentioned Pegasus I mean Pegasus was focused at 14 primary schools principally the movement of pupils to school is secondary schools and that's what I was talking about in terms of school specials and local bus services yeah Pegasus 14 schools 22 buses run under contract concluded in 2005 and it had an annual deficit of a million pounds in 2005 prices so it shows if you want to invest in public transport more buses to schools absolutely you can do that but it will require significant funding and you have to think about the implications for school place planning as well I understand that the impact in terms of the locality but the investment that we are looking to make and that's set out in the body of the rapport will help children get to school but it's much more focused on slightly longer distance journeys for children going to secondary children young people going to secondary school rather than primary school where our focus is on walking push scooting and working with parents in terms of trying to make the school as sustainable as possible in terms of the overall activities of the school in the community I'm very conscious of the time so what I'm going to do is I'm going to ask Cameron and Richard to ask their questions and then I'm going to move to the recommendations Cameron thank you very much chairman just I wonder if you could provide sort of an update on the real-time passenger information so the investment that's coming forward in this area I think it's referenced in paragraph 22 of the report but I'd like to see if there's an update and possibly whether not just about providing real-time passenger information of bus stops but also looking at sort of similar thing that sort of TFL do which is you know being able to access some of this stuff on an app or on your phone and whether Surrey has any plans to do something like that thank you yes so more real-time information of bus stops is being installed in Surrey it's referred to in the report in terms of numbers we've got roughly 500 RTPI displays on-street or in bus stations and at key destinations over the next two years we're going to be installing another 100 taking us up to just over 600 so hopefully that will support residents and make more informed travel choices from from next month actually stage coach we're doing a piece of work with them so they'll be able to send messages to roadside displays to advise bus passengers of any cancellations that have to be taken place perhaps through to Tiger Works perhaps through to something that's happened at the depot hopefully that will work and then that facility will be made available to all other operators later this year so again residents will get real information on what's happening on the services that they're using to get to work to get to school or get to wherever they're choosing to go in terms of information online there's a lot of information on the county council's website bus operators themselves have most of them have apps that you can download I've got a stage coach app on my phone for example so I can see in real time what's happening on the services that I want to use in the stage coach area so perhaps a summary of what's available I can put that together and provide that to the committee so that I can be circulated hopefully that would be helpful thank you that would be very helpful Paul thank you good right I'm then going to go at lastly to Richard and then we'll move to the recommendation very interested in saying something on what you feel the hydrogen buses will do to help us deliver the improvement plan to clean in the sense of cost of operation and efficiency perhaps you could help me out with that I'll try thank you yeah I mean we've got 34 council funded hydrogen fuel cell buses they'll be in service I think we talk about in the report 2024 25 I'm hopeful they'll all be in service and by the end of the calendar year certainly the first one is due to arrive in June and those 34 that the county council is funding that will add to the 20 that already have been received by our partner Metro bus in the bid that was approved by cabinet the year or so ago now there's another 30 up to another 43 rather hydrogen fuel cell buses that are coming into Surrey Kent and West Sussex and that follows a bid to Zebra 2 that I mentioned earlier so that's funded by the relevant councils Metro bus gap with airport and government funding via a partnership bed that was led by West Sussex and our own Zebra 2 bid we'll see another 19 electric buses coming to Surrey in partnership with SME's Falcon and white bus so apart from the carbon reductions which I think are taken as granted and we did detail those in the cabinet report which are significant absolutely significant and that will help us deliver on our greener futures ambition there's an additional quality benefit because their new buses stay to the art they offer disappearing right quality in arms comfort and overall you know a far better experience so passengers helping us to make bus travel even more attractive and the vehicles that we are purchasing so the 34 hydrogen fuel cell buses they're being leased to Metro bus to operate in services in Surrey so financially they'll probably have a life of 15 years that's the typical life that we look to for a bus provided it's well maintained and well treated which I'm absolutely sure they will be with Metro bus so that's a positive investment of significant amounts of money from the county to deliver hydrogen buses and electric buses in Surrey over the coming years. Thank you very much Paul Wright let's move then to the recommendations just by way of summary committee we've asked questions around the 12 national priorities we're very conscious of the fact that there was this new government imposed deadline of the 12th of June that you've been working flat out to meet we asked you questions in relation to consultation including with members to help you help this program roll out successfully we've asked you questions on governance and partnership funding a key issue for this committee as well as one of two questions on the type of buses 54 hydrogen buses is what I've calculated using my rudimentary maths so they're the recommendations on the screen essentially what we are saying is that we welcome the work that you have done this is both in relation to the updated B's SIP which of course noting the 12th of June deadline and also welcome your priorities which seem to fit in quite well with the 12 national priorities around faster more reliable and cheaper public transport and there is an additional draft recommendation which is the third one which is the encouraging better engagement with members on bus service changes and improvements so a new number three are there any questions or comments on those recommendations will be happy with their contents good alright well those are then agreed so thank you very much committee for that apologies that we have run over a little bit but I want to thank all of you but particularly you Paul for doing much of the heavy lifting this morning very very detailed and comprehensive answers given so thank you for that and thank you to the committee to match to Katie and to Lucy thank you very much Katie you staying behind for the next ice march haha guys thank you. a lot of questions. a lot of questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. Apologies, we're just now waiting for the vice chair and for Katherine to return and then we'll make a start. Mindful that this is being webcast, I will not comment. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. I'm going to ask you to answer questions. Given its role in structural decision making, could you elaborate on the specific type of early decisions that this framework is expected to influence? And secondly, how does the framework integrate environmental, social and economic consideration into these initial planning and development stages to align with these broad sustainability and community goals? Thank you. That he would you like to take that one? Yes, I'll just touch on the sort of the commercial side of it. As a test, we're currently looking at the Ray Park estate to see what opportunities can be realized in terms of improved farming, release of land and buildings for disposal, and then get lots of land designated as biodiversity net gain. And other looking at other potential environmental uses such as solar farms. So in that way, we're using our land to benefit the residents across the piece, as it were. That's from a monetary point of view. Thank you. I don't know if Colin wants to add anything? Yes, it's working closely with our coal losing natural capital because West Park estate is three farms from top of the head and some of the land. And it's not an ideal set up commercially or actually operation from a farming aspect. So we're working with the farmers working with colleagues in actual capital and vice-versa to see how we can consolidate the farms into better and more sustainable businesses. But of course, that in-term releases land for disposal, which is always useful for the finances, but also equally importantly releases land for biodiversity net gain, which as Caroline's already alluded to, is very important to us. Not just from an environmental perspective, but actually to enable the scores to be built or the social housing to be built because of course, we're now needing to find biodiversity net gain units to enable those to happen and far better to do those in-house rather than the expense of buying them elsewhere. And also releases land for other environmental projects such as solar. So by working as that group, under this sort of framework and policy that's being put together, we're already doing it actually. But it formalised its body, its working as a group to determine the best use of the land, not just commercially, not just from the natural capital perspective, from a salary counter council perspective. Thank you, Colin. That's a comprehensive answer. And I wonder, but did you have any follow-up to that? Okay. Thank you for that. Keith, over to you. Thank you, Chairman. Could I just ask, what are the main opportunities for SEC for income generation? And how does the council balance these against your duties as a landlord and a guardian of the natural environment? Natalie? Thank you. A good example of how we're doing this, council with them, is the recent letting of kinensley farm, where estates and natural capital agreed a set of terms that enabled the farm to be marketed for regenerative farming, but ensuring that any potential tenants also provided a very strong business case. We now have new tenants paying an increased rent than before. With innovative farming methods and grant funding too. And the land was also, some land was also released for BNG. And we can use this model that was worked on between the two teams elsewhere, as well as looking at other opportunities to lease land for other uses. Thank you. Can I just ask, as a follow-up, so what's the annual income, sorry, counter-counsel from this source of income? Off the top of my head, I don't know, but I can obviously, it's fairly substantial. It's over 100,000 a year, something like that, if not more. We're currently doing a review of the rents as we speak. But off the top of my head, I'm afraid I can't answer that one. But that's overall. Yes. Perhaps we could have a note after the meeting. Yes, that would be a very helpful column, Natalie, if you could provide that note. Two, two, Keith, but also if you could copy a member of the committee for our information, that would be helpful. Thank you. Right, moving on then to Andy, over to you. Thank you, Chairman. I mean, one opportunity the Council clearly has is to sell land to developers where that's the appropriate thing to do. And I'd just like to ask, when we do that, are we coordinating with the boroughs and district councils and their local plans to ensure that when we do that sort of thing, and there's appropriate infrastructure going to be provided in additional school places and all that sort of thing. When you get involved in selling land, you look at it from that point of view as well. Thank you. Thank you, Andy. I'm going to head over to Natalie, I'm sure Cotton might want to add as well. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Councilam Cloud. As you know, in Waverly, we sold Coxbridge Farm, clues in the name Farm. Unfortunately, it took us many, many years to get it through Waverly planning. But we got there in the end, and so got a substantial capital receipt for the Council. And also providing, I think it's 190 homes on the land. I think it was 80 of which from the top of my head were for some sort of social value affordable housing. So that's one example of what we've done in the past. The opportunities around West Parker are also an example of how we can potentially do this again. It's tidying up the estate to release the land for disposal, but maintaining and improving the viability of the existing farms, and also mindful of the BNG requirements. And obviously, the Barras and Districts are responsible for the sale payments that come forward then, sorry, then applies for schools and roads, etc. So we do work with them. We sold some land, actually went through cabinet last week to Tandridge Council. Again, that was actually a former care home that had been empty. So we've sold it to them, undervalued, and they will be providing homes on them will be totally for social rent. So that's an example of how we are already working with our Barras and Districts. And I know Graham Glenn from Colin's team puts in into the local plans, seeing if we can get places designated for residential, etc. But it's a hard job. Thank you. Colin, anything to add to Natalie's response? Not particularly, if I'm honest with you, but obviously it's if we're selling a discreet piece of land, like Cox Beach Farm, there's a double benefit because of course, that's exactly as the Councillor Renwell said, there is a sexuality six and civil payments arising from that as well, which is highly integrated to the local councils, and this is like local Barras and Districts. Thank you very much, right. I'm going to go to Richard, followed by Buddy, followed by Stephen. Richard. I'm interested in how the policy will influence decision about this puzzle of land, and particularly the use of green belts for schools. One of the things that you note when I'm planning is that the schools seem to be only one story high. When we search yourself, we're using an awful lot of land, laterally, rather than encouraging ourselves, if you like, to go vertically. If you've got any thoughts on how we could use the policy to make us better at the use of our own land, if you like. I think that the twofold answer is there. I think one is that we actually within land and property itself, there is a strategy on planning function that looked at whatever the surplus land we have, and whether or not there is an alternative use for that land, whether that's schools, social housing. We try and, as best we can, do recycle our properties with some sensible checks and balances to make sure we're not recycling the world's most valuable site against something we could buy somewhere else cheaper. So we would do that naturally. So if land were to become available for a farm for the sake of argument, we would automatically check to see if we could use that operationally. And of course, by operation, we mustn't lose sight of natural capital. We tend to think of operations as being bricks and mortar. But we keep coming back to about the net gain, for example, which is a really important thing we have to consider. So I'd like to think operationally, operations are the complete range of what we have to do within Terry County Council. In relation to school sites, I'd have to go and check, but I suspect the reason why you're seeing one storey buildings is possibly because the largest special educational needs schools. So therefore, I suspect we're looking to keep them on a single storey for mobility reasons. I don't know that, because I'm not generally involved, and I'm happy to take that away and confirm. But I suspect that's what the position is. Thank you, Richard. Stephen, over to you. Yes, thank you, Chairman. I want to raise a question on grants. To what extent is the Council taking advantage of new government environmental management grants or other environment-based funding streams to support future sustainable management of its estate? Is there more that it can do? We have already got quite a lot of grants, grant funding from the existing schemes. So we do make as much as we can from the funding that's available. The new ELM schemes is still very much in development, so that will be absolutely a future focus for us as we very much tend to try and maximize grant as much as possible because it delivers on our outcomes. It's worth saying that this is why everything's changed, because land has different values now because of these bonds and schemes and things. So in the old days, we would have just said what's the value potentially for selling and building homes or something, whereas now there's lots of different variations and reasons to be working with farmers as well to maximize the value of that land. There's a shift to environmental value and social value as well as just the asset value. Thank you, Colin. Thank you, Marissa. Any follow-up questions, Stephen? Is it possible to have access to a list of grants that have been obtained over the course of the last year? Could that be provided to Stephen and again a request that all members of the committee have access or have sight of that list as well? But over to you and apologies, I've got you in front of, it should have been in front of Stephen, but please, over to you now. Thank you, Chair. Can I understand to what extent has set account accounts to maximize the potential of the land it wants or manage to achieve environmental objectives? That's number one. And secondly, how effectively are these lands being utilized for flood storage, carbon capture, biodiversity and nature recovery, pollination and air filtration? The third one is sorry. Could you provide example of any strategic initiative or projects that have been implemented to enhance these environmental functions? Thank you. Yeah, I mean, Carolyn can probably answer that in more detail. I mean, this is very much the beginning of that journey, Buddy, of setting out how we're going to do all of these things. So it's all being thought about, I mean, dogging the flooding teams looking at potential flood storage or looking at natural flood management in the more valley area, I think, Carolyn, aren't we at the moment? I'm working with partners and we're looking at the biodiversity and nature recovery. You probably got my email over the weekend inviting you to a webinar on that very topic. So this land management is really about identifying those opportunities. So flood storage is an excellent example because it's highly topical and it's a real issue and actually it's something that can sit alongside development, new development as well. So where can we identify the places we have these flooding issues and sort them out? I mean, also water pollution. It's not just about sewage. It's also about nitrates from farms and different businesses and things. Again, how can we kind of solve these problems in a holistic way? That's why I said at the beginning, this is a huge opportunity to do all of those things you've just listed. I think Carolyn, you may have some projects that are already starting. But what's really interesting is the community that we work with, the Surrey Hills National Landscopes Board, the farmers and things, all looking at how they can do this stuff as well and joining in with us. So there are projects taking place in small pockets all around the county. Yeah, I think the main, and that's why this is such an exciting framework and policy is it does look at all the opportunities and how we can almost mix and match so we can put biodiversity with flooding with carbon so you get the value of the land and you can put access on top of that. The most focus that we've had at the minute has been around access and getting people out into the countryside and tree planting. So we've put quite a lot of tree planting on our sites and we're in the process of developing an orchard at the minute at Norbury Park, which will be a community orchard. So it's that type of project we'll be looking at moving forward. But there's also Horsil Common. We've just done recently, which it's not all just on our own land. It's also where we've got partnerships with other partners as well. And Horsil Common was a flood scheme which is also an access, sustainable access route for school and other local amenities as well as a kind of recreation area as well, but big flood storage of that. So there's huge potential. It's really exciting that we can do that. And having the evidence and the data that can really build a good business case and attract and that's the big thing here is to attract in private and other government investment into opportunities that we can show them. If you get a chance, go to Horsil Common because it's mind blowing. What we've done there, it's really, really good. So anyone who gets a chance, it's nature, it's recreation, it's flood management, it's everything. It's a very successful scheme. I have one follow-up question, Chief. Please, but go ahead. How do you plan to engage with local community groups and organizations to embrace this framework? So I mean, it's already been happening. We've already done it to some levels. So as I mentioned earlier, working with farming groups, residents association, parish councils and things like that. So we're having those conversations through Salk, which is the acronym for Surrey Association of Local Councils. Surrey Association of Local Councils. So we're working through all of that at the moment, but there's still more to go with getting down to the sort of lower grass roots groups as well. So if you've got ideas on people we should be communicating with and I hope members here will go and talk to their community groups about it as well. I don't think we need to do much to get engagement because people want to be involved in this conversation and the appetite for it is huge. So, yeah, I mean, I'm sure we're holding webinars at some point as well, like we're doing the nature recovery stuff to make sure people are informed about what we're doing. It's public land at the end of the day. We're managing it for the residents, so they need to have a say in this. There's a question coming up, I think, in a moment about transport roots and things using our land as well. So we're talking to cyclist groups, walkers, ramblers, you know, it's endless. We want to talk to everyone if we can. So if you've got any ideas, let us know. So the one last question. Of course. How do you engage with the district and borough councils? Because every councils have different policies. Yes. So we've got a greener futures partnership group which is formed of the lead officers for this space and also the lead members. It's slightly tricky because obviously lead members are changing depending on elections and movements of things. But we meet what is it once every two months or something and we have a conversation on all of our work streams. So this would be a conversation that we've had there already, but we do it in more depth as we go. And the officers are working with their partner officers in those districts and boroughs on a very close basis. I don't know, Carolyn, if you want to jump in on that. Yeah, I was just, because we're also working out, we're working at delivery at a operational level through the number of partnerships we have around climate change around biodiversity net game and around tree planting. But we've also just started up a really good and positive conversation on a higher level with the directors of place that Katie shares a meeting of threats of place in, sorry, looking at green infrastructure in all its different guys and how we can collectively work together and get a better outcome. So I think, I think there's a real buy in around, you know, the green environment and natural capital, so it's very positive. Thank you, buddy. Right. Marissa mentioned safe cycle routes and on that note, I want to hand over to you, Catherine, for your questions. Thank you. I'm really, I think this is a fantastic policy. I'm really interested in it. And as you say, I think there's loads of, loads of opportunities and I like what you described about if you've got land to manage it for the best possible outcomes. And my question was about, it's only just in homeschool transport. You know, if we've got land and there can be a path across it to reduce the costs on homeschool transport. And I think, you know, you've talked about that. And, and I've also, you've got it in your, in the circular diagram as well. So that's fine. That's covered as is food production. So I've got one more question. And that's really about the, we've talked about the value of all these different options. And I'm interested, and we've talked about it in terms of finance, in terms of the pound, but are you getting closer to being able to compare these different options in terms of the carbon impact? And, you know, are there, are there out there ways of sort of standard accounting methods for valuing natural capital flood management? Is, is, you know, how's that going? Because that's the basis, isn't it? How do you compare the value of the different options that you have? We are getting closer, definitely. And I think with the, the GIS mapping we're doing, and we've, we've already done one piece of work around natural capital accounting, which starts to give the carbon value. So we are getting closer. Standard metric, I wish. And know that there isn't at the minute. So we are trying to be as consistent as possible and working with colleagues in other authorities and also working closely with Defra and Natural England and Environment Agency and Forestry Commission to really look at how we can quantify the carbon because it's, it's interesting because wetted, wetted heathland is a really good carbon sink and we've just got some money from Environment Agency to do a project around re-wetting heathlands, which is really good. So, but it's being able to compare what's the best, you know, tree versus hedgeroad. You know, so it's, yeah, we are getting there, but there's a lot we need. And it's one of the areas that we will be lobbying government on is to get clear metrics and clear information about how we do that. Can we just dwell just for a moment on Katherine's point about the rights of way and things because we've just done this rights of way consultation in which we got a huge amount of people come back on it. And I've been doing a tour of parish councils across the county and it's really something they're very interested in. And I think that we have to look at the low-hanging fruit here when we do this land management as well of where the access points to get people are. So, are there cut-frees on our land to get them to a town or a train station, that kind of thing, and prioritise those routes above all else? Because I think we can sort of hit that sustainable transport thing as well by doing this if we recognise those routes and put our money into that. So, we've all got big ideas around the LC whips and things, but that's going to take time to happen. And where can we deliver things fast? Where are their footpaths that we can put some investment into improving quite quickly to allow that access, because we all know that one of the biggest blocks to our carbon agenda is the transport issue. So, I think there's some sort of quick wins in there that we locally, because it takes local knowledge, this kind of stuff. Where are the parts that people want to use? I've gone to a few parishes where they've said, you know, kids could get to school that way, but you can't push a pram there, or you can't do this, so I don't. I put the kid in the car. So, local knowledge and us finding those key areas and coming up with one or two in all of our patches, for example, to fall into this would be a really useful exercise for us to do, I think. Thank you, Marissa. Catherine, any other follow-up questions from you? I am interested. I would like to be reassured that the principle is to put solar panels on buildings first, if, while I'm going to be. It is. I think we can say that. Good, I think that's on the record. Right, over to you, Lance, followed by Keith. This is in relation to consultation and implementation. Thank you, Chair. So, the report notes that there's a 10-week consultation period which will follow the cabinet to prove a lot of the draft framework. Which stakeholder groups will be involved, and do you expect any challenges from them? I mean, I've sort of outlined a few of the stakeholder groups in mentioning the farming community. We wouldn't not speak to private landowners as well that join our land to understand what they're doing. Obviously tenants are pretty crucial to this. Different groups like the Ramblers Association and people using our networks and things across our land. In terms of challenges, Carolyn, I might throw that one to you, I'm afraid. Well, just to finish off on the consultation side. So, happily, the local nature recovery strategy is being developed at the same time. So, that's got an extensive stakeholder network which covers everything from children's groups, you know, faith groups, as well as the landowners. So, we'll be hoping to tap into that as well as going to special, you know, some of the most sensitive estates, like Norbury Park, or like the other estates we've got that are really sensitive and having the conversations with residents there. Challenges, there's always, you wouldn't expect it, but there's always a challenge between access and biodiversity and nature and nature conservation. Surrey has huge football, especially in the Surrey Hills. So, there will be a challenge there. There will be a challenge versus environment, walking versus environment, illegal activity when it is illegal, around four by fours and motorbikes. So, there will be challenges with people wanting to use the land, as opposed wanting to conserve and preserve the land. But hopefully by looking at the GIS data and the mapping that we do, we can identify areas that absolutely need to be completely protected and divert pass or look at ways of protecting them further, and then look at other areas where we can, as I said earlier on, about creating new sites to try and take some of the football off-honey pot sites. So, there inevitably will be challenge, but I think we can manage it by looking at that balanced approach to the different uses. Any follow-up? Thank you. Thank you very much, Lance. Thank you. I'm going to go to Catherine followed by Keith. Catherine? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I think my question was really covered in the previous question, so I'm happy to move on. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Keith, over to you. Thank you, Chairman. I wondered if you could give us your thoughts on how effective is the internal working within the Council across the various teams that are affected by this framework. I'm thinking of environment, states, countryside access rights away, which others. Can you clarify just for me who does what and how the different teams within Surrey County Council communicate with each other and work together? Yeah, I'll come to you as well. So, I would say very well. The one thing that it's been more of on an informal basis in the past, I think putting this law management framework approach in place allows us to do it more formally as well as informally and put more of a structure around it so we can bring in at the appropriate time every officer's input into particular management decisions. So, I think that will really help and what it will also do. It will help to clarify roles, officer roles and who does what, because that will differ in each instance, but it will help to do that. Can I just want to go back to the example of Kenneth Lee Farm, which was sort of the test bed for this. So, as a corporate landlord, obviously I need to have a tenant that can pay the rent. Equally, natural capital colleagues would like that tenant's need to reflect modern regenerative farming practices. I thought did I know nothing about it, but that's okay, because people here do. So, what we did was sit down and come up with a set of terms that were marketed to reflect the boast of these. Okay, so that was a regenerative farm, actually released in life at BNG as well. But also equally importantly, what we had back was sustainable business models, because the marketing one do is let a farm out, so that it goes bust. And we put together a scoring matrix that covered off both sets of those requirements. And therefore, we were able to actually mark the proposals from the various potential farmers, so that we had a result that reflected everybody's requirements. It actually worked really well. I mean, we've got young farmers coming, which is great. Who brought a whole load of new ways of thinking and working in, but have got a proper business model that is sustainable, small, as big as, going forwards. And actually, just replicate that. They're not mutually exclusive. They're actually inclusive, if you look at it that way. We're doing other things, similar things, a lot cottage, aren't we? Same sort of thing. So, we're formalizing a process as working. Thank you very much for that, Colin. Right, that brings us to, yes, Keith, would you just to, of course, follow up. Internally, maybe working well, or okay, but as a Councilor for a rural division, I'm often copied by residents with emails that they have sent to one or other of the various sections within departments. Yeah, countryside access, rights of way, estates. Can it be made clearer, maybe on a page of the website? What those sections actually do? So, if you've got a query on boom, boom, boom, who you need to contact is boom, boom, boom. And I think that would actually sort of help ease communications with the public through to the right people in the right section. And you didn't answer part of my previous question because I mentioned those three sections. Is there, apart from, sort of, we've talked about land management in general, are there any other sections that come into that, that's your orbit in terms of this policy? Happy to come in on this one. So, just an answer to your first question here. It's one of the things that we are, we absolutely recognize them, though. We haven't quite got that right. So, as much as the teams are kind of communicating internally, the customer experience isn't always the same, actually. So, we have, we are working with our colleague, Liz Mills, who's leading the customer transformation program, as you know. And one of the things we're trying to do quite quickly is to get it very clear and get that more seamless experience for customers that they see a single council or one council approach to these things. So, but I think your idea in terms of being really clear about who does what has got to be part of that, so we will take that on board and make sure the members are clear as well, because members are a key interface for that. So, if you can help to do some of that join up there in the short term, I think that's really helpful. And then in terms of kind of other, I mean, we've obviously talked about the natural capital team, colleagues in land and property. It's safe to say that I think with this, we're really trying to join up other teams as well, so kind of highways, transport. Obviously, we talked about active travel routes through the sites, the flood team, and then, you know, kind of more widely actually, really linking into that later conversation that we're having with the committee around town and village approach and how we're actually coordinating beyond even our kind of world in EIG environment infrastructure and growth with children's colleagues and more generally as well. So, we're starting with the teams that are kind of within our, but actually a lot of those conversations and relationships, so they're right across the piece actually. I completely agree with that, and also not just for having that consistent communication, but also on joint projects. So, at the Sawmill in Nobri Park, we're working with the youth teams around new skills and new training and work experience. So, we're working on that level as well as just the smoothness of communication as well. Marissa, you want to comment on that? I think one of the big challenges is actually the partners, so it's the charity and voluntary groups and things like that, and Surrey World Life Trust and things. So, we've got a lot of people who are doing things on our land and our partners of us, and we have to be very open to those partners because we're not going to achieve what we want to achieve by ourselves. So, how do we make sure those are functioning and that the same messages are coming through and that they're LinkedIn as well, so they're not giving separate messages to us? Because people, when they're seeing people on our countryside and things, they're seeing them all as one. They don't separate district and borough, voluntary group or whatever. They just want to know they're someone responsible, don't they? So, it's making sure those coherent messages are through all of our partners as well, that we're all delivering a consistent message that we're all on the same focus, and that we're all working as one team. So, I think that's a challenge, but I think we can do it. We're certainly building stronger partnerships, aren't we? Thank you very much, Marissa. Right, well, look, we have spent a little bit of time looking at the overall strategic direction. We've asked you questions on income opportunities, and I'm thinking of Andy's comment around selling land to developers. Risk and liabilities have been raised as well as an issue for the community, and then also food production, community benefits, and environmental gain. And then we've also had some questions led by Councillor Spenser on consultation and implementation. So, let's then move on then to the recommendation from the report, and Claire, we have that on the screen. Catherine? Yes, absolutely. So, let's just go through the individual numbers in turn. So, the first is that we welcome both the draft policy and the framework, but is there anyone who wants to comment or question or propose an amendment to the first section, that form of words, Catherine? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, so we will admit the word deliver. Are you happy with the word promote, climate change and BNG, which is the biodiversity net gain, or do you think it's more than nice and deeper than I just come from? Thank you. Thank you. Yes, I would certainly include, I want to include the word local in front of the word economy. So, we are mentioning the local economy. Any other comments, questions, queries from committee members? No, okay. Well, look, I'm happy with the first section. What about the second one, which is noting the extent and richness of our land-based estate, and mentioning also the use of the land for health and also supporting biodiversity amongst other things? Anything that we would like to add to that form of words? No, okay. That's fine as well. Those are the two items, or the two sections, paragraphs, if you like. Anything else that we should add, do we think? No, okay. Well, then those draft recommendations are agreed. Thanks very much, everyone. And thank you to our witnesses as well. I'm sorry that we ran over a little bit. In fact, a lot, but your presence has been very much appreciated. And thank you for answering our questions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Right. Good afternoon to Mark and good afternoon to Negan. Apologies for the overrunning of this morning select committee. We have covered a lot of ground already, and we're about to change direction further still. Could I also take this opportunity to welcome a fellow committee, committee chair, who has joined us, Trevor Hogg, who of course chairs the adults and health select committee. Welcome to you. And I know that this particular item, item eight in our agenda, is close to your house and you wish to participate in it. Right. Well, it is the sustainable food strategy, which is a report on a console motion that was originally brought by our vice chair consulate Lance Spencer. So what I'm going to do, given that it was his motion progressed originally, is ask him to introduce the item and also be in a position to lead some of the questions of the witnesses who are with us. But before I get involved any further, I'm going to hand over to you, Lance, to take us through this item. Thank you. So the origins of this motion was I attended working high school, and they had a full day of looking at greener futures and how the young people in the school could get involved more actively with greener future type issues. And they were asked to come up with ideas about how they could better engage with their other students in anything to do with climate. And they went away and thought about it and came back and their big idea was, well, why don't we have effectively plant-based food on Mondays or meat-free Mondays, I think is where they called it. So that seemed like a good idea, and therefore this is a motion I brought forward to council, which was then deferred to the select committee. So that's the background on it. It was genuine enthusiasm from young people, and it seemed right to me that we should have that debating council. Clearly we're going to have the debate here instead, which I guess we'll have to do. Thank you very much. Thank you. Lance, right, we don't have Fiona White with us this afternoon, so I'm going to invite the cabinet member offices to summarize their response to the motion. I know that Mark has joined us, and perhaps if I hand over to you first, followed by an officer comment. Over to you, Mark. Thanks, Chair. This is a bit of a double act really with myself and Marissa, because this sort of cuts across climate as well as health, which is great, because it involves all of it. So from a health perspective, I think it's really important that we have this food strategy, which is based around education, educating our population, our kids, our adults on what healthy eating looks like, how that will then develop a much healthier way of life. We obviously have issues around the county and the country, indeed, with obesity, and a lot of that is food related. So it's really important that we are aware of the role that food plays in our communities, educating how to cook better, how to eat better, where to get food from and how sustainable supplies of food can be. The better way of doing it, then obviously imported from the rest of the world and other parts of the country. I'm sure Marissa would like to say something around the green agenda on this or the climate issues, and then I know Negan is going to take the majority of the questions from you, who has put the report together. Thank you, Mark. Marissa, over to you. Most people in this room know my personal views on this, and it's my day job, so if you want chapter and verse about health and sustainability, I can give it to you, and we do need to change these systems, as no doubt about it in my mind. But I try to keep my personal views to myself, and that's why we put it over to this group to have a look at and come up with a balanced way forward on it. I do think when we say something like a totally plant-based menu one day a week or meat-free Monday, it's kind of the same thing, and I don't think meat-free Monday is much to us to be quite honest with you one day a week. There's a lot of complications to our food systems. It's not straightforward. You can talk about locally produced meat, you can talk about carbon footprint of food, and you can talk about health in many different ways. There's some products that aren't meat-related, but healthy for you and some that aren't, and the same with meat. There's highly processed meat, and then there's your organic-free range locally-produced meat and things. So it is a complicated picture, and I've got strong views about how we should be trying to supply locally sourced food in schools and things like that. I think that's something we should be aiming for, even if there is a bit of a price to that, because it's about best value in terms of our environment, and people's health and things as well. Not just the money related to it. I think the key in here is you get to resolution three when we talk about education and outreach and things. That is absolutely fundamental because the amount of people that aren't thinking about the food they buy, for lots of good reasons. Some people are going into the supermarket because affordability is the number one issue on their mind, but I think by empowering people, and I often say this, levelling up to me is not just about buildings, it's about people, it's about their wellbeing, mental and physical, and allowing them to reach their scope, and food plays a crucial and fundamental role in that. So I think as an authority, there's a lot we can be doing in this space. As I said, recommendation on resolution three and four, which I'm sure we're talking about in a moment from the offer perspective makes sense to me. We've got to be inspiring, paraging, supporting initiatives, empowering people, but I think recommendation one and two are kind of the same thing, and I think we should be thinking about things like meat-free Monday, because we're still giving six days a week for people to make any of their other choices. So I don't think it's jutonian or heavy-handed. We're not saying let's shift everyone to a plant-based diet, we're just saying have one day a week, which actually we can give metrics to. There are metrics to show if everyone went meat-free for one day a week, the impact that would have on carbon, and the amount of animals consumed in the movements of all of those food products and things makes a difference. So I think we should have a conversation about that, and I don't think it needs to be one that's opposing and saying people shouldn't be eating meat at all. I think these are pragmatic, sensible conversations we can be having that still allow people freedom of choice. That's enough for me and over to have a conversation about how you got to these resolutions. So thank you very much for listening. I'm going to go back to Mark first and then over to you, and I know that Mark, you want to... I just want to come in and one thing that the rest have said there, and a slight disagreement, if you like. This whole strategy is based around educate, not dictate, and I think we have to be very aware that when we're generalising across the whole platform here, there are people, especially kids who have issues that they may not be able to eat plant-based food or don't want to eat plant-based food, and we shouldn't constrict a day where perhaps certain children would not then be able to actually have anything to eat. And I think we also need to be aware that plant-based doesn't always necessarily mean nutritional. So our language, I think, needs to be very clear around nutrition rather than a specific section of it. But I'm sure Negan will go ahead. If I can just say to him, we're not talking plant-based, we're talking meat-free, and if you're telling me children kindly eat vegetables in the games and things like that, we've got a problem. Because the biggest issue nutritionally is lack of fibre, it's not protein, so it's about balance here. I don't think plant-based is the word we should be using, that's what I'm saying. I think we should just be talking about reduction and people consuming other foods, because we could get into one. I'm not going to do, this meeting isn't about meat, but I'm just saying we have to be careful with language, you're right, but equally it goes both ways. Yeah, entirely understood, and in a sense, that has given good background to the questions that this committee wants to ask of both of you and also members of the office accord. Indeed, on that very note, Negan, could I hand over to you? And we have questions we wanted to ask in relation to the five resolutions, but before we do that, are you happy just to offer your view and to set the scene if you like? Yes, thank you very much. Overall, I think we are very supportive of the motion. The only point I just want to emphasize, again, is that the public involvement aspect to make sure we take the public with us. I think it's really important to encourage informed decision-making about food, and again, going back to the language that we were just talking about earlier, especially around plant-based. Sometimes it could imply processed food as well, so some of the plant-based diet, for example, that our store in supermarkets may not necessarily be healthy. So I think if we can just clarify that it's about eating more fruit and vegetable than including them in diet, I think that would be really helpful. But again, just going back to the children, we just have to make sure that what we offer at schools particularly are inclusive. So there may be some children who might have eating disorders or may find some food textures, not very appetizing. So we just have to make sure the environment that we're encouraging is as inclusive as possible. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm going to go to Liz, and then I think what we'll do as the committee is work through the resolutions in turn. Over to you, Liz, first. Mr Chair, I would like to talk about Resolution 5, so if you prefer me not to until that one. Thank you very much, Liz. We will definitely get to Resolution 5. I promise, and I'll just make a note that you can lead on the questions when we get there. Just bear with me. Thank you. Right. I'm going to go to Lance followed by Richard, who have questions in relation to Resolution 1, which is ensure that food provided at all counsel-catered events and meetings is predominantly plant-based, preferably using ingredients sourced from local food organizations. Lance followed by Richard. Lance. Thank you, Chair. So if I go back to the purpose of this motion, it's very interesting discussion going on over there. The purpose was to get people, and in this case, this is generally for counsel, but specifically in schools, to have that conversation once a week about what can we do about climate, and it was to encourage that conversation. And that's where the meat-free Mondays come from, because every Monday they're going to have that discussion. It doesn't mean you can't have any meat, I suppose, if there are medical requirements for something to have meat, then clearly that needs to be covered off. So that's generally where I'm coming from. So the question, and I don't know the answer to it, is whether your recommendation does effectively encompass what I've asked for or what was put forward in Resolution 1. Because I don't understand exactly what Government buying standard for food and catering services indicates in terms of plant-based alternatives. Thank you. So just to be clear, yes, the food strategy does support it. I think that it was just about the language in terms of using plant-based food and maybe kind of changing that terminology to kind of contain more fruit and vegetables rather than plant-based specifically. Because again, some people may think by plant-based food, we mean kind of all the new range that supermarkets are selling as plant-based, which kind of look like a sausage, but it's not a sausage. So those sorts of things that I was mainly referring to. But overall, I think the kind of food strategy and also equal schools, and Caroline, I don't know if you want to come on that, you know, very support that kind of initiative. And it's already included in the school curriculum to have those conversations with children and families and make sure they're part of the conversation. So I think one of the things that I would say is that the technology CPA doesn't even come across as clearly, but my point was just about kind of the language and use of plant-based food and that's all. Was the buying standards not about local food? Is it not about buying sustainable and local food? Is that not the focus, the kind of thrust of it, rather than talking about types of, you know, plant-based or whatever. It's more about how you get sustainable food, Lance, I think, and you consider that and try and shorten food chains and things. Yeah, basically it's saying look at that sort of objective to procure sustainable localised food where you can and try to avoid sort of long food chains and things. So it's not about plant-based at all. That's my point back to Mark. We're not talking about plant-based here. We're just talking about more sustainable food chains and making sure our focus in terms of procurement and what we're supplying in lines with that. It kind of goes back to that local meat point I made as well. So broadly, across the whole spectrum, this is about trying to do it, not just on a Monday. Okay, thank you all. Thanks very much. Richard, you have a question in relation to the contracts, catering contracts. Speaking as a former catering contractor, I'm pretty much aware that my friends still in the business are quite adept at sidestepping issues like this. And so I'd like to ensure that when we tend the contracts out, that we put the arm on them to follow our policies and actually deliver them. And I think that's very important, and also that there is a downstream measurement of them doing it, because you find that the intent works very, very well, but they will also sidestep any continuing to supply something that isn't necessarily the cheapest that they can possibly find. Just to go back to the subject of plant-based food, there's a lot of concern about processed plant-based food. And if you look at a lot of articles being published at the moment, there's quite concern that in actual fact you might be doing more harm than good with the amount of processing that some of these products go through. So, directly, purchased products are far preferable to processed products. I think if that could be put in somewhat. On the contract issue, Chairman, I mean, Compass Group and others have got their reins to sustainability objectives now, which are actually really ambitious, surprisingly so. I mean, Compass Group is looking to get to 50% non-meat products, for example, so they are looking at shortening their feed chains as well. So I think that we're kind of on the same pathways to an extent with them, so it shouldn't be too hard to challenge them on those points. And you're completely right. The point isn't about plant-based. It's about serving healthy good food. That's the point, which is hopefully not ultra-processed. That's the objective. So nobody should be saying let's go and swap one unhealthy thing for another unhealthy ultra-processed thing and just say because it's plant-based, it's healthy because it doesn't work like that, as you've quite rightly pointed out. Thanks, Richard. Thanks, Marissa. Catherine, over to you. Sorry, I speak to you. Sure. Okay. All right. Well, let's then move on to the second resolution, which deals with this meat-free Monday concept. Lance, you have a specific question on that. Yes, so this was the heart of the motion, really. The other responses from the service I'm reasonably comfortable with. This is the one where I don't think reflects what the resolution was trying to achieve. So this was specifically to encourage schools to have meat-free Mondays. I think in the discussion at council, somebody did observe that this happens anyway, so that would be a good answer. But your service recommendation really doesn't cover what the resolution was looking to achieve. Who wants to take that one? Negate? Yeah, so yes, the food strategy will support that. So if you didn't come across as clear, but yeah, we are very supportive of that. I think it's just, again, as long as it is inclusive for all children, and yes, we very much support that, so happy to include that if it's not as clear. Lance, over to you. So if we're accepting, I mean, I'm quite happy to put wording on the end to say, you know, to make sure that everybody is accommodated, but it is that concept of having a meat-free Monday. I'll say if it's already happening, all we're doing is saying in this motion that we accept that. It's changing of the language again, isn't it? Because it's not your original point that was a plant-based menu. It's about either meat-free or vegetable and free-heavy, whatever you want to call it. So it's just about the language I think we use and making sure it's not restrictive to those who have other needs. I'll do. All right. They're going to do what a comment on what Marissa has just said, because what I want to ensure is that the outcome of this debate properly reflects, accurately reflects what is happening on the ground, so to speak. I agree with Marissa's point. I think that was clear. And we do support it, although I'm not quite sure to what extent that meat-free Monday happens across all schools. I think some schools do it and some don't. So I think as part of the food strategy, we will make sure that all schools are involved in that and take part where they've got the opportunity. Trevor, you wanted to come in at this point, didn't you? Yeah. Well, I'm going to say it spreads across all of the resolutions to a degree. And it's also been alluded to by Councillor Newtons at the beginning, because a particular concern is those who are in any form of social care have effectively had their liberties and freedom restricted to some degree. And therefore, very, very important that we actually make sure that they have a full choice, and that this, as a policy, doesn't gradually move into a situation where people's choices are restricted. And this is particularly important when there are issues such as neurodiversity, mental health issues involved as well, that we don't then add to that load. You know, very concerned to make sure that we are very explicit on the subject. And I would take it to the point that if we continued with this and this policy grew, I'd be very concerned about adults, the elderly with dementia, et cetera, being confronted with things that they just can't cope with. Thank you. Thank you very much, Trevor. Chairman, if I can. I mean, just before you do so, can I just ask all of you, perhaps if you could just explain to me whether the strategy, this is our whole system food strategy, already supports a meat-free Monday? Because the way I read Resolution 2 is that school meals have a totally plant-based menu one day a week, ideally, Mondays. So is the strategy already providing for that, or are we in a position where we are trying through this motion to move the dial in a significant way? You first followed by Marisa. So the food strategy actions are still being developed, so we can certainly make sure that it reflects the motion that is articulated here. I think as long as we are clear about the language and we discussed about the inclusivity point of view, the food strategy will support it. Marisa? Yeah, just on that point, I mean, I think the food strategy has to broadly think about those people as well, and also people on low-income access, as I said, to high-quality protein is just as much of an issue because they might not be getting the good meat protein as well at home. So how are we making sure they get that? Again, it goes both ways. This isn't a singular kind of conversation at all. In regards to the strategy, I guess it goes back to language again, Jonathan, doesn't it? It's how we set it out. I think sort of saying plant-based or vegan and things inflames people and makes it feel very restrictive. Our objective is about getting high-quality food into people, and we've got to go back to science. You've always got to go back to science. What are young children lacking at the moment? And I indicated it early. It's fiber. So how are we making sure they're getting fiber in school? Is that Monday about ensuring that? We've got to be making sure that we are thinking about nutrition and health, as well as sustainability altogether, and not sort of pulling ideas out of the sky. It needs to be based on the evidence that exists as to what the best diet is, and that our food strategy follows that pathway, basically. I'm going to go back to Lance at this point, because this is, as you said, your self-lance, the heart of this motion, because the way that the resolution to is worded is somewhat restrictive, I would suggest, but I'm interested in your views on that. So I say, on the basis that I'm comfortable with resolutions one, three, four, and five, and I know we've just got to discuss three, four, and five, on resolution two, I think all we need is an alternative form of wording. So I'm not comfortable with the form of wording that's been given, because it just doesn't say much. It doesn't commit anything at all. I can understand that the current resolution to wording doesn't cover the inclusivity. This is meant to say, it's not meant to go, we'll start with one day a week and then we'll grow it. This is just meant to encourage young people in schools to think about what they're eating one day a week. So that's what we're trying to achieve, and it sounded like that we could do that, so we just need a form of wording to cover it, which I don't think we can cover off in this meeting. So I'm quite happy for you to take away, come backwards, and alternatively, it's not, you know, I'm not good. It's not, you know, the wording that's in there must be that way. So I'm quite happy to accept an alternative form of wording that doesn't encompass it, which I'm sure you can come up. Yes. Marissa over to you. Yeah, I mean, I think that's really sensible, Lance, because we don't want to rush things and get this wrong. I think if we could have a bit of time to think over and get the right form of words and send it back via email, I think that would be sensible. As I said, we've heard the views that people don't want restriction. They want to consider disadvantaged groups and things. So we just need to balance that all together and come up with something that's not Russia and try and sort of hash something together in the next five minutes. Thank you, Marissa. Mark, can we go back to you and then I'll summarize. Yeah, I mean, I was, that's pretty much what I was going to say because I think we need to get to the crux of exactly what Lance wants in there, whether it's around discussing food generally, the impact that it has on bringing food in on the green and agenda, whether it's about plant-based food as in being vegetarian rather than eating meats and the health benefits and negatives of that. So if it's about education and having that conversation, I think that wording needs to change as well to stimulate on a Monday in a school environment that they're having those conversations around what they want to eat, rather than maybe being quite as prescriptive as telling them what they can eat or can't eat. I mean, perhaps there's something in here about empowering schools. As you saw in your working visit about getting schools to actually have the debate, making that the kind of thing that we take the debate to them and let them make the choice, because I think you'd find probably most schools would make the choice you wanted, Lance. And I think we won't, yeah, we won't do that today, given that the time is marching towards the one o'clock finish. So let's then move on then to resolutions three, four, and five. So under three, Catherine, you have a question. This relates to the local authority guidelines and stories after each of the schools. Over to you on that, and then I'm going to live in relation to resolution five. Catherine? Yes, and the point that I was also going to make just following on the conversation that we've just had is, as a former science teacher, the most frustrating situation of being talking in a science lesson about climate change and what influences climate change, and everybody agreeing that eating less meat would help that and then going and having a school lunch, which is meat-based, because that's just frustratingly not joined up, and I think, therefore, the conversation about empowering schools to get the message across is a really good one. And my question was, we're talking about schools, and I'm just aware that possibly academies are outside, they can do whatever they like anyway. Oh, is that correct, isn't it? And does anybody know what percentage of schools in Surrey are non-academized? That's sort of under our auspices. We wanted to take that question. I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that majority of schools that are covered by, and are not private, are actually fined up to the health school, sorry, and equal schools, which is really positive. But I can come back to you in terms of, thank you. Thank you, Catherine. Right. Just by way of the record, so Resolution 3 talks of continuing to outreach to schools and young people to actively influence and inform on climate change, and in particular on food choices, and their impact on the environment, health and animal welfare. Now, Resolution 4, again, we have no particular issue as a committee in relation to that form of words, which is to further encourage and empower students to make informed decisions about food available, and this is something that we have already discussed today. And then that just leaves us Resolution 5, and I have Liz who wants to ask a question, followed by Mark. Liz, followed by Mark. Thank you. It's regarding the food growing in schools, which I think is absolutely highly important, because currently, as we all know, there is a disconnect. And we find that often, on the routes to secondary schools, we've got a variety of number of fast food establishments, which is basically demonstrating the opposite of this positive culture that we've got in front of us. And it's wonderful to see children in the reception year plan to run a bean in that aura and wonder that they see, but sadly, unfortunately, things do drop off after that, and really, it isn't taken forward into other year groups. So when it was in this Resolution 5, and it was saying to support, I would go further and support polytons in schools so that food growing season can be extended, because what often happens is really, schools don't get the chance to get their children, the seeds start growing in April, which is a little bit late for everything. If you actually have a polytunnel, you'll be able to get everything sorted, set up an automatic watering system, sorry, but you'd have to set up so that by the time you come back, you've actually got the food, whereas otherwise, you've only got a term to do that, and it's not going to happen. Thank you. Thank you, Liz. I'm going to go to Mark, and then I'm going to sum up, and we'll go to the recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm still confused on Resolution 1. I believe we have said that Resolution 2, the service will go away and reformulate 3 and 4 fine, but Resolution 1 still uses the word predominantly, and I'm not sure exactly how would you determine what predominantly is, and it still uses the terminology plant-based, which is the issue that we've just raised on Resolution 2. So that's Resolution 1. And on Resolution 5 and the service recommendation, facilitate a robust public involvement. What do we mean by that? Thank you, Mark. Who wants to answer that one? So by that means, so we've got a number of road shows to get people to talk about food and what it means to them, and as a result of those kind of community road shows, we want to make sure that people are actually involved, particularly in the implementation of whole system food strategy. So they get their opinion and get them to talk about food and why is important, and I think those venues will really kind of create a really good opportunity to make sure that it's not a top-down strategy and action plan, but it actually comes from the community itself. Thank you, Nick and Marissa. Yeah, my understanding, maybe I'm completely wrong and I'm about to make it full of myself, is that the bits in grey will answer original recommendation and the bits in orange are the new recommendation, and so that's not in Resolution 1. We haven't spoken about predominantly plant-based because it's been changed. In the second one, we're going to have that conversation out of her, so don't worry. It's a bit foggy. I questioned myself for a moment then. Yes, that's right. In relation to Resolution 1, there were questions around the wording in orange, which Negan provided some answers for, and having just spoken to Lance, who of course proposed the motion, he is happy with the service recommendation response, although of course Negan has promised to change some of the wording, so it's clearer rather than different. So with that in mind, I'm going to ask members of the committee to help me move to agreeing some recommendations, and what Claire has got on the screen there is a draft recommendation to bullet points 1 and 2. bullet points 1 just notes the work of the effort to develop a food strategy, and also linking it to the climate change strategy and the ambition that has been set out in relation to both of those strategies. But the key one from my perspective I would suggest is bullet point 2, which is we accept the motion as amended, but the motion that is amended, and you can see there, is that we agree and indeed accept service recommendations 1, 3, 4 and 5, but in relation to recommendation or resolution 2 more accurately, we haven't reached consensus, and we've agreed that we will ask officers and Marissa and Mark to work together to come up with an alternative form of words that recognises the concerns that have been expressed by this committee and also are visiting Select Committee Chair Trevor Hogg. Is that a neat summary of where we are as a committee? Very great. Great. Catherine? Thank you. Thank you. [ Pause ] How do colleagues feel about Catherine's proposed amendment essentially in relation to the individual resolutions? KPI's for suppliers. KPI's for suppliers. [ Pause ] Well, I think it's a basic principle. Yeah, I think that's fine. Marissa, do you want to comment? They could be quite broad KPI's. How much local food have we sourced? How much are we shortened the food chain by? How much better quality meat's being supplied, those sorts of things, so we know our quality. What are the suppliers doing? They've got kind of things there in bedding as well, so we're working with the right suppliers. They could be very broad KPI's because I don't want to cause you a load of work, but things like that are probably reasonably measurable and would give you some sort of outcome, Catherine, that we could bring them back and drill down on them at some point and make them stronger. Yeah. That certainly include that as a third bullet point. Megan? So just if I just come in. So the food strategy actually includes a set of action plans, so it's a comprehensive set of actions that is taken forward, not just by SOICANN to Council, but also from NHS and other partners across so. There are certainly measures that we are embedding as part of the food system strategy, but we do have KPI's that we can pull back on. So what I suggest then we do is that we leave Roman numeral three in there anyway, which will help you, don't I say, have regard to what is in the second section, because of course the second section is really asking you to consider specifically resolution to where what we are saying to you as a committee is that the service recommendation response, which is to empower families and young people to make informed decisions about eating a balance time, diet does not go far enough and needs more detail, but that's something that we are actually tasking all of you with to take forward. So are we happy then as a committee with that draft resolution? Good. Thank you very much. That is agreed. And of course it is now, as you have it, just gone one o'clock. So thank you very much to Mark. Thank you to Marissa, to Katie, to Carolyn and also to you, Negan. That was a back and forth dialogue and I think it's right that it was a back and forth dialogue and thank you all of you, and also to our guests to let committee chair Trevor for joining us and participating. We'll adjourn this meeting until quarter past one to allow you all to have a refresh, but we do have an afternoon session that requires us to be here a little later, but for now I will adjourn for 15 minutes. Thank you very much. We have run over, given the lengthy discussions on previous items today, but also before we move into the workshop session, which is delivering in partnership, towns and villages approach, I would like to conclude the main agenda of the select committee by reporting that very briefly. Of a meeting of the cabinet I attended further to the water utilities company special session, which took place on the 25th of July, select committee members will remember that a rising out of that session. It was agreed that a task force be delivered to ensure better coordination and communication around street works, better coordination between the local authority, I.E. ourselves and the water companies on flooding, drainage, and working through sustainable solutions, and also better coordination on planning, new developments and the network. Happy to report to the committee that the cabinet accepted these recommendations, and they are now with the cabinet for implementation. So that was in relation to the water utilities company session. A second session was held more recently under the chairmanship of Keith with them, with will be a separate and future item for this committee to consider. But on the same day that the committee or the cabinet considered the water utilities company report, the cabinet also considered an advertising and sponsorship report that was compiled by the Vice Chair of the Committee, Lance Spencer, and had over to Lance to comment, and also to invite the committee to comment as well, over to you Lance. Thank you Chair. So not unexpectedly the cabinet didn't accept the green and futures reference group recommendation on the advertising sponsorship, and effectively overruled the committee, and supported the officer's report. So the advertising and sponsorship will go ahead without any restrictions whatsoever. Thank you Lance, that is for noting. The only other item to mention before we move into the workshop session is to remind the committee that the date of the next meeting is the 14th of June, and that is to look at the road safety strategy, which by that point would have been considered by the cabinet post public consultation, which took place in March. So that's the end of the formalities of today's select committee. Thank you colleagues for helping me through what was an extensive and wide-ranging agenda, and it's now time to move into private session and to spend some time looking at the town and villages approach. Could I take this opportunity to welcome the team?

Transcript

start. Could I take this opportunity to welcome members of the committee? This is a meeting of the Environment Communities and Highways Select Committee. Could I also welcome the cabinet member and officers this morning? Could I take this opportunity also to remind colleagues to switch off their mobile phones? And also a reminder that this meeting is being broadcast by webcast and a recording will be made available online subsequently. In the case of a fire, colleagues are reminded to exit the room using the door through which you entered earlier and then exit the building to your left. If you have a comment or question members of the committee, please don't forget to raise your hand and I promise to get to you. And could I take this opportunity also to remind that when you speak, please do use the microphone. Committee clerk, good morning to you and could I ask whether we have any apologies and all substitutions? Thank you. Apologies received from Councillor JOHN BACOT. Thank you very much, Clare. Now the minutes of the previous Select Committee on the 7th of February should be with you and you should have had an opportunity to review its contents. Are there any comments or queries over factual accuracy? They are not. Are you happy to approve the minutes as a true and accurate reflection of that meeting in February? Great. Thank you very much. I will sign those minutes then. Are there any declarations of interest? No, they're not. Clare, have there been any questions or petitions to the committee? No, they haven't. Thank you very much. Without further ado then, let's then move on to item 5, the Surrey Connect Digital Demand Responsive Travel Service which is on page, the report that is on page 17 to 28. Could I take this opportunity to welcome our witnesses who have joined us this morning, Matt Furnace, the Cabinet Member Responsible, Katie Stewart, the Executive Director Responsible at Lucy Monney, the Director of Highways and Transport and Paul Millin, who is the Assistant Director Strategic Transport. Welcome to all of you. Now before the committee has questions that we would like you to answer, could I invite one of you to provide an introduction to this report if you would like to and any general questions or queries and comments from any of you? Thank you, Chairman. I'll be very brief because hopefully the report is quite straightforward. What you have before you at the meeting today is essentially an update as to where we are with our Digital Demand Responsive Transport or DDRT. It gives you information on progress, our plans for the future and some information around future monitoring and performance which we'd like to bring back to the committee. So reasonably straightforward introduction, so very happy to take any questions that you or the committee may have. Thank you very much, Paul. Well, look, I will start and let me ask all of you the efforts to boost numbers of users and take up of services is a key initial line of inquiry for this committee. We have noted in the report that the number of registered users in different zones varies greatly. What can we do to boost numbers? Thank you, Chairman. Yeah, it's interesting. You're absolutely right that registered user numbers do vary across the different DDRT zones and that's primarily due to the population differences in each zone. So if you take Mulvally, which is the scheme that's been running for the longest time and now covers the whole of the district, that serves a population of around about 120,000 residents. And if you compare that with the West Guilford scheme, that serves a population of around 5,000 residents. So that's J.G.Y. You've got the differences in numbers. I'd add that every household and every business received publicity about the service in their area in their zone through the letterbox before the DDRT service started. But absolutely, I think I and the team who are working on DDRT, except that ongoing promotion, publicity via traditional and digital and social media methods are absolutely needed. And that's part of the communications plan that we're developing for the DDRT services. And we're also looking at other local initiatives to try and encourage greater ridership to be looking at discounts. Can we look at group travel offers and so on to actually make the service more attractive. And the recommendation in the report is to bring back the comms plan and that information if the select committee would like to see that. So absolutely comms is still really important in the service. And I would stress and I'll probably say this two or three times through the questions. It's still a relatively new service. So it's still growing across Surrey and we're still learning and we need to apply that learning to encourage more users to use the DDRT services as and when they're introduced. Thank you. Thank you very much Paul. You mentioned a comms plan. At that point, I'm going to hand over to Andy McLeod, followed then by Lance Spencer. Andy over to you. Thank you, Jim. Paul, you've partly answered my question already, but could you just expand a little bit more on the communications plan, what you're actually doing and how successful you feel the communications plan is being. Because it's obviously very important to make this service a success. Thank you. Thank you. I mean, numbers are rising, both in terms of people subscribing to the scheme and usage and the report itself gives some information. So we're working with our comms team. We're also working with the University of Surrey to see how can we nudge, influence, get more users on to DDRT. So it's still very much work in progress and what we would like to do is bring back the more detailed comms plan first scrutiny to the committee if that's something that you would like to see. Very happy to do that. Thank you, Andy. I'm going to go to Catherine Bount, followed by Lance. Catherine. Thank you. Just returning to the first question about the differences in usage in the different areas, am I right in thinking that Mall Valley was set up as a door-to-door service and the others are set up as a stop-to-stop service and Mall Valley is still a door-to-door service and is that a reason for change in population? Thank you. That's a really good question and that's been part of the learning because when we did set the original Mall Valley service up, which was North Leatherhead in reality and it's obviously now covering the whole of the county with four vehicles compared to the two previously, we were offering essentially door-to-door trips. We're now offering stop-to-stop trips. The stop is not necessarily a local bus stop. It could be, but it's not necessarily. It could actually be the end of the user's road. It could be the local centre of the village, wherever we think is going to be convenient. If an existing or a new user wants to suggest a new stop to be picked up, absolutely we can assess that and we do that all the time. The information's on the county council's website of how to contact us. I'll find the email address in a second. If there is a desire for a new stop, absolutely we'll go out and assess that. Make sure it's safe. That's the number one thing and then we can make that available to all residents to use for future travel. It has been a side shift from door-to-door to stop-to-stop. It makes the service much more effective in terms of availability to residents because you're not going right up to somebody's house. I think that's the difference between DDRT and Dyloride, which is very much a home to destination service, often with the Dyloride driver and/or escort helping the resident on the journey from the front door to the end of the drive and then on to the vehicle. They're very different things. This is a small local bus service. It's not a Dyloride service. Hopefully that answers your question. It already is moved to a stop-to-stop. Exactly. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. The report notes that currently between 10-15 per cent of the cost of running the services is recovered. Once they're fully established and I appreciate a lot of learning going on, what do you think is the realistic cost recovery ambition? Do you have an indication of how much per journey we're subsidising the journeys for mole value where it's established and has been running for some time? Thank you. Yes, I would start by saying that DDRT has not been introduced with a view to becoming a commercial offering. I think that's fundamental. What it tries to do is provide residents with a new and more flexible transport offer, quite different from what's been provided before. It's often really successful in areas with relatively low levels of public transport. It helps residents to access key services by a more sustainable mode. As DDRT becomes more established and more embedded in the communities that they serve. I think also as we try to optimise how the DDRT services self-works process of learning, because I say again, it is still relatively new. I think it would be reasonable that if we achieved somewhere between 20 and 25 per cent in terms of return, we're currently, as you say, between 10 and 15 per cent as set out in the report, in terms of a yield of income from fares to revenue, 20 to 25 per cent seems pretty reasonable. I can't give you a direct answer on the cost per passenger trip from all valley. I'd have to go back and work that out, but I'm very happy to provide that via the scrutiny office back to you to give you the accurate answer to that question. Thank you very much. Thank you. I've got Keith followed by Catherine. Keith? Thank you very much indeed, Chairman. Your report describes almost £5m budget allocation for DDRT in Phase 2, this current year, and just over £3m for Phase 2. Can I just ask you what proportion of that will be funded through government funds and is there further government rural mobility funding available? Chairman, I'll have a second follow-up question if I may. Thank you. The rural mobility fund ground, which was the ground that we were allocated to set up the Mulhally DDRT service. That was a two-year ground that we received, and that will finish in May of this year, so it's imminent, and that ground will be fully utilised. The other ground that we're using to support the services is B-sit plus funding or B-sit Phase 2, as it's being rebranded by government now, and we're applying around £2.4m of B-sit plus funding to DDRT across the program, and that's for the current financial year that we've just entered, and the next financial year coming in 2025, 2026. So there are the two government grants that we have applied and are applying in the case of rural mobility fund and latterly B-sit plus funding. So fall is that sustainable after this round of government funding is coming to an end. There is new funding. What about the future? What's your gut feeling? I mean, can sorry afford to continue this if there were no further government funding? I see Katie smiling. Well, almost a political question, isn't it? Well, it's a practical question, I think, because it's all very well doing all this good work. What happens when the government funding finishes, as it's happened so often in the past on so many different things? So I can answer that to a partner, I'm sure Matt will want to come in from a political perspective, and I'll try not to strain to politics. I'll probably get a thump from both the left and the right, if I do. So to answer your question in terms of a budget setting perspective, we have been absolutely transparent in terms of what the costs of DDRT are currently for the program that is set out and it will pour, and for the future ambitions of the council in terms of more DDRT, covering more of Surrey, and that's all been fed into the medium-term financial plan. So there's absolutely transparent in terms of what the future costs are. I might want to comment on the politics. Thank you, Chair. Yes, it's something that we're very committed to as a cabinet. We have put that money in the budget side for this. Let's not forget, we've said very clearly, we're not aiming to make this break even. It would be delightful if it was, but bear in mind, we're providing public transport services in non-commercial areas of the county, and it's really to meet the fact that no one is left behind, but also are targeting our transport climate change emissions. So it's got a dual aspect here. It is actually one of the key things that I'm always asked if I do go and speak about DDRT. The first thing I look like an authority will ask is, will this be cheaper than a subsidising a fixed bus route? The answer would be no, but it is more flexible. We can target more people than the fixed bus route, and as Councillor Bob was saying, it is closer to a door-to-door scenario. It's stopped to stop, but it is closer, so it provides that flexibility. The money is there, we are committed to this. There will be some savings that we can make, such as in your own area, Councillor Wissam, where the subsidised route was being withdrawn. We were able to switch it all over onto DDRT. It's now more successful than when Stagecoach operated the fixed bus route, and they carry more passengers. So it is very successful going across the board. I think we just need to remember it is a very flexible offering this in which that members of Sari, or residents of Sari, are able to use this instead of their car in rural areas where commercial services will not operate. So we will have to have that budget, and we will have to commit to continuing that budget. What I will say is it is far less than our subsidised fixed bus commercial network, which is only 11 million I think at the moment. So I would say it's actually very good value for money. One bit that Paul didn't mention, but I am going to mention it, is to a previous question, the Mulvally Rural Mobility Funded programme was the best performing government subsidised programme in the country. And I don't think we shout about that enough. The fact that actually, despite you saying about the varying numbers, it was the best performing in the country for all that money. And I do think with time, the other areas will grow to those levels and more as well. Thank you, Joan. Thank you very much. Matt, Keith, any follow-up to those comments? Yes, thank you, Joan. In fact, part of what Matt said leads into my follow-up question, because on page 23 of your report, at the bottom, you have the number of passenger trips between last September and March for each of the newly introduced schemes. What I would like to see, if it's not here, is some comparison with what happened before each of those new schemes from September through to March. Because I know that in the West Guilford scheme that Matt has alluded to, there has been approximately a 45 per cent increase in the number of passenger journeys every week compared with what was in existence up until last August, which was the old stagecoach number 17 route service, which was itself a commercial route, which was itself taken over from a river five years before, and so on and so forth. So it had a history of not being very good. This is great, but for the others, I would like to see a similar comparison. How has this actually improved for each of those areas? Yeah, that's a really good question, because following the big public and stakeholder consultation that we took place where we were asking residents about a number of things, including the expansion of DDRT, seeking to understand what residents thought and where we should be looking at in terms of expanding DDRT. There were a number of socially necessary services that we subsumed into DDRT, so we can get the data on those in terms of passenger numbers, and then we can compare those to what's happening in the various zones of DDRT that they were operating to show what the difference is. Noting, of course, DDRT is still relatively new and patronage is still growing, but I think in the main you will see a significant increase. One of the other things that we're going to do as part of engagement with users is to survey them and understand how they were making their journey before, so what really were driving in the main to understand what the shift has been into DDRT in a more sustainable way of travelling, so we can get that information and come back to the committee. That's great, thank you, and for the benefit of the team here, I would simply say that since the introduction of the West Guilford one, which primarily serves the Village of Wood Street, plus the local Fairlands area, the only feedback that I have received has been 100% positive. Because of the history of the problems of that route before, there were a number of people who were not sure about it before it started, and grasping the concept of a bus that doesn't have a route or a timetable was not easy to begin with, but once it started, if you've got used to it, purely positive comments. Well, I'm sure that's music to your collective ears. Thank you very much, Keith. Right, I'm going to go to Catherine followed by Andy. Catherine? Thank you. Sowi County Council is now funding DDRT, subsidising some of the established fixed bus routes, and then the bus companies are collecting the profit from the commercial routes. So is any thought being given to a Sowi County Council bus franchise for the whole of Sowi? Yeah, that's a very topical question actually. The committee would probably remember that through the National Bus Strategy, Bus Back Better, when it was published back in March 2020, four years ago, how time's flown, all local transport authorities in England, they were asked to assess as part of developing the bus service improvement plan, and we talk about that in the next agenda item. Whether they wanted to pursue or explore franchising, or whether they wanted to pursue or explore an enhanced partnership model, for bus operation in their particular area, and as we know that Sowi County Council chose to establish the enhanced partnership model, and that's where we are. But if you look at the county deal framework, there's an opportunity, you know, expressed in black and white, that those local authorities, which include Sowi, could consider bus franchising, and I would say that all the opportunities that are available to the council in terms of the county deal, are being assessed as to whether they're going to be a right fit for the council and the right fit for residents. And if you did look at franchising, the initial step for county Sowi would to be secure approval from the Secretary of State in principle before you could actually develop the concept along the pathway that's set out in terms of developing franchising. And I would suggest securing that initial approval from the Secretary of State is quite a significant task in itself. It's also worth highlighting that the cost of moving to franchising model is significant, and there's different levels within that, depending on the choices that the respective local authority wanted to make. So around ownership of depots, ownership of fleets, and so on, so it's quite complicated, and it can be at various different levels of intention and therefore cost. But I'll conclude by saying that no county council today was implemented a bus franchising model, and I'd add that around 70% of bus journeys in Sowi are actually made on commercial services without the county council's involvement. So I think there are two really important points that any local authority needs to think about if they're looking at franchising. Thank you. Thank you, Paul. Catherine, any follow-up question or comment? Thanks very much. Right, Andy, over to you. I'd like to ask about what measures of success we were setting ourselves on in this service. Firstly, in terms of patronage, I understand it's going to be a subsidized service, but is there a specific number of passenger journeys per day for vehicle that we're aiming to achieve? At that point, we regard the scheme as successful. And secondly, are there any other measures of success that you have, apart from the simple one of the passenger numbers? And I do have a full-life question I'd like to ask after that, Chairman. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, I'm measures for success at, I mean, there's still being developed as we learn from, I'll say, again, these still relatively new schemes in terms of the DDRT and that we've delivered and is proposed for further expansion across Sowi. And they absolutely will include things like passenger satisfaction ratings. And it's really encouraging to hear from Council with them about what's happening in his patch. And I think that's mirrored across the across the piece in Sowi. It's also about understanding the improved geographical accessibility for residents in terms of their access to a new form of public transport, how vehicles are utilised during the day. And currently, the average number of passengers per operating hour across all the DDRT services is 1.55. And what we've done is we've set a target to try and achieve passengers for an individual operating hour between two and a half and three. That's where we want to get to across all the DDRT services in Sowi. Again, I've come back to passenger satisfaction. It's very, very high. At the current rates, 95%, which is, you know, really good. And we're very pleased that residents using the service clearly enjoy everything about it, which is great. We can always get better, but 95% is pretty good. So overall, the performance targets are still in development. Once complete, what we'd like to do, and it's part of the recommendations to the committee, is come back and present those to the committee for their scrutiny and comments so we can refine them further if that would be helpful. Thank you, Paul. I think the answer to that question is yes, most certainly. A follow-up, Andy? You've got one. Thank you, Jim. I'd like to slightly change the subject in the way that I was speaking to, after our pre-meeting, I was speaking to Cass and Pearl, who's a group leader of our group over the weekend about this service. And as she does, almost, I think Cass and has been looking into this thing. And she has an overall concern about whether or not we are using that this valuable post, as imaginatively as we could do. I mean, how are we actually looking at it from the point of view that it could be a whole day-type service, that it could start in the morning, helping commuters and children going to school during the day, it could be focused on shoppers and community servers. And again, in the afternoon and evening, it would switch back to children, school travel, commuters and so on. Are we looking to use the thing as imaginatively as possible? And she pointed me to a service that already exists, which I hadn't actually heard of, which is in Cobham. It's run by a charity. It's called, and you're probably familiar with it, it's called Chatter bus. And apparently, according to Cass, they operate in this way. Of course, that's different because there will be loads of volunteers involved with the service and that type of thing. And sorry are one of the sponsors of the service, along with other organisations. Is there anything in that model that would help, sorry, you run the service better, make more use of the facilities and so on and so forth? I understand it's a very general question. It was put to me at the weekend by Katherine some, at the extent, asking this question and her behalf. So can I put that to you, Paul, to do it for a response? Thank you. Sorry, Paul, just before you answer that, there is a question that I know that Katherine Bard wants to ask following on Andy's comments and they relate specifically to home to school transport. So perhaps if you could take Katherine's question and also Andy's question together and no doubt might want to comment as well. Thank you. Yeah, I'll go to you next Katherine and then perhaps both over to you. Yes, it was obviously because of the amounts of money that the council is facing on home to school transport. And I have read the part in the report where you explained why it's not being used for home school transport at the moment. And I just wondered whether there are opportunities, for example, to transport children to a place where they can then get a commercial bus to school or a safe walking route to school. So it gets them perhaps off the rural lanes where I, you know, there's no pavements terrible to walk along, but it gets them somewhere where they can do the rest of the journey safely and free up the bus to go and help commuters. Thank you. Thank you. I'm straining to school transport, which I'm not responsible for, so you'll have to bear with me. And it might be a question that equally could be posed to our colleagues in children's as well if they wanted to express a view, but I'll tell you what my view is. Yeah, sorry, connect DDRT. It's not a school transport service. Passengers are not able to travel to or from school. That's the the number of where we are. But passengers can make bookings to transport nodes from with travel. So if you take the Mulvalley scheme, for example, residence in Mulvalley, and can book a journey to take them to dorking deep dean station. So a young person attending Rygate College, for example, whose two lives in Mulvalley, can book a journey to get them to dorking deep dean, and then they can transfer onto the Great Western Service to come to Rygate and then short walk to Rygate College. So that's completely possible. But what we don't offer is a home or a local pick up point to school. For the reasons that's set out in the report, I mean, it really would distort all sorts of things in schools from school place planning, catchment areas, and so on. And to try and answer your question around the cost of home to school transport, because there we're talking about those children who are entitled to travel support rather than children who are not entitled in terms of the various acts of parliament principally around distance. So if you look at mainstream education, the vast majority of children who are entitled to travel assistance are traveling on buses and coaches. That's the most effective in terms of cost and grouping groups of children young people up to get into their place of learning, unless they're being provided that travel allowance and their parents and carers are taking them to school. If you look at taxis, and I think that was one of the issues that's been raised, the vast majority of taxis that the County Council is procuring for travel assistance for children who are being educated in a special education needs setting. So if it's really not simple to try to transfer SCND children onto DDRT vehicles, given the safeguarding, the support measures that absolutely have to be in place, children you've got a wide spectrum of physical and learning needs, all of which needs to be recognised and supported when travel assistance is being provided. I really don't think DDRT is a good fit. Moreover, if it were used for that purpose, and it comes back to council and council question, essentially what you would be doing is taking DDRT out of service for an hour and a half in the morning and an hour and a half in the evening or tea time. So three hours of an operating day, all other residents wouldn't be able to use DDRT because it's being used for home to school transport. So people who are trying to get DDRT to the local station for their onward commute get DDRT to start work at half a state quarter to nine in the morning in the local village or the town centre. Other people travelling to medical appointments at nine o'clock at their local GP surgery, they simply wouldn't have access to DDRT because we would have decided that actually we're going to use it for home to school transport in one way or another. And I really think that would defeat the rationale for why we set DDRT up in the first place. It absolutely wasn't intended for home to school and that is where we're at now. It's also a small mini bus so you're not going to get lots of children using it and I do think it's not the answer, particularly the special education needs to transfer the children of young people to education but colleagues and children may have a different view. Yes, two things. Chatabas, I forgot, apologies. Chatabas, I mean we've been working with Jerry Atcher and others in Chatabas for many years. In fact, we essentially helped them set the service up, we did the timetable for them so it's a service that I know very, very well and they have got a different operating model. You're right but what they've chosen to do is to provide a need to a local school for a period of time in the morning which essentially takes that vehicle out of service for the rest of the community but that's how they've chosen to develop their model and it seems to be working quite well. It's serving the local community who really like Chatabas. It's not a DDRT service, it's a scheduled bus when it's operating but I think there is absolutely a place for Chatabas in that area. Matt mentioned, I think, safe routes to school? Yes, so a review of safe routes is underway at the moment looking at individual schools across the county in terms of entitlement of children and looking at the routes to see is there an opportunity to make some of those routes safer by interventions which aren't necessarily high cost. Not with Sandy, your point about country lanes and the absence of footpaths that's completely recognised by the team undertaking the safe routes to school investigations but there are instances where we can work with colleagues in countryside, for example, to see our their rights of way that we can actually open up to those children travelling to school ensure that they're properly investigated and assessed and we can make a decision as to whether they are available for the community to use to get them to school in a safe way. Matt, would you like to comment further? What is that? Just if I may, so just on sort of improving the service, whilst we've explained very eloquently why we have chosen not to do it for school runs effectively, we are looking, because there are several pots of money where you have similar services being offered, the districts offer the dial the right service, in most cases not all, and the NHS also has their non-emergency patient transfers, for example, when they're discharged. So we are doing a piece of work with our operators just to see actually because those are flexible other services, we are seeing whether we can actually maximise the use of the DCRT by combining those pots of money together, as I think the NHS is a more challenging one, of those partners to work with, but as they are starting to tender those particular services, we can start looking at how we can actually improve and expand the offer across all walks. Very interestingly, we saw in Mulvally that there was a very distinct pattern to medical appointments using the DCRT service rather than a taxi or a fixed bus route, particularly I think it was our appointments in particular, because they knew they could get pretty much door to door. So it's something that we are exploring to see how we can further improve. Thank you very much, Matt. It is something I would suggest that you continue to explore, and I appreciate the tension between distorting the DTRT offering in the way that you've described before, but also being imaginative and also, dare I say, maximising the use of the service across a wider piece, but thank you for those comprehensive answers. I'm going to go to Richard next followed by Cameron, and then I've got Buddy, Richard. Paul, you've already covered the answer in the main about how to access the service and where to go if you want to where to stop or a hub. But what's the publicity behind that? Are we telling people that that's available? What is the comms plan for that, please? Thank you. Yeah, just to reiterate, I think something I said earlier, the comms plan is being developed, and that's something that we very much like to bring back to the committee in full for scrutiny. The web address, so all the contact details are 'sorry, connect' or on the public website, and the email address, the general email address, and this includes where residents want to request an additional pick-up point in their locality is 'sorry, connect@surrycc.gov.uk', so hopefully reasonably straightforward, but yeah, we'd like to bring the comms plan back to the committee and for scrutiny. As a subject of medical appointments being mentioned, and thank you for that, we have a lot of trouble locally in in trouble being able to access appointments at the Western surgery, and this might be one of the reasons why your long cross service isn't as well used as it might be, I thought I just mentioned that. It is a name problem, and the team and I have been talking about how we can improve that, so it is work in progress, but it's a good point. Thank you. Thank you, Richard and Paul. Keith, you had a question? Yes, following on from the discussion earlier about the number of passengers increase in each of the areas, a similar point, is there an analysis that you have showing within each of the catchment areas if there are specific geographical locations that are not really taking up the service? I can think in my division there is a particular geographical area that is wasn't really part of the old commercial service, and it's on the geographical fringe of the catchment area, and I'd love to know if that has been taken up, or as part of the comms plan, if those patches could be given a bit more attention to make more people aware that they have this service? Yeah, that's a really good question, and absolutely in the comms plan we will be identifying areas where we think we need to give it another push, so we can actually get residents in those areas using DDRT, so if members do believe perhaps on the fringes of a DDRT area, there's a particular cohort of residents that they would like us to do, but if a publicity push, very happy to look at that. And equally, you'll have seen that the map in the main body of the report, if there's an opportunity to slightly extend the operating area of DDRT, because we think we can bring in a new community that isn't actually going to adversely impact how the service operates in terms of efficiency, then we can look at absolutely happy to do so. Thank you Paul, thank you Keith. Right, I'm going to go to Cameron followed by Buddy. Cameron? Thank you very much Chairman, so I think there's always been quite some talk about sort of extending the DDRT operating hours, looking at its reach etc, but I suppose more of an operational question. What options exist for extending more regular services during the afternoon? So particularly with more flexible working, people working from home, and certainly with recent train strikes as well, you tend to have sort of a bit of a fall off on services during the afternoon. I mean, I've used DDRT quite a bit, probably three times a week, but I noticed that sort of afternoon period to be quite quiet, and when I need to rely on that, it's not as regular as it is maybe sort of during the morning or maybe late afternoons. So I wonder if that could be taken away, and whether that could be sort of looked at a bit further possibly. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. I mean, in any DDRT area, we've got the same number of vehicles operating throughout the day. So all the Surrey Connect services are currently operating 7 a.m. in the morning to 7 p.m. Monday to Friday, and then 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on a Saturday. So I think that that afternoon period is still well served, and we, as I said, we've got the same number of vehicles operating on each of the services, and within the main body of the report, there's some information on the use by hour throughout the day, and you can see it does ebb and flow a little bit, and it comes back to the point I made about school transport. You can see the hours around 8 o'clock and 9 o'clock. There's a lot of people using DDRT for whatever purposes it is to get to work, to get to the local railway station, to get to local GP surgery. So very happy to look at that and see what we can do more. Some of the areas we're actually introducing more vehicles. So the ability for current users and potentially future users to use DDRT is going to increase. So that's really encouraging, I hope, in the future. Thank you, Paul. Cameron, any follow-up to that? No, that's really helpful. I think maybe just a very brief follow-up. So obviously when there are other public transport services that aren't operating, for example, through rail strikes and stuff, maybe looking at doing more regular routes or more frequent services during the afternoon, when we just have rail strikes and stuff would be really helpful for residents. Yeah, I mean, that's clearly understood as a rail use of myself. I know what the impacts are on when you're just trying to get to work, do your work, whatever it is. It's very difficult because what you need is you need the resource available to provide the replacement service and with sometimes very little notice in terms of the publication of what the rail strike timetable is going to be. And it's even more complicated so when it's an over time ban because you're even further divorced from what the reality of what the service is going to be. But we do work with the operators to see what it is we can do, but it's very, very difficult to respond to a national road dispute. Sorry, that sounds really negative, but it's a long distance. Thanks, Cameron. Right, I'm going to go to Buddy followed by Catherine, and then we'll move to the recommendations, Buddy. Thank you, Chair. My question is around the further expansion of DDRT service. On your report, on the page number 21, you spoke about the expansion into part of Enbridge, I get a bastard and spelt on. To have any particular time frame as to when this will be rolled out in these areas, particularly I'm interested in spelt on because our local resident association have a great interest in this service. So any heads up on this will be much appreciated. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, I mean, the areas that we indicated in the report, and you've mentioned which ones they are, spelt on is included in there. We've already started to look at Enbridge where I get in and spelt on, and a few others to see what the opportunities from DDRT are. The services that will start, and I can't say which ones, it's definitely going to be yet because there's processes that we have to go through, not least ensuring the available funding is there to support further DDRT. They'll start in 2025, so it's not that far away. It's likely that they will be September 25, but I'm sure there'll be a political push to do it earlier. So I completely understand that, but 2025, September at the latest. Thank you very much. Good news. Thank you, buddy. Right, and Catherine, over to you. Thank you. This is a question about the PADAM, P-O, I don't know how you pronounce it, PADAM, the feedback system. I have been told that although the feedback option is valuable, the comment is that if you tried to book a bus but you couldn't book a bus, you can't feedback that information, and it sort of links into interesting, you know, what's the capacity, do we know what the capacity of the services, and do we know what, if people can't tell us that they couldn't get a bus, you know, how are we going to increase capacity? That's a really important point. In fact, probably the two learning points that we're trying to get to grips with in terms of our development of DDRT is that point that if a resident can't book a trip because the bus has already been booked, how do we know that and how can we learn from that? That's really important. That's something we're working on with PADAM at the moment, and the other one is short-term cancellations. So if you are booking a trip but not paying for the trip, we have a significant number of short-term cancellations, and we need to work our way through how we deal with that. And I think part of it is getting residents to understand that if you have booked a trip, yes, we understand some may need to cancel a short notice, and it may be because some of the is ill, their plans change or they're getting a lift, but you know, the more notice we have, the greater opportunity, then we can open up that slot to somebody else who is actually going to benefit from it. So they're the two big things that we're working through PADAM, and I think once we resolve those, the availability of the vehicle and the utilisation of the vehicle and the scheme overall will be better. So both of those things are fully acknowledged. Thank you, Paul, and thank you, Catherine. Right, we have had a good dialogue, I would suggest broad range of questioning, but it's now time to move to the recommendations. So what Claire has done is put those in draft on the screen, which I hope that you can read, essentially what we are recommending as a committee is that we wanted to see a clear set of performance measures, targets and metrics around take up. There was a line of questioning for you on that. In addition, we also are most concerned about a communications plan, and this means some questions Paul of you in particular around that, and you mentioned that you are working on a plan and that you would be happy for that plan to come back before this committee. So with the permission of the committee, I would suggest Claire that we weave into the draft at point number two, a commitment by you to bring back that plan to this committee. And the question for you then back at you is what the timeline you might suggest would be reasonable. I'd have to talk to the team, because it's not just my team, it's obviously colleagues who work in communications and engagement, but I think the sooner the better is the honest answer. So I can liaise with colleagues in democratic services and perhaps suggest a date back to you as a chairman, which you can say aye or nay to, if that's a sensible way forward. How does the committee feel in response? Is that acceptable? Okay, that would be fine. So we'll reference it in that second recommendation without pinning down a date now. And then thirdly, it's about ongoing monitoring of the success and take-up of the service. It's critical and requests the committee is kept up to date on progress, and that a report is submitted in six months' time. That's really by the end of October 2024. I'm not stressed that in pre-committee meetings, the committee was clear on that, and I really would put that back to you on that side of the chamber, how you might respond to that timeline. Absolutely fine. Thank you very much. In which case is the committee in agreement on those recommendations, anything else to add, amend in any way? Yes, yes. And Claire has added an additional wording into two. Okay, although those recommendations then agreed. Thank you very much. Good, thank you. We will move on then to item number six, which is the bus service improvement plan update, clearly linked to the previous item. We have the same witnesses before the committee this morning. Would any of you like to provide some introductory remarks before we move straight into what move into the questioning? Anyone? Very briefly, again, Chairman, if I may, hopefully, again, the report is quite straightforward. Government produced in the end of January, actually, a new requirement on local transport authorities, of which, sorry, is one, to update their bus service improvement plan, which came as a bit of surprise to all those local transport authorities, particularly when their deadline was given as the 12th of June to do this. So normally, there would be a significant period of time in terms of engagement, consultation, but we didn't have that. In fact, the templates from government in terms of what was being requested of us, it's still not complete. However, we needed to respond to what government were asking, and we understand why government were asking us to do this by the 12th of June. So what you have before you is that the proposition in terms of the refresh of the B-SIP, which will be our third refresh. We had the original, then we had a refresh, so this will be the third iteration of the B-SIP. So I'm very happy to talk members through the content and what we're proposing to do and the way forward. But it was important that we met the Department of Transport's deadline, because the suggestion was from government, if we didn't, then the B-SIP plus funding, or B-SIP phase two, as it's now called, there was a potential for this year's funding, which was £3.9 million, could be withheld. So all the proposed areas of investment, which are set out in the report, potentially will be at risk if we didn't meet that deadline. So we tried to do our best, and hopefully the report sets that out. Thank you. That's anything from you. Thank you very much. Yeah, the committee did note the new timeline, the challenging timeline of June of 2024. And with that in mind, and given the 12 national priorities for bus service improvement, could I take you to page 30, that's page seven, sorry, paragraph seven, page 30? What do you think are the priority areas for improvement in Surrey? This is having regard to the 12 national priorities for bus service improvement. I'd actually think about what residents really think are the most important things that we looked to invest and improve on in Surrey. And if we look back at the previous consultations that we've undertaken in Surrey, asking residents what they thought about our bus service investment plans, and what we were doing with our bus service improvement plan, and also the results of your bus journey survey, which was undertaken by transport for focus. What residents have highlighted to us is the desire for buses to be more reliable, and always number one, buses to run where and when people want to travel, buses are a bit of frequent enough that they're seen as a viable transport option, and affairs are set at a level that makes bus travel attractive to regular and potential new customers. And then in support of that, if you talk to our bus operators, the key issue for bus operators is the need for more bus priority measures, which supports bus reliability. So it comes back to the number one issue that buses are more reliable. So all of this, along with our greener futures priority, but focus is on decarbonising public transport and the investment that I know the committee are well aware of in electric buses, hydrogen fuel cell buses, and so on, which is set out in the report. They are really the priority areas for our B-SIP, and the investment in the county council is making. And I think that reflects very strongly in the 12 priority areas that the national bus strategy is set out. Thank you very much, Paul. Right, I'm going to go to Richard followed by Lance. Richard. I'm interested if you've got a scoring mechanism for funding schemes in accordance with the priorities, how do you actually decide where you're going to put the weight of your money? Yeah, that is a really good question. We don't have a scoring criteria in that sense. But we have a governance framework in that we have the enhanced partnership board, and then we have a stakeholder reference group, which I think is there to scrutinise and cajole the board into making appropriate decisions on behalf of these stakeholders and indeed residents who also sit on the board. And Matt chairs the board, we have the two big bus operating companies in Surrey on the board along with an SME who are representing the interests of all bus operators. And then if you think about the money that we're investing in, and it comes back to what residents have told us are the most important things that they want to see, that we are investing in bus priority measures to help buses be more reliable. We are investing in bus enhancements alongside bus operators that make buses more attractive and more frequent, and that will help grow patronage. We're investing in the fair offer, and I think we've seen that with the really successful Surrey link hub that was introduced last year, supporting those residents age 20 and under, to access half the adult bus fare. And in terms of those young people at their point in life when they're either moving into college or further education, or perhaps an apprenticeship or their first period of employment, to help them get to their apprenticeship or get to college or get to their first job is really important if we can do that by making it much more affordable it removes the burden from the family or the wider family. And obviously we're investing in more zero emission buses as part of delivering our greener future and more real-time information so residents can make better and more informed travel choices. So an awful lot is going on and hopefully that is set out in the report and the County Council is investing under a huge amount of its own money, both revenue and capital, in terms of making buses really a first choice for many, many residents in Surrey. More can always be done absolutely, and we're really hopeful that some more funding will come from government, and we've been successful in 7.8 million pounds of B-sit plus funding coming to the county, which we are investing in a wide range of initiatives, principally including existing local bus service, but hopefully we'll get more from government and hopefully when they read our B-sit, when it's complete, they'll see actually the commitment from Surrey and the commitment from our bus operators to invest and make bus travel really the first choice for more and more residents in the county. Thank you. Thank you. Richard, any follow-up? I was wondering if Matt wanted to add anything in that direction. No? Good. All covered comprehensively. Thank you. Thank you very much, Richard. Right. Over to you, Lance, followed by Keith. So in terms of consultation, can you take us through what stakeholders have been involved? So that's, I'm particularly interested in members. I know you've done work with residents, but there's a question about how much involvement members have had, and also I'd like to understand the relationship with Surrey Enhanced Bus Partnerships. They called a reference group, which must be the longest title of any organisation ever, which seems to be having settled a couple of times, fanatical about their level of detail that they go through in terms of looking at what services are offered. So I'm interested to have that was brought together to inform what we are doing on the 2024 BCIP update. Yes. So let's get with S.R.G. for stakeholder reference group. Tripsop the tongue, much easier. Yeah. In the normal course of events, I think we would have had much more engagement with members, if I'm honest, but time has meant that we haven't had that opportunity. I said that the guidance was published in draft at the end of January. We were given a deadline of the 12th of June, and obviously there's internal processes that we have to do. Obviously scrutiny is part of that today. The BCIP will be signed off by matter at the end of May, at a cabinet member decision meeting. It is disappointing, absolutely. But I think we need to collectively recognise what was fed into the original version of the BCIP back in October 2021. If members certainly correctly, when the first BCIP was adopted, and then it was later refreshed in 2023 last year. The vision, the priorities, what we're hoping to achieve has been consistent. So it isn't something that's new. What we are able to update is the additional investment that's come forward and where we are with the investment that was planned back in 2021 and 2023. So the priorities are the same. We haven't changed those, but we're able to update more on what we've invested in terms of real-time information plus priority measures and where we are with those and that's set out in the detail of the report, along with hydrogen fuel set buses and EVs. So I would like to have done more engagement. We simply haven't had the time, but we haven't really haven't changed the plan. The stakeholder reference group, it has been invaluable. I mean, it includes reps from bus operators, disability groups, county councillors, bar and district councillors and bar and district officers as well, and they've been consulted on the BCP update and that's part of the agreed governance for the enhanced partnership, which again is set out in the main body of the report and previous reports that we've brought to the scrutiny committee. The interesting thing is DFT have confirmed that there's no longer an expectation that we will update our BCP annually. That was the expectation. Each BCP will be updated by October of each calendar year. So then to be asked to do it in June was a surprise to everybody because we have a plan to do so, but now they're saying what we've done this in June, we only need to update it when there's something significant that's happened. So significant new investment or there's significant changes to the local bus network. They would both qualify or if I think politically with a small P, we thought we needed to update the BCP because something else has happened. So that going forwards gives us the opportunity to do what we would like to have done this time, which is a more detailed consultation, which we didn't have the time for. I think pretty much all local authorities have fed back to their stakeholder contacts at the DFT that really not quite good enough this time around and we need to do something different going forward. So that's where we are. Thank you, Paul. That was the follow-up. Yes, very briefly. I do think communicating with the members about this was an opportunity to get them more engaged and I do think there's an opportunity to better engage with members about the bus services improvement program and bus services generally. So I get good feedback on highway issues generally and I can pass that through to my social media channels. That'd be really good to have the same sort of thing about bus services, changes, improvements because there is a desire out there to hear about it and I think members are a good communication vehicle for that information. Yeah, I would agree with that and where we make individual changes to bus routes and there's quite a few set out in the body of the report where we're investing the 7.8 million pounds of Beeson+ funding. We do contact all the individual members where the bus route goes through and that can be often two, three, four members because if it's a route there's going quite a way across the county and encourage them to promote those changes locally using sexual media and so on and generally they do. We've also had a number of member development seminars on the Beeson improvement plan. We have those when we were first developing the Beeson and again they've proven to be really positive so there's always more we can do. I think Beeson wanted to come out. Lucy, it's easy for me. Just to add, when we were talking earlier about a communications plan for DDRT what we're expecting to do is work with corporate colleagues to produce a communications plan that cuts across lots of the bus services. So there's an opportunity there to make sure that we're doing more in addition to what Paul's already said but we can perhaps reference back again and how we are providing members the opportunity to promote more of the bus services and the changes and those opportunities going forward. So we'll include that as part of that communications update in a wider sense. Thank you very much, Lance and Lucy. I'm going to move then on to Keith followed by Catherine. Keith, over to you. Thank you Chairman. I'd just like to explore with you the challenges of the enhanced partnership arrangements and ask if you think that the governance and the stakeholder feedback, the mechanisms that you have are working well. Thank you. I mean since the enhanced partnership itself said that the formal partnership that we've set up that started November 2022 and I think it has been effective in the key decisions that it's needed to make which have been channeled through the enhanced partnership board. I mentioned already the introduction of the link card, Surrey link card, which is offering cheaper bus fares to all young people aged 20 and under in Surrey. The board's also being considered and supported the expansion of DDRT. Again, a really important decision from the board and the program for bus priority measures are particularly important to residents because they want buses to run to time and for bus operators because they want the buses to run to time so it can grow bus patronage and we've got a program over the next three to four years which is detailed in the body of the report in terms of where we're investing in bus priority measures and that support is supported by what residents told us through the big consultation that we undertook some 18 months or so ago. I think that the board has looked less at performance against the BSEP and the targets that were set and that responsibility has fallen on us as County Council officers and we in turn have been reporting to the DFT. Coming back to the stakeholder reference group, I mean it's got broad representation from across the county and from different stakeholders. I think it could be even more representative so we've got some work underway currently with the Surrey minority ethnic forum to help us use that forum really as a conduit to linking with other groups, other groups that they work with and to encourage them to work with us and that's right across the county and we're also working with colleagues in customers and communities to try and get young people more engaged and we were quite successful in doing so probably this time last year and slightly before because they were massively enthusiastic about the Surrey lint card and in fact they helped us design it in terms of how the look and feel of it and what it offered and we now to need to see if we can tap into younger people in the county more and give them a voice on the stakeholder reference group and then upwards to the to the board and then in terms of how we frame the governance going forward and we're proposing in terms of the board meetings and the stakeholder reference group meetings that they'll be regularised to three a year and the reference group meetings will probably take place in January June and September one of which will be in the evening to encourage greater uptake at least one in the evening and then the board meetings will follow one month on from from the respective reference group meetings so the other thing that I want them to do is focus more on performance of the enhanced partnership overall and the achievement that the county council and partners are delivering against the B-sit targets so I think there is more that can be done absolutely. It's still relatively new in the partnership was only set up in 2021 and we want more people engaged particularly younger people I would suggest and those from minority groups in Surrey I think that will be to the benefit in terms of our overall decision-making. Thank you. Thank you very much Paul I'm just conscious of the time and I want to move on to the question of funding which the committee feels is an area that we want to ask you about but before I do that I'll move straight to Catherine and then I'm going to ask Stephen followed by Andy to ask some questions on funding indeed. Thank you. It's a question about the inclusivity recommendations coming from the what I referred to as the bus user group which I sorry bug and I note that the bus charter it isn't binding and it has a phrase that people can expect to see more improvements in which is which is a bit woolly and I just wondered where somewhere in the department is there a list of bus bus stops that are going to have their curbs looked at for example and a deadline or target to make the changes and I am interested in this the business of the audio announcements of the bus stop coming up whether there's a time scale for introducing that and you know where are the commercial bus services on on doing that on helping you to do that. Thank you and just on boarding and alighting of bus stops in terms of improvements and generally bus stop improvements I can get the team to pull together a big long list of things that maybe once that we've done over the last six or 12 months and those that are planned over the next couple of years and it's a long list so I'm quite happy to get the team to pull that together and share that via democratic services if that will be useful so you can see what we're doing. In terms of audible announcements at bus stops that's an initiative within the overall enhanced partnership scheme so which is essentially the things that we would like to do it's currently not funded but it remains there certainly there's at least two or three members of the stakeholder reference group of keen advocates for this and a promoting this steep and rough is one of those I'm sure you might be mentioning I expect you know Stephen locally and it is something that Stephen is pushing and he's he's right to do so absolutely so I I will it is something that will remain on the agenda we need to make sure that we have some significant funding to deliver that sorry Lucy no seat um I was just pointing out there is some regulation changes in terms of information provision actually on the buses so there is a requirement for the bus operators to um to provide some other facilities I think you're talking about in terms of announcing bus stops on the buses the the operators um it obviously depends on the age of the vehicles so that is supposed to be introduced I think over the next couple of years it depends on the age of the bus we can share a little bit more of the detail of that rollout not all operators will be able to do that from day one depending on the age of the bus they're running so that so there is a drive to improve that provision of information on the buses rather than the bus stops so that may overcome some of that aspect. Thank you Catherine and Lucy now I want to move on to funding I'm going to hand over now to Stephen followed by Andy. Stephen. Yes thank you Chairman clearly the um the availability of future funding is a matter of genuine concern to to everyone the report states that significant government funding is required to deliver all of the plans aspirations in full. How likely is it that the capital and revenue request totaling over 45 million capital 30 million revenue submitted in 2021 will be met by government and clearly um a difficult question to answer because with the general election looming we really have very little idea of what the consequence of that would be but assuming that's unlikely and I suspect that's an assumption you've taken on board which elements of the plan would you choose to prioritize. Thank you. Yeah I mean it's absolutely no guarantee that that new funding will be available made available from government or or indeed if a new chance of funding does come forward and that Surrey would receive an allocation within that charge but you know we will absolutely continue to make the case for investment in Surrey to government and that will be bolstered by our our proven track record on delivery and I think if if you consider two recent government announcements on the zero emission bus fund Zebra 2 as it's called Surrey's benefiting from two positive awards from government one one as our supporting colleagues in in West Sussex Kent and elsewhere which will see even more hydrogen fuel cell buses coming to Surrey but also the bit that we led as a county council which will see 19 new electric buses coming to Surrey with two SMEs which is to my knowledge that the only such bit that governments ever funded all of the monies has been channeled through the main groups for reasons I understand but we've now got two SMEs that are going to have 19 electric buses so that clearly government sees what's happening in Surrey and they see it as being really good because otherwise it wouldn't be investing in zero emission buses so coming back to where our focus needs to be it's what I said out before really it's bus priority measures in the agreed locations that will grow bus patronage and that's been supported by residents and stakeholders at consultations more zero emission buses and mini buses more real time information so residents can make better and informed travel choices and expansion of DDRT and maintaining support for the Surrey link card I see those as being the priorities for Surrey and and our investment and hopefully that's reflected in in the BSIP and in the main body of report that that you've seen before you today. Thank you Stephen any follow up? No no Chairman that was clearly an impossible question to answer but it's an important one. Yes absolutely and a very comprehensive answer given as well so thank you Paul right Andy over to you. Thank you Chairman I've got two questions actually they're first of the fairly simple question what do you see as the impact of the end of the national bus fare cap in this November what effect do you think that we'll have on bus services? Yes it's a really hot topic at the moment in in local authorities and and in the bus industry and if you look at the data the DFT data shows that over 90 percent of all journeys outside of London are currently being made using the two pounds fare cap so clearly it's been embraced widely across across England and residents of Surrey are part of that which is brilliant to see but but I guess there are some issues with it government and transport focus have said it is for passengers making regular shorter journeys they're probably not getting as good a deal as from the fare cap as people traveling less frequently and making longer trips because they're paying two pounds for to make those journeys so I think there are some options I mean government could allow the fare cap to end and then we would go back to operator set pricing models local authorities local transport authorities could be asked to fill the gap in funding and to maintain the two pound fare cap excuse me that that would obviously require additional funding that's not in the budget absolutely not for Surrey or I would suggest most of the local transport authorities if government suggested that was the way forward we could look at other ticketing office offers nationally season ticket options other discounts family group or or other types of group travel or of course government could look to maintain the two pound fare cap or perhaps move to what was proposed last year that it was going to increase to two pounds fifty and but from from my point of view whatever decision government chooses to make and it is a government decision I hope that there will be sufficient notice that local transport authorities can plan locally and can respond including communicating to residents that things will change because I expect not every resident understands that their two pound bus fare is actually part of a government scheme they may think it's a county council scheme we absolutely is not but it's a decision for government but it's it's proved incredibly popular and relative in terms of cost it's not that much money I'm sure they're thinking about those two things thank you very much Andy and thank you Paul right I'm going to move on to Cameron sorry Richard because that's my second question yes of course sorry yes of course I'm just conscious of the time apologies Andy please go back my second question actually relates back to previous discussion to some extent about school to trans school transport I do accept the answers you gave actually that DDRT wasn't necessarily appropriate for children who had a right for school transport but the part I like to make is there are an awful lot of children go to school who don't have a right for school transfer and they have to make their own way and this is becoming bigger and bigger problem actually in the area I live in I've got a very successful a primary school in the road I live in and there's also a special needs school which deal with their own problems to do with many buses just around the corner there's a catholic school which's got a very wide catchment area and every day in the morning in the afternoon the whole area is becoming more and more clogged up with with cars because no one seems to walk to school these days apart from the children who live very very close and it's becoming more and more of a problem and at one time we had a Pegasus bus service actually which was very successful we had two or three very nice big buses which came to these schools every day completely full they were subsidized but that had to be abandoned because it wasn't it couldn't be afforded at the time but as we can subsidize DTRT and quite I totally support that I don't understand why we can't subsidize school transport for the children who have to make their own way it would take an awful lot of cars off the road in the same way as DTRT does now I think that should be reconsidered actually as part of our bus policy whether we should be bringing the school transport back because I'm sure it's a problem elsewhere in Surrey it's an enormous problem in the road I live in I had to leave very early to even get you this morning and I wouldn't have been able to make the meeting at all so I wonder if you could think I know it's a slightly off piece for what you're talking about I think it's a very important question thank you Chairman. It's almost how long have we got with that question but yeah at school transport it isn't hugely important to to local communities and obviously the children and the families within which they live and we already support a good number of local bus services either which are specific school specials they're any running in that the morning and that tea time journey to get large numbers of children to school and there's obviously local bus services which are running all day that go past one or more schools that support a wide range of children to get to school and they're both supporting scholars that are entitled based on distance principally and those that are not entitled to to support so lots of children are already travelling by bus to school and of course we could do more you mentioned Pegasus I mean Pegasus was focused at 14 primary schools principally the movement of pupils to school is secondary schools and that's what I was talking about in terms of school specials and local bus services yeah Pegasus 14 schools 22 buses run under contract concluded in 2005 and it had an annual deficit of a million pounds but in 2005 prices so it shows if you want to invest in public transport more buses to schools absolutely you can do that but it will require significant funding and you have to think about the implications for school place planning as well and understand that the impact in terms of the locality but the investment that we are looking to make and that's set out in the body of the report will help children get to school but it's much more focused on on slightly longer distance journeys for children going to secondary children and young people going to secondary school rather than primary school where our focus is on walking push scooting and working with parents in terms of trying to make the school as sustainable as possible in terms of the overall activities of the school and the community I'm very conscious of the time so what I'm going to do is I'm going to ask Cameron and Richard to ask their questions and then I'm going to move to the recommendations Cameron thank you very much chairman just I wonder if there if you could provide sort of an update on the real-time passenger information so the investment that's coming forward in this sort of in this area I think it's referenced in paragraph 22 of the report but I'd like to see if there's an update and possibly whether not just about providing real-time passenger information of bus stops but also looking at sort of similar thing that sort of TFL do which is you know being able to access some of this stuff on an app or on your phone and whether Surrey has any plans to do something like that thank you yes so more real-time information of bus stops is being installed in Surrey it's referred to in the report in terms of numbers we've got roughly 500 RTPI displays on street or in bus stations and at key key destinations over the next two years we're going to be installing another hundred taking us up to just over 600 so hopefully that will support residents and make more informed travel choices from from next month actually stagecoach and we're doing a piece of work with them so they'll be able to send messages to roadside displays to advise bus passengers of any cancellations that have to be taken place perhaps due to tie-wheel works perhaps due to something that's happened at the depot hopefully that will work and then that facility will be made available to all other operators later this year so again residents will get real information on what's happening on the services that they're using to get to work to get school or get to wherever they're choosing to go in terms of information online there's a lot of information on the county council's website bus operators themselves have most of them have apps that you can download i've got a stagecoach app on my phone for example so i can see in real time what's happening on the services that i want to use in the stagecoach area so perhaps a summary of what's available i can put that together and provide that to the committee so that can be circulated hopefully that would be helpful thank you that would be very helpful Paul thank you good right i'm then going to go at lastly to Richard and then we'll move to the recommendation very interested in you saying something on what you feel the hydrogen buses will do to help us deliver the improvement plan particularly in in the sense of cost of operation and efficiency perhaps you could help me out with that i'll try thank you um yeah i mean we've got 34 council funded hydrogen fuel cell buses and they'll be in service i think we talk about in in the report 2024 25 i'm hopeful they'll all be in service and by the end of the calendar year and certainly the the first one is due to arrive in in june and those 34 that the counter council is funding that will add to the 20 that already have been received by our partner metro bus in the bid that was approved by cabinet the year or so ago now there's another 33 rather hydrogen fuel cell buses that are coming into sorry kent and west sussex and that follows a bid to zebra two that i mentioned earlier so that's funded by the relevant councils metro bus gapwick airport and government funding via a partnership bid that was led by west sussex and our own zebra two bid we'll see another 19 electric buses coming to sorry in partnership with sme's falcon and white bus so apart from the carbon reductions which i think are taken as granted and we did detail those in the cabinet report which are significant absolutely significant and that will help us deliver on our greener futures ambition um there's an additional quality benefit because their new buses stay to the art they offer disappearing ride quality enhanced comfort and overall you know a far better experience so passengers helping us to make bus travel even more attractive and the vehicles that that we are purchasing so the 34 hydrogen fuel cell buses they're being leased to metro bus and to operate in in services in in sari so financially they'll probably have a um a life of 15 years that that's the typical life that we look to for for a bus provided it's you know well maintained and well treated which i'm absolutely sure they will be with metro bus um so that's a you know a positive investment of significant amounts of money from the county to deliver hydrogen buses and electric buses in sari over the coming years thank you very much poor right let's move then to the recommendations just by way of summary committee we've um asked questions around the 12 national priorities we very conscious of the fact that there was this new government imposed deadline of the 12th of June that you've been working flat out to meet we asked you questions in relation to consultation including with members to help you help this program roll out successfully we've asked you questions on governance and partnership funding a key issue for this committee as well as one of two questions on the type of buses 54 hydrogen buses is what i've calculated using my rudimentary maths so they're the recommendations on the screen essentially what we are saying is that we welcome the work that you have done this is both in relation to the updated B's SIP which of course noting the 12th of June deadline and also welcome your priorities which seem to fit in quite well with the 12 national priorities around faster more reliable and cheaper public transport and there is an additional draft recommendation which is the third one which is the encouraging better engagement with members on bus service changes and improvements so a new number three are there any questions or comments on those recommendations we're happy with their content good all right well those are then agreed so thank you very much committee for that apologies that we have run over a little bit but i want to thank all of you but particularly you Paul for doing much of the heavy lifting this morning very very detailed and comprehensive answers given so thank you for that and thank you to the committee to matt to Katie and to Lucy thank you very much Katie you're staying behind for the next i so much good you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you colleagues we're just waiting on Natalie who is the captain member for property infrastructure and waste and then we will make a start i believe she's on her way you [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Apologies, we're just now waiting for the vice chair and for Catherine to return and then we'll make a start. [BLANKAUDIO] Mindful that this is being webcast, I will not comment. [LAUGH] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Right, good morning and apologies for the slight overrunning of this morning's select committee, but I do want to welcome all of you to what is a discussion on the Land Management Policy. And our task is a committee this morning is to undertake a review of the draft land management framework and also the land management policy for Surrey also in draft which relates to our own land. Now, a good welcome to Marissa Heath, Natalie Bramill, Katie Stewart, Carolyn Mackenzie, who's joined us. And also, I can see we have another member of the team who has joined us, Colin, welcome to you and thank you for joining us. Right, now I'm going to ask one of you to provide an introduction to this draft policy and then we as a committee have some questions that we would like you to answer. Who would like to take it away?

If I can start, Chairman, I mean, it comes in two parts and as Natalie and I have discussed, we're talking here about a land management framework that helps us make better decisions on how we use our land and we'll consider the way forward. So at the moment, we tend to sort of look at our parcels of land separately and make those decisions on perhaps ad hoc might be too strong a word, but on that kind of basis rather than saying what is the vision for our county as a whole over a long period of time. And where can we best use our land and get best value out of it for the public? You know, there's been lots of things that have changed over the last few years. We've got environmental land management, we've got biodiversity net gain coming at us. We've got considerations around food security and food sustainability, public access, green prescribing. You can go right down to even smaller points like the higher levels of dog ownership now and these are all things that have an impact on our land. So we need to be thinking quite broadly and sensibly about how we balance all of those needs and demands. There's one element that I come from and that's the natural capital. How are we going to restore wildlife? How are we going to grow biodiversity? How are we going to deal with some of the mental health issues that we've got amongst our community using that natural capital? We've also then got the other side, which is land and property and how we're ensuring we're getting best value for our residents from the assets that we have, because on our land there are assets, so Natalie and Colin have come along today to talk more about that part. Carolyn and I are more about the biodiversity and nature part and obviously Katie sits above it all. You know, the document sort of speaks for itself, but it is something that's evolving and that we're thinking about hence coming here and having many other conversations. Conversations have been happening with land owners for a long period of time with people who use our land and they will carry on going on to make sure we get this right, because actually it's a highly significant piece of work. I can't overemphasize that. Land is everything. We all know that from where we build our homes to where we have our recreation to where we grow our food, as I've said, so it is a massively significant piece of work and I look forward to hearing members of your committee's views on that today. Katie or Natalie, I don't know if you want to add anything in. Thank you, Marissa. Natalie, over to you. Thank you, Chairman. I think both of the teams have worked really closely together, land and property, which Colin is the AD for estates. And so by having this single framework, which is agreed across the Council, it will enable an integrated approach to land management from a commercial and an environmental basis and bringing in the skills of natural capital and estates, rather than working in silos so that we can get the best for our residents across the whole of our estates. Thank you. Thank you very much, Natalie. Right. Well, look, we have some questions that we would like as a committee to pose to all of you, and I'm going to start by referencing both the framework and the policy and ask you to explain any major change in direction in how the Council manages its land-based assets are set out in these two draft documents. Who would like to take that one first? Carolyn. Yeah, I think we're still very much in the early stages of both these policies. I don't think we can say yet with that exploration change where there's going to be any major changes, but there are a number of areas we are looking at. So we are looking at our land from the way we manage it from an environmental agency point of view. So are we managing it effectively in terms of pollution, in terms of damage? Is that right? And getting that right? Because I think that's really important that we're getting that basics right first. We'll also be looking at where we've got potential for using our own land to provide BNG for our own developments. So we all have Scott's calls and other developments if we could provide BNG or nature recovery that will help mitigate our own developments, then that's a key area we're absolutely looking at. And then potential for adaptation and flood risk management, because several of our sites are in flood areas, and it's how we can use those sites to mitigate those impacts. And as well as in potential, a lot of our sites get a lot of thoughtful. So it's how do we look at other sites that we have and develop those so we can start to move people away from honeypot sites, so spread the impact of residents and visitors on the sites. And lastly, we will be looking at renewables, whether they're appropriate, but as some of the land is in the AOB, and Greenfield will be looking at that very carefully and when it's appropriate. At all times throughout that we'll be discussing with our tenants and farmers and helping support them as well. If I can just add, Sharon, I think the point in here about how we manage our land-based assets. I mean, we'd like to think we've managed them well, but actually we need to really be managing them. We've got to look at every asset as vital and important as a role to play. Whether it is, as I said, leaving it for wildlife, that's still managing it, that's still something we've got to do. So it's really sort of looking over every inch of the land we've got now and managing it. I think that's the key word really, so we need to know exactly what our land's doing. And it's utilising the asset as much as we want, whether it be for nature or recreation, as I've said before, or how do we get the most out of it, for whatever we're trying to achieve, whatever we decide that piece of land needs to do. Thank you very much. Right, I'm going to hand over to Buddy, followed by Keith and then Andy. Buddy, over to you. Thank you, Chairman. This report highlights the land management framework as a strategic tool designed to guide the measurement of land-based assets and associate risk. Given its role in structured and decision-making, could you elaborate on the specific type of early decisions that this framework is expected to influence? And secondly, how does the framework integrate environmental, social and economic consideration into these initial planning and development stages to align with these broader sustainability and community goals? Thank you. That he would you like to take that one? Yes, I'll just touch on the sort of the commercial side of it. As a test, we're currently looking at the Ray Park estate to see what opportunities can be realised in terms of improved farming, release of land and buildings for disposal, and then get lots of land designated as biodiversity net gain, and looking at other potential environmental uses such as solar farms. So in that way, we're using our land to benefit the residents across the piece, as it were. That's a monetary point of view. Thank you. I don't know if Collin wants to add anything. Yes, it's working closely with our Collin losing natural capital, because West Park estate is three farms from top-med and some of the land, and it's not an ideal set up commercially or actually operationally from a farm in aspect. So we're working with the farmers, working with colleagues in natural capital and vice versa to see how we can consolidate the farms into better and more sustainable businesses. But of course, that in-term releases land for disposal, which is always useful for the finances, but also equally importantly, releases land for biodiversity net gain, which as Carolin's already alluded to, is very important to us, not just from our environmental perspective, but to enable the scores to be built or the social housing to be built, which of course we're now needing to define biodiversity net gain units to enable those to happen, and far better to do those in-house rather than the expense of buying them as well. And also releases land for other environmental projects, such as solar. So by working as that group, under this sort of framework and policy that's being put together, we're already doing it actually. But it formalised its bodies working as a group to determine the best use of the land, not just commercially, not just from the natural capital perspective, but from the Sarri County Council perspective. Thank you, Colin. That's a comprehensive answer, and I wonder, but did you have any follow-up to that? Okay. Thank you for that. Keith, over to you. Thank you, Chairman. Could I just ask, what are the main opportunities for SEC for income generation, and how does the Council balance these against your duties as a landlord and a guardian of the natural environment? Natalie? Thank you. A good example of how we're doing this, Council with them, is the recent letting of Kinner's Lee Farm, where estates and natural capital agreed a set of terms that enabled the farm to be marketed for regenerative farming. But ensuring that any potential tenants also provided a very strong business case. We now have new tenants paying an increased rent than before with innovative farming methods and grant funding too. And the land was also released for BNG. We can use this model that was worked on between the two teams elsewhere, as well as looking at other opportunities to lease land for other uses. Thank you. Can I just ask as a follow-up, so what's the annual income, sorry, County Council, from this source of income? Off the top of my head, don't know, but I can obviously, it's fairly substantial. It's over 100,000 a year, something like that, if not more. We're currently doing a review of the rents as we speak. But off the top of my head, I'm afraid I can't answer that one. But that's overall? Yes. Perhaps we could have a note after the meeting. Absolutely. Yes, there would be a very helpful column, Natalie, if you could provide that note. Two, two, Keith, but also if you could copy a member of the Committee for our information, that would be helpful. Thank you. Right, moving on then to Andy. Over to you. Thank you, Chairman. I mean, one opportunity the Council clearly has is to sell land to developers where that's the appropriate thing to do. And I'd just like to ask, when we do that, are we coordinating with the boroughs and district councils and their local plans to ensure that when we do that sort of thing? And there's appropriate infrastructure going to be provided in additional school places and all that sort of thing. When you get involved in selling land, do you look at it from that point of view as well? Thank you. Thank you, Andy. I'm going to hand over to Natalie and Short-Conan might want to add as well. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Councillor Cloud. As you know, in Waverly, we sold Coxbridge Farm, closing the name Farm. Unfortunately, it took us many, many years to get it through Waverly planning, but we got there in the end. And so got a substantial capital receipt for the Council. And also providing, I think it's 190 homes on the land. I think it was 80 of which from the top of my head were for some sort of social value, affordable housing. So that's one example of what we've done in the past. The opportunities around West Park are also an example of how we can potentially do this again. It's tidying up the estate to release land for disposal, but maintaining and improving the viability of the existing farms and also mindful of the BNG requirements. And obviously the boroughs and districts are responsible for the sale payments that come forward then, sorry, then applies for schools and roads, et cetera. So we do work with them. We sold some land, actually went through cabinet last week to Tandridge Council. Again, that was actually a former care home that had been empty. So we've sold it to them undervalued, and they will be providing homes on there will be totally for social rent. So that's an example of how we are already working with our boroughs and districts. And I know Graham Glenn from Colin's team puts in into the local plans, seeing if we can get places designated for residential, et cetera. But it's a hard job. Thank you. Colin, anything to add to Natalie's response? Not particularly, if I'm honest with you, but obviously it's if we're selling a discrete piece of land, like Cox Beach Farm, there's a double benefit because of course that's Natalie's account. There is a section 106 and some payments arising from that as well, which is how it integrates into the local councils, the local boroughs and districts. Thank you very much, right. I'm going to go to Richard, followed by Buddy, followed by Steven. Richard? I'm interested in how the policy will influence decision about this puzzle of land, particularly the use of green belts for schools. One of the things that you know when I'm planning is that the schools seem to be only one story high. And you say to yourself, we're using an awful lot of land, laterally, rather than encouraging ourselves, if you like, to go vertically. If you've got any thoughts on how we could use the policy, to make us better at the use of our own land, if you like. I think there's two fold answers there. I think one is we actually within land and property itself, there is a strategy in planning function that looked at whatever surplus land we have, and whether or not there is an alternative use for that land, whether that's schools, social housing. We try and, as best we can do, recycle our properties with some sensible checks and balances to make sure we're not recycling the world's most valuable site against some of the people that are somewhere else cheaper. So we would do that naturally, so if land were to become available for a farm for the sake of argument, we would automatically check to see if we could use that operationally. And of course, by operation, we mustn't lose sight of natural capital. We tend to think of operations as being bricks and mortar, but we keep coming back to bother about the net game, for example, which is a really important thing we have to consider. So I'd like to think operationally, operations are the complete range of what we have to deal with within Terry County Council. In relation to school sites, I'd have to go and check, but I suspect the reason why you're seeing one story building is possibly because the largest special educational needs schools. So therefore, I suspect we're looking to keep them on a single story for mobility reasons. I don't know that, because I'm not generally involved and I'm happy to take that away and confirm, but I suspect that's what the position is. Thank you, Richard. Stephen, over to you. Yes, thank you, Chairman. I want to raise a question on grants. To what extent is the Council taking advantage of new government environmental management grants or other environment-based funding streams to support future sustainable management of its estate? Is there more that it can do? We have already got quite a lot of grants, grant funding from the existing schemes, so we do make as much as we can from the funding that's available. The new schemes is still very much in development, so that will be absolutely a future focus for us as we very much tend to try and maximize grant as much as possible because it delivers on our outcomes. It's worth saying that this is why everything's changed, because land has different values now because of these bonds and schemes and things. So in the old days, we would have just said what's the value potentially for selling and building homes or something, whereas now there's lots of different variations and reasons to be working with farmers as well to maximize the value of that land. There's a shift to environmental value and social value as well as just the asset value. Thank you, Colin. Thank you, Marissa. Any follow-up questions, Stephen? Is it possible to have access to a list of grants that have been obtained over the course of the last year? Could that be provided to Stephen and, again, a request that all members of the committee have access or have sight of that list as well? But over to you and apologies, I've got you in front of, it should have been in front of Stephen, but please, over to you now. Thank you, Chair. Can I understand, to what extent has Sarek on the Council maximize the potential of the land it wants or manage to achieve environmental objectives? That's number one. And secondly, how effectively are these lands being utilized for flood storage, carbon capture, biodiversity and nature recovery, pollination and air filtration? The third one is, sorry, could you provide example of any strategic initiative or projects that have been implemented to enhance these environmental functions? Thank you, Marissa. Yeah, I mean, Carolyn can probably answer that in more detail. I mean, this is very much the beginning of that journey, Buddy, of setting out how we're going to do all of these things. So it's all being thought about. I mean, Doug, in the flooding teams looking at potential flood storage, we're looking at natural flood management in the more valley area. I think, Carolyn, aren't we at the moment? We're working with partners and we're looking at the biodiversity and nature recovery. You probably got my email over the weekend inviting you to a webinar on that very topic. So this land management is really about identifying those opportunities. So flood storage is an excellent example because it's highly topical and it's a real issue. And actually, it's something that can sit alongside development, new development as well. So where can we identify the places we have these flooding issues and sort them out? I mean, also water pollution. It's not just about sewage. It's also about nitrates from farms and different businesses and things. Again, how can we kind of solve these problems in a holistic way? That's why I said at the beginning, this is a huge opportunity to do all of those things you've just listed. I think Carolyn, you may have some projects that are already starting. But what's really interesting is the community that we work with, the Surrey Hills National Landscopes Board, the farmers and things, all looking at how they can do this stuff as well and joining in with us. So there are projects taking place in small pockets all around the county. I think the main, and that's why this is such an exciting framework and policy is it does look at all the opportunities and how we can almost mix and match so we can put biodiversity with flooding, with carbon, so you get the value of the land and you can put access on top of that. The most focus that we've had at the minute has been around access and getting people out into the countryside and tree planting. So we've put quite a lot of tree planting on our sites and we're in the process of developing an orchard at the minute, at Norbury Park, which will be a community orchard. So it's that type of project we'll be looking at moving forward, but there's also Horsil Common. We've just done recently, which, because it's not all just on our own land, it's also where we've got partnerships with other partners as well. Horsil Common was a flood scheme, which is also an accessible access route for school and other local amenities, as well as a kind of recreation area as well, but big flood storage of that. So there's huge potential, it's really exciting that we can do that. And having the evidence and the data that can really build a good business case and attract, and that's the big thing here, is to attract in private and other government investment into opportunities that we can show them. If you get a chance, go to Horsil Common, because it's mind-blowing, what we've done there, it's really, really good. So anyone who gets a chance, it's nature, it's recreation, it's flood management, it's everything, it's a very successful scheme. I have one follow-up question, Chief, please, but go ahead. How do you plan to engage with local community groups and organizations to embrace this framework? So I mean it's already been happening, we've already done it to some levels. So as I mentioned earlier, working with farming groups, residents association, parish councils and things like that. So we're having those conversations through Salk, which is the acronym for... Sorry Association of Local Councils. Sorry Association of Local Councils. So we're working through all of that at the moment, but there's still more to go of getting down to the sort of lower grass roots groups as well. So if you've got ideas on people we should be communicating with and I hope members here will go and talk to their community groups about it as well. I don't think we need to do much to get engagement because people want to be involved in this conversation and the appetite for it is huge. So yeah, I mean I'm sure we'll hold webinars at some point as well, like we're doing with the Nature Recovery stuff to make sure people are informed about what we're doing. There's public land at the end of the day, we're managing it for the residents so they need to have a say in this. There's a question coming up I think in a moment about transport roots and things using our land as well. So we're talking to cyclists groups, walkers, ramblers, you know, it's endless. We want to talk to everyone if we can. So if you've got any ideas, let us know. So the one last question. Of course. How do you engage with the district and borough councils because every councils have different policies and... Yes, so we've got a greener futures partnership group which is formed of the lead officers for this space and also the lead members. It's slightly tricky because obviously lead members are changing depending on elections and movements of things. But we meet what is it once every two months or something and we have a conversation on all of our work streams. So this would be a conversation that we've had there already but we do it in more depth as we go. And the officers are working with their partner officers in those districts and boroughs on a very close basis. So I don't know Carolyn if you want to jump in on that. Yeah, I was just because we're also working at we're working at delivery operational level through the number of hardships we have around climate change around biodiversity net game and around tree planting. But we've also just started up a really good and positive conversation on a higher level with the directors of place that Katie shares a meeting and threats of place. And sorry, looking at green infrastructure in all its different guises and how we can collectively work together and get a better outcome. So I think there's a real buy-in around the green environment and natural capital so it's very positive. Thank you, buddy. Right, Marissa mentioned safe cycle routes and on that note I'm going to hand over to you Katherine for your questions. Thank you. I think this is a fantastic policy. I'm really interested in it. And as you say, I think there's loads of opportunities and I like what you described about if you've got land to manage it for the best possible outcomes. And my question was about the only interest in homeschool transport. You know, if we've got land and there can be a path across it to reduce the costs on homeschool transport. And I think, you know, you've talked about that. And I've also you've got it in your in the circular diagram as well. So that's fine. That's covered as is food production. So I've got one more question. And that's really about the we talked about the value of all these different options. And I'm interested and we talked about it in terms of finance in terms of the pound. But are you getting closer to being able to compare these different options in terms of the carbon impact? And, you know, are there other ways of sort of standard accounting methods for valuing natural capital flood management? Is, you know, how's that going? Because that's the basis, isn't it? How do you compare the value of the different options that you have? We are getting closer and definitely, and I think with the GIS mapping we're doing. And we've already done one piece of work around natural capital accounting, which starts to give the carbon value. So we are getting closer. Standard metric, I wish. And know that there isn't at the minute. So we are trying to be as consistent as possible and working with colleagues in other authorities. And also working closely with Defra and Natural England and Environment Agency and Forestry Commission to really look at how we can quantify the carbon. And because it's interesting because wetted heathland is a really good carbon sink. And we've just got some money from Environment Agency to do a project around re-wetting heathlands, which is really good. But it's being able to compare what's the best, you know, tree versus hedgeroad. You know, so it's, yeah, we are getting there, but there's a lot we need. And it's one of the areas that we will be lobbying government on is to get clear metrics and clear information about how we do that. Can we just dwell just for a moment on Catherine's point about the rights of way and things? Because we've just done this rights of way consultation in which we got a huge amount of people come back on it. And I've been doing a tour of parish councils across the county and it's really something they're very interested in. And I think that we have to look at the low-hanging fruit here when we do this land management as well, where the access points to get people are. So are there cut-frees on our land to get them to a town or a train station, that kind of thing, and prioritise those routes above all else? Because I think we can sort of hit that sustainable transport thing as well by doing this if we recognise those routes and put our money into that. So we've all got big ideas around the LC whips and things, but that's going to take time to happen. And where can we deliver things fast? Where are their footpaths that we can put some investment into improving quite quickly to allow that access? Because we all know that one of the biggest blocks to our carbon agenda is the transport issue. So I think there's some sort of quick winds in there that we locally, because it takes local knowledge, this kind of stuff. Where are the paths that people want to use? I've gone to a few parishes where they've said, you know, kids could get to school that way, but you can't push a pram there, or you can't do this, or I don't. I put the kid in the car. So local knowledge and us finding those key areas and coming up with one or two in all of our patches, for example, to fall into this would be a really useful exercise for us to do, I think. Thank you, Marissa. Catherine, any other follow-up questions from you? I am interested, I would like to be reassured that the principle is to put solar panels on buildings first, if, rather than going down the... It is, I think we can say that. Good, I think that's on the record. Right, over to you, Lance, followed by Keith. This is in relation to consultation and implementation. Thank you, Chair. So the report notes that there's a 10-week consultation period which will follow the cabinet to prove a lot of the draft framework. Which stakeholder groups will be involved, and do you expect any challenges from them? I mean, I've sort of outlined a few of the stakeholder groups in mentioning the farming community. We wouldn't not speak to private landowners as well that join our land to understand what they're doing. Obviously tenants are pretty crucial to this. Different groups like the Ramblers Association and people using our networks and things across our land. In terms of challenges, Carolyn, I might throw that one to you, I'm afraid. Just to finish off on the consultation side, so happily, the local nature recovery strategy is being developed at the same time. So that's got an extensive stakeholder network which covers everything from children's groups, faith groups as well as the landowners. So we'll be hoping to tap into that as well as going to special, you know, some of the almost sensitive estates like Norbury Park or like the other estates we've got that really sensitive and having the conversations with residents there. Challenges, there's always, you wouldn't expect it, but there's always a challenge between access and biodiversity and nature and nature conservation. Surrey has huge football, especially in the Surrey Hills. So there will be a challenge there, cycling versus walking versus environment, illegal activity when it is illegal, around four by fours and motorbikes. So there will be challenges with people wanting to use the land as opposed wanting to conserve and preserve the land. But hopefully by looking at the GIS data and the mapping that we do, we can identify areas that absolutely need to be completely protected and divert, pass or look at ways of protecting them further. And then look at other areas where we can, as I said earlier on, about creating new sites to try and take some of the football off honeypot sites. So there inevitably will be challenge, but I think we can manage it by looking at that balanced approach to the different uses. Any follow-up? Thank you very much, Lance. Thank you. I'm going to go to Catherine followed by Keith. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I think my question was really covered in the previous question, so I'm happy to move on. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Keith, over to you. Thank you, Chairman. I wondered if you could give us your thoughts on how effective is the internal working within the Council across the various teams that are affected by this framework. I'm thinking of environment, states, countryside access rights away, which others, can you clarify just for me, who does what and how the different teams within Surrey County Council communicate with each other and work together? So I would say very well. The one thing that it's been more of on an informal basis in the past, I think, putting this law management framework approach in place allows us to do it more formally as well as informally and put more of a structure around it so we can bring in at the appropriate time every officer's input into particular management decisions, so I think that will really help, and what it will also do, it will help to clarify roles, officer roles and who does what, because that will differ in each instance, but it will help to do that. Yeah, and I don't want to go back to the example of Kenneth Lee Farm, which was sort of the test bed for this. So, as a corporate landlord, obviously I need to have a tenant that can pay the rent equally natural capital colleagues would like that tenancy to reflect more than regenerative farming practices. I thought did I know nothing about that's okay because people here to do. So what we did was sit down and come up with a set of terms that were marketed to reflect the most of these. Okay, so that was a regenerative farm, actually released them now for BNG as well, but also equally importantly that it was what we had backwards sustainable business models, because the last thing I'm going to do is let a farm out for that it goes bust. And we put together a scoring matrix that covered off both sets of those requirements, and therefore we were able to actually mark the proposals from the various potential farmers, so that we had a result that reflected everybody's requirements and actually worked really well. I mean we've got young farmers coming, which is great. Who brought a whole load of new ways of thinking and working in, but have got a proper business model that is sustainable, small as big as. Going forward, and actually just replicate that, they're not mutually exclusive, they're actually inclusive, if you look at it that way. We're doing other things similar things that lock cottage, aren't we, they're getting the same sort of thing. So we're formalising a process as working. Thank you very much for that Colin, right, that brings us to, yes, kids would you, just to, of course, follow up. Internally, maybe working well or okay, but as a Councilor for a rural division, I'm often copied by residents with emails that they have sent to one or other of the various sections within departments. You have countryside access, rights of way, estates, can it be made clearer, maybe on a page of the website, what those sections actually do. So if you've got a query on boom, boom, boom, who you need to contact is boom, boom, boom. And I think that would actually sort of help ease communications with the public through to the right people in the right section. And you didn't answer part of my previous question because I've mentioned those three sections. Is there, apart from sort of we've talked about land management in general, are there any other sections that come into that, that's your orbit in terms of this policy. I'm happy to come in on this one. So just an answer to your first question here. It's one of the things that we are, we absolutely recognize them, we haven't quite got that right. So as much as the teams are kind of communicating internally, the customer experience isn't always the same, actually. So we have, we are working with our colleague Liz Mills, who's leading the customer transformation program as you know. And one of the things we're trying to do quite quickly is to get it very clear and get that more seamless experience for customers. That they see a single council or one council approach to these things. But I think your idea in terms of being really clear about who does what has got to be part of that. So we will take that on board and make sure the members are clear as well because members are a key interface for that. So if you can help to do some of that join up there in the short term, I think that's really helpful. And then in terms of kind of other, we've obviously talked about the natural capital team, colleagues and land and property. It's safe to say that I think with this, we're really trying to join up other teams as well. So kind of highways, transport, obviously we talked about active travel routes through the sites, the flood team, and then kind of more widely actually really linking into that later conversation that we're having with the committee around town and village approach and how we're actually coordinating beyond even our kind of world in EIG environment infrastructure and growth with children's colleagues and more generally as well. So we're starting with the teams that are kind of within our, but actually a lot of those conversations and relationships. So they're right across the piece, actually. I completely agree with that. And also not just for having that consistent communication, but also on joint projects. So at the sawmill in Nolbury Park, we're working with the youth teams around new skills and new training and work experience. So we're working on that level as well as just the smoothness of communication as well. Marissa, you want to comment on that? I think one of the big challenges is actually the partners. So it's the charity and voluntary groups and things like that. And sorry world, I trust and things. So we've got a lot of people who are doing things on our land and our partners of us. And we have to be very open to those partners because we're not going to achieve what we want to achieve by ourselves. So how do we make sure those are functioning and that the same messages are coming through and that they're linked in as well? So they're not giving separate messages to us because people, when they're seeing people on our countryside and things, they're seeing them all as one. They don't separate district and borough, voluntary group, whatever. They just want to know they're someone responsible, don't they? So it's making sure those coherent messages are through all of our partners as well. That we're all delivering a consistent message that we're all on the same focus and that we're all working as one team. So I think that that's a challenge. But I think we can do it. We're certainly building stronger partnerships, aren't we? Thank you very much, Marissa. Right. Well, look, we have spent a little bit of time looking at the overall strategic direction. We've asked you questions on income opportunities and I'm thinking of Andy's comment around selling land to developers. Risk and liabilities have been raised as well as an issue for the community. And then also food production, community benefits and environmental gain. And then we've also had some questions led by Councillor Spencer on consultation and implementation. So let's then move on then to the recommendation from the report and Claire, we have that on the screen. Yes, absolutely. So let's just go through the individual numbers in turn. So the first is that we welcome both the draft policy and the framework. But is there anyone who wants to comment or question or propose an amendment to the first section, that form of words, Catherine? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, so we will admit the word deliver. Are you happy with the word promote climate change and BNG, which is the biodiversity net gain? Or do you think it's more than that and deeper than that? [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Yes, I would certainly include, want to include the word local in front of the word economy. So we are mentioning the local economy. Any other comments, questions, queries from committee members? No, okay. Well, look, I'm happy with the first section. What about the second one, which is noting the extent and richness of our land-based estate and mentioning also the use of the land for health. And also supporting biodiversity amongst other things. Anything that we would like to add to that form of words? No, okay. That's fine as well. Those are the two items or the two sections, paragraphs, if you like. Anything else that we should add, do we think? No, okay. Well then, those draft recommendations are agreed. Thanks very much, everyone. And thank you to our witnesses as well. I'm sorry that we ran over a little bit, in fact, a lot, but your presence has been very much appreciated. And thank you for answering our questions. Thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Right, good afternoon to Mark and good afternoon to Negan. Apologies for the overrunning of this morning Select Committee. We have covered a lot of ground already, and we're about to change direction further still. Could I also take this opportunity to welcome a fellow committee, Select Committee Chair, who has joined us, Trevor Hogg, who, of course, chairs the adults and health Select Committee. Welcome to you, and I know that this particular item, item 8 in our agenda, is close to your heart, and you wish to participate in it. Right, well, it is the Sustainable Food Strategy, which is a report on a console motion that was originally brought by our Vice Chair. Councilor Lance Spencer. So what I'm going to do, given that it was his motion progressed originally, is ask him to introduce the item, and also be in a position to lead some of the questions of the witnesses who are with us. But before I get involved any further, I'm going to hand over to you, Lance, to take us through this item. Thank you. So the origins of this motion was I attended working high school, and they had a full day of looking at greener futures and how the young people in the school could get involved more actively with greener future type issues. And they were asked to come up with ideas about how they could better engage with other students in anything to do with climbing. And they went away and thought about it and came back, and their big idea was, well, why don't we have effectively plant-based food on Mondays or meat-free Mondays, I think is where they called it. So that seemed like a good idea, and therefore this is a motion I brought forward to Council, which was then deferred to the select committee. So that's the background on it. It was genuine enthusiasm from young people, and it seemed right to me that we should have that debating council. Clearly we're going to have the debate here instead, which I guess we'll have to do. Thank you very much. Thank you. Lance, right, we don't have Fiona White with us this afternoon, so I'm going to invite the cabinet member offices to summarize their response to the motion. I know that Mark has joined us, and perhaps if I hand over to you first, followed by an officer comment, over to you, Mark. Thanks, Chair. I mean, this is a bit of a double act, really, with myself and Marissa, because this sort of cuts across climate as well as health, which is great, because it involves all of it. So from a health perspective, I think it's really important that we have this food strategy, which is based around education, educating our population, our kids, our adults on what healthy eating looks like, how that will then develop into a much healthier way of life. We obviously have issues around the county and the country, indeed, with obesity, and a lot of that is food-related. So it's really important that we are aware of the role that food plays in our communities, educating how to cook better, how to eat better, where to get food from and how sustainable supplies of food can be. A much better way of doing it than obviously imported from the rest of the world and other parts of the country. I'm sure Marissa would like to say something around the green agenda on this, or the climate issues, and then I know Negan is going to take the majority of the questions from you, who's put the report together. Thank you, Mark. Marissa, over to you. Yeah, I mean, most people in this room know my personal views on this, and it's my day job, so if you want chapter and verse about health and sustainability, I can give it to you, and we do need to change these systems, as no doubt about it in my mind. But I try to keep my personal views to myself, and that's why we put it over to this group to have a look at and come up with a balanced way forward on it. I do think when we say something like a totally plant-based menu one day a week, or meat-free Monday, it's kind of the same thing, and I don't think meat-free Monday is much to ask to be quite honest with you one day a week. You know, there's a lot of complications to our food systems. It's not straightforward. You know, you can talk about locally produced meat, you can talk about carbon footprint of food, and you can talk about health in many different ways. Some products that aren't meat-related, but healthy for you and some that aren't, and the same with meat. You know, there's highly processed meat, and then there's your organic-free range locally produced meat and things. So it is a complicated picture, and I've got strong views about how we should be trying to supply locally sourced food in schools and things like that. I think that's something we should be aiming for, even if there is a bit of a price to that, because it's about best value in terms of our environment, and people's health and things as well. Not just the money related to it. I think the key in here is you get to Resolution 3 when we talk about education and outreach and things. That is absolutely fundamental because the amount of people that aren't thinking about the food they buy, for lots of good reasons. Some people are going into the supermarket because affordability is the number one issue on their mind, but I think by empowering people, and I often say this, levelling up to me is not just about buildings, it's about people, it's about their wellbeing, mental and physical, and allowing them to reach their scope, and food plays a crucial and fundamental role in that. So I think as an authority, there's a lot we can be doing in this space. As I said, Recommendation Resolution 3 and 4, which I'm sure we're talking about in a moment from the offer perspective makes sense to me. We've got to be inspiring, paraging, supporting initiatives, empowering people. But I think Recommendation 1 and 2 are kind of the same thing. And I think we should be thinking about things like Meet Free Monday, because we're still giving 6 days a week for people to make any of their other choices. So I don't think it's Dritanian or Heavy Handed. We're not saying let's shift everyone to a plant-based diet, we're just saying have one day a week, which actually we can give metrics to. There are metrics to show if everyone went Meet Free for one day a week, the impact that would have on carbon, and the amount of animals consumed in the movements of all of those food products and things makes a difference. So I think we should have a conversation about that, and I don't think it needs to be one that's opposing and saying people shouldn't be eating meat at all. I think these are pragmatic, sensible conversations we can be having that still allow people freedom of choice. That's enough for me, and over to have a conversation about how you got to these resolutions. So thank you very much for listening. I'm going to go back to Mark first, and then over to you, and I know that Mark, you want to. I just want to come in and one thing that the rest have said there, and a slight disagreement, if you like. This whole strategy is based around Educate, Not Dictate. And I think we have to be very aware that when we're generalising across the whole platform here, there are people, especially kids who have issues that they may not be able to eat plant-based food or don't want to eat plant-based food, and we shouldn't constrict a day where perhaps certain children would not then be able to actually have anything to eat. And I think we also need to be aware that plant-based doesn't always necessarily mean nutritional, so our language I think needs to be very clear and nutrition rather than a specific section of it. But I'm sure Negan will go ahead. No, but if I can just say to him, we're not talking plant-based, we're talking meat-free, and if you're telling me children kindly eat vegetables in the games and things like that, we've got a problem because the biggest issue nutritionally is lack of fibre, it's not protein. So, you know, it's about balance here. I don't think plant-based is the word we should be using, that's what I'm saying. I think we should just be talking about reduction and people consuming other foods because, you know, we can get into one. I'm not going to do, it's not up to, this meeting isn't about me, but I'm just saying we have to be careful with language. You're right, but equally it goes both ways. Yeah, and Tanya understood, and in a sense, that has given good background to the questions that this committee wants to ask of both of you and also members of the office accord. Indeed, on that very note, Negan, could I hand over to you? And we have questions we wanted to ask in relation to the five resolutions, but before we do that, are you happy just to offer your view and to set the scene if you like? Yes, thank you very much. Overall, I think we are very supportive of the motion. The only point I just want to emphasize again is that kind of the public involvement aspect to make sure we take the public with us. I think it's really important to encourage informed decision-making about food, and again, going back to the language that we were just talking about earlier, especially around plant-based. Sometimes it could imply processed food as well, so some of the plant-based diet, for example, that our store in supermarkets may not necessarily be healthy. So I think if we can just clarify that this is about eating more fruit and vegetable than including them in diet, I think that would be really helpful. But again, just going back to the children, we just have to make sure that what we offer at schools particularly are inclusive. So there may be some children who might have eating disorders or may find some food textures, not very appetizing. So we just have to make sure the environment that we're encouraging is as inclusive as possible. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm going to go to Liz, and then I think what we'll do as the committee is work through the resolutions in turn. Over to you, Liz, first. Mr Chair, I would like to talk about Resolution 5, so if you prefer me not to until that one. Thank you very much, Liz. We will definitely get to Resolution 5. I promise, and I'll just make a note that you can lead on the questions when we get there. Thank you. Right, I'm going to go to Lance followed by Richard, who have questions in relation to Resolution 1, which is ensure that food provided at all counsel-catered events and meetings is predominantly plant-based, preferably using ingredients sourced from local food organizations. Lance followed by Richard. Thank you, yes. So if I go back to the purpose of this motion, it's very interesting discussion going on over there. The purpose was to get people, and in this case, this is generally for counsel, but specifically in schools, to have that conversation once a week about what can we do about climate, and it was to encourage that conversation. And that's where the meat-free Mondays come from, because every Monday they're going to have that discussion. It doesn't mean you can't have any meat, I suppose. If there are medical requirements for something to have meat, then clearly that needs to be covered off. So that's generally where I'm coming from. So the question, and I don't know the answer to it, is whether your recommendation does effectively encompass what I've asked for, what we've put forward in Resolution 1, because I don't understand exactly what government buying standard for food and catering services indicates in terms of plant-based alternatives. Thank you. So just to be clear, yes, the food strategy does support it. I think it was just about the language in terms of using plant-based food and maybe changing that terminology to contain more fruit and vegetables rather than plant-based specifically. Because again, some people may think by plant-based food, we mean all the new range that supermarkets are selling as plant-based, which kind of look like a sausage, but it's not a sausage. So those sorts of things that I was mainly referring to. But overall, I think the food strategy and also equal schools, and Caroline, I don't know if you want to come on that, very support that kind of initiative, and it's already included in the school curriculum to have those conversations with children and families and make sure they're part of the conversation. So apologies if you didn't come across as clearly, but my point was just about the language and use of plant-based food. Was the buying standards not about local food? Is it not about buying sustainable and local food? Is that not the focus, the kind of thrust of it, rather than talking about types of plant-based or whatever. It's more about how you get sustainable food, Lance, I think, and you consider that and try and shorten food chains and things. Yeah, basically it's saying look at that sort of objective to procure sustainable, localised food where you can and try to avoid sort of long food chains and things. So it's not about plant-based at all, that's my point back to Mark. We're not talking about plant-based here, we're just talking about more sustainable food chains and making sure our focus in terms of procurement and what we're supplying aligns with that. It kind of goes back to that local meat point I made as well. So broadly across the whole spectrum, this is about trying to do it, not just on a Monday. Okay, thank you all. Thanks very much. Richard, you have a question in relation to the contracts, catering contracts. Speaking as a former catering contractor, I'm pretty much aware that my friends still in the business are quite adept at sidestepping issues like this. And so I'd like to ensure that when we tend to contract that, that we put the arm on them to follow our policies and actually deliver them. And I think that's very important. And also that there is a downstream measurement of them doing it because you find that the intent works very, very well, but they will also sidestep any continuing to supply something that isn't necessarily the cheapest that they can possibly find. Just to go back to the subject of plant-based food, there's a lot of concern about processed plant-based food. And if you look at a lot of articles being published at the moment, there's quite concern that in actual fact, you might be doing more harm than good with the amount of processing that some of these products go through. So, directly, purchased products are far preferable to processed products. I think if that could be put in somewhat. On the contract issue, Chairman, I mean, Compass Group and others have got their reins to sustainability objectives now, which are actually really ambitious, surprisingly so. I mean, Compass Group is looking to get to 50% non-meat products, for example, so they are looking at shortening their feed chains as well. So I think that we're kind of on the same pathways to an extent with them, so it shouldn't be too hard to challenge them on those points. And you're completely right. The point isn't about plant-based. It's about serving healthy good food. That's the point, which is hopefully not ultra processed. That's the objective. So nobody should be saying let's go and swap one unhealthy thing for another unhealthy ultra processed thing and just say because it's plant-based, it's healthy because it doesn't work like that, as you've quite rightly pointed out. Thanks, Richard. Thanks, Marissa. Catherine, over to you. Sure. Okay. All right. Well, look, let's then move on to the second resolution, which deals with this meat-free Monday concept. Lance, you have a specific question on that. Yes. So this was the heart of the motion, really. The other responses from the service I'm reasonably comfortable with. This is the one where I don't think reflects what the resolution was trying to achieve. So this was specifically to encourage schools to have meat-free Mondays. I think in the discussion at council, somebody did observe that this happens anyway, so that would be a good answer. But your service recommendation really doesn't cover what the resolution was looking to achieve. Who wants to take that one, Megan? Yes, the food strategy will support that. So if you didn't come across as clear, but we are very supportive of that. I think it's just, again, as long as it is inclusive for all children, and yes, we very much support that, so happy to include that if it's not as clear. So if we're accepting, I'm quite happy to put wording on the end to make sure that everybody is accommodated, but it is that concept of having a meat-free Monday. I'll say if it's already happening, all we're doing is saying in this motion that we accept that. It's changing of the language again, isn't it? Because it's not your original point that was a plant-based menu. It's about either meat-free or vegetable and free-heavy, whatever you want to call it. So it's just about the language I think we use, and making sure it's not restrictive to those who have other needs. All right, Megan, do you want to comment on what Marissa has just said? Because what I want to ensure is that the outcome of this debate properly reflects, accurately reflects what is happening on the ground, so to speak. I agree with Maria's point, I think that was clear, and we do support it, although I'm not quite sure to what extent that meat-free Monday happens across all schools. I think some schools do it and some don't, so I think as part of the food strategy we would make sure that all schools are involved in that and take part where they've got the opportunity. Trevor, you wanted to come in at this point, didn't you? Yeah, and perhaps, you know, we're going to say it spreads across all of the resolutions to a degree. So, you know, and it's also been alluded to by Councillor Newton at the beginning, because particular concern is those who are in any form of social care have effectively had their liberties and freedom restricted to some degree, and therefore very, very important that we actually make sure that they have a full choice and that this, as a policy, doesn't gradually move into a situation where people's choices are restricted. And this is particularly important when, you know, there are issues such as neurodiversity, mental health issues involved as well, but we don't then add to that load, so I'm, you know, very concerned to make sure that we are very explicit on the subject. And, you know, I would take it to the point that if we continued with this and this policy grew, I'd be very concerned about adults, the elderly with dementia, et cetera, being confronted with things that they just can't cope with. Thank you. Thank you very much, Trevor. Chairman, if I can, I mean, just before you do so, can I just ask all of you, perhaps if you could just explain to me whether the strategy, this is our whole system food strategy already supports a meat free Monday? Because the way I read Resolution 2 is that school meals have a totally plant-based menu one day a week, ideally Mondays. So is the strategy already providing for that, or are we in a position where we are trying through this motion to move the dial in a significant way? So you first followed by Marissa? So the food strategy actions are still being developed, so we can settle and make sure that it reflects the motion that is articulated here. I think as long as we are clear about the language and we discussed about the inclusivity point of view, the food strategy will support it. Marissa? Yeah, just on that point, I mean, I think the food strategy has to broadly think about those people as well, and also people on low-income access, as I said, to high-quality protein is just as much of an issue because they might not be getting the good meat protein as well at home. So how are we making sure they get that? Again, it goes both ways. This isn't a singular kind of conversation at all. In regards to the strategy, I guess it goes back to language again, Jonathan, doesn't it? It's how we set it out. I think sort of saying plant-based or vegan and things inflames people and makes it feel very restrictive. Our objective is about getting high-quality food into people, and we've got to go back to science. You've always got to go back to science. What are young children lacking at the moment? And I indicated it early. It's fiber. So how are we making sure they're getting fiber in school? Is that Monday about ensuring that? We've got to be making sure that we are thinking about nutrition and health as well as sustainability altogether, and not sort of pulling ideas out of the sky. It needs to be based on the evidence that exists as to what the best diet is, and that our food strategy follows that pathway, basically. I'm going to go back to Lance at this point, because this is, as you said, your self-lance, the heart of this motion, because the way that the resolution to is worded is somewhat restrictive, I would suggest, but I'm interested in your views on that. So, as I say, on the basis that I'm comfortable with resolutions one, three, four, and five, and I know we've just got to discuss three, four, and five, on resolution two, I think all we need is an alternative form of wording. So I'm not comfortable with the form of wording that's been given, because it just doesn't say much. It doesn't commit anything at all. I can understand that the current resolution to wording doesn't cover the inclusivity. This is meant, say, it's not meant to go, we'll start with one day a week and then we'll grow it. This is just meant to encourage young people in schools to think about what they're eating one day a week. So that's what we're trying to achieve, and it sounded like we could do that, so we just need a form of wording to cover it, which I don't think we can cover off in this meeting. So I'm quite happy for you to take away, come backwards, and alternative. The wording that's in there must be that way. So I'm quite happy to accept an alternative form of wording that doesn't encompass it, which I'm sure you can come up with. Yes, Marissa, over to you. Yeah, I think that's really sensible, Lance, because we don't want to rush things and get this wrong. I think if we could have a bit of time to think over and get the right form of words and send it back via email, I think that would be sensible. As I said, we've heard the views that people don't want restriction, they want to consider disadvantaged groups and things, so we just need to balance that all together and come up with something that's not Russia and try and sort of hash something together in the next five minutes. Thank you, Marissa. Mark, can we go back to you and then I'll summarize? Yeah, I mean, that's pretty much what I was going to say, because I think we need to get to the crux of exactly what Lance wants in there, whether it's around discussing food generally, the impact that it has on bringing food in on the green or agenda, whether it's about plant-based food as in being vegetarian, rather than eating meat and the health benefits and negatives of that. So if it's about education and having that conversation, I think that wording needs to change as well to stimulate on a Monday in a school environment that they're having those conversations around what they want to eat, rather than maybe being quite as prescriptive as telling them what they can eat or can't eat. I mean, perhaps there's something in here about empowering schools. As you saw in your working visit, about getting schools to actually have the debate, making that the kind of thing that we take the debate to them and let them make the choice, because I think you'd find probably most schools would make the choice you want to have Lance. And I think we won't do that today, given that the time is marching towards the one o'clock finish. So let's then move on then to resolutions three, four and five. So under three, Catherine, you have a question. This relates to the local authority guidelines and stories I'll reach the schools over to you on that, and then I'm going to live in relation to resolution five. Yes, and the point that I was also going to make, just following on the conversation that we've just had is as a former science teacher, the most frustrating situation of being talking in a science lesson about climate change and what influences climate change. And everybody agreeing that eating less meat would help that and then going and having a school lunch, which is meat based, because that's just frustratingly not joined up. And I think, therefore, the conversation about empowering schools to get the message across is a really good one. And my question was, we're talking about schools, and I'm just aware that possibly academies are outside. They can do whatever they like anyway. Oh, is that that's correct, isn't it? And does anybody know what percentage of schools in Surrey are non-acadamised? That's sort of under our auspices. We want to take that question. I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that majority of schools that are covered by indoor, not private, are actually signed up to the Hussey School, sorry, and equal schools, which is really positive. But I can come back to you in terms of, thank you. Thank you, Catherine. Right. Just by way of the record, so Resolution 3 talks of continuing to outreach to schools and young people to actively influence and inform on climate change, and in particular on food choices and their impact on the environment health and animal welfare. Now, Resolution 4, again, we have no particular issue as a committee in relation to that form of words, which is to further encourage and empower students to make informed decisions about food available, and this is something that we have already discussed today. And then that just leaves us Resolution 5, and I have Liz who wants to ask a question, followed by Mark. Liz followed by Mark. Thank you. It's regarding the food growing in schools, which I think is absolutely highly important, because currently, as we all know, there is a disconnect. And we find that often on the routes to secondary schools, we've got a variety of number of sort of fast food establishments, which is basically demonstrating the opposite of this positive culture that we've got in front of us. And it's wonderful to see children in the reception year plan to run a bean and that aura and wonder that they see, but sadly, unfortunately, things do drop off after that, and really, it isn't taken forward into other year groups. So, when it was in this Resolution 5, and it was saying to support, I would go further and support polytons in schools, so that food growing season can be extended, because what often happens is really, schools don't get the chance to get their children, the seeds start growing in April, which is a little bit late for everything. So, if you actually have a polytunnel, you'll be able to get everything sorted, set up an automatic watering system, sorry, but you'd have to set up so that by the time you come back, you've actually got the food, whereas otherwise, you've only got a term to do that, and it's not going to happen. Thank you. Thank you, Liz. I'm going to go to Mark, and then I'm going to sum up, and we'll go to the recommendations, Mark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm still confused on Resolution 1. I believe we have said that Resolution 2, the service will go away and reformulate 3 and 4 fine, but Resolution 1 still uses the word predominantly, and I'm not sure exactly how would you determine what predominantly is. And it still uses the terminology plant-based, which is the issue that we've just raised on Resolution 2, so that's Resolution 1. And on Resolution 5, on the service recommendation, facilitate a robust public involvement. What do we mean by that? Thank you, Mark. Who wants to answer that one? So by that means, so we've got a number of road shows to get people to talk about food and what it means to them. And as a result of those kind of community road shows, we want to make sure that people are actually involved, particularly in the implementation of whole system food strategy. So they get their opinion and get them to talk about food and why is important. And I think those venues will really kind of create a really good opportunity to make sure that it's not a top-down strategy and action plan, but it actually comes from the community itself. Thank you, Nick and Marissa. Yeah, my understanding, maybe I'm completely wrong and I'm about to make it full of myself, is that the bits in grey will answer original recommendation and the bits in orange are the new recommendation. So that's not in Resolution 1. We haven't spoken about predominantly plant-based because it's been changed. In the second one, we're going to have that conversation out of her. So don't worry. Yeah, it's a bit foggy. I questioned myself for a moment then. Yes, that's right. In relation to Resolution 1, there were questions around the wording in orange, which Negan provided some answers for. And having just spoken to Lance, who, of course, proposed the motion, he is happy with the service recommendation response, although, of course, Negan has promised to change some of the wording so it's clearer rather than different. So with that in mind, I'm going to ask members of the committee to help me move to agreeing some recommendations and what Claire has got on the screen there is a draft recommendation to pull a point one and two. Bullet point one just notes the work of the effort to develop a food strategy and also linking it to the climate change strategy and the ambition that has been set out in relation to both of those strategies. But the key one from my perspective, I would suggest, is bullet point two, which is we accept the motion as amended. But the motion that is amended, and you can see there, is that we agree and indeed accept service recommendations one, three, four and five. But in relation to recommendation or resolution two more accurately, we haven't reached consensus. And we've agreed that we will ask officers and Marissa and Mark to work together to come up with an alternative form of words that recognises the concerns that have been expressed by this committee and also visiting select committee chair Trevor Hogg. Is that a need to summary of where we are as a committee? Great. Catherine? [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] My colleagues feel about Catherine's proposed amendment essentially in relation to the individual resolutions. KPI's for suppliers. KPI's for suppliers. [BLANKAUDIO] Well, I think it's a basic principle. Yeah, I think that's fine, Marissa, if you want to comment. How much would be broad KPI's? How much local food have we sourced? How much will we shorten the food chain by? How much better quality meat's being supplied, those sorts of things? So we know our quality. What are the suppliers doing? Have they got kind of things there in bedding as well? So we're working with the right suppliers. And we would give you some sort of outcome, Catherine, that we could bring them back and drill down on them at some point and make them stronger. Yeah? That certainly include that as a third bullet point. Again? So just if I just come in. And so the food strategy actually includes a set of action plans. So it's a comprehensive set of actions they've taken forward, not just by SOI Council, but also from NHS and other partners across. So, I mean, there are certainly measures that we are embedding as part of the food system strategy. But we do have KPAs that we can report back on. So what I suggest then we do is that we leave Roman numeral three in there anyway, which will help you, don't I say, have regard to what is in the second section because of course the second section is really asking you to consider specifically resolution two, where what we're saying to you as a committee is that the service recommendation response, which is to empower families and young people to make informed decisions about eating a balanced time, diet does not go far enough and needs more detail. But that's something that we're actually tasking all of you with to take forward. So are we happy then as a committee with that draft resolution? Good. Thank you very much. That is agreed. And of course it is now, as you have it, just gone one o'clock. So thank you very much to Mark. Thank you to Marissa, to Katie, to Carolyn and also to you, Negan. That was a back and forth dialogue and I think it's right that it was a back and forth dialogue and thank you all of you. And also to our guests to let committee chair Trevor for joining us and participating. We'll adjourn this meeting until quarter past one to allow you all to have a refresh, but we do have an afternoon session that requires us to be here a little later, but for now I will adjourn for 15 minutes. Thank you very much. We have run over given the lengthy discussions on previous items today. But also before we move into the workshop session, which is delivering in partnership, towns and villages approach, I would like to conclude the main agenda of the select committee by reporting that very briefly. Of a meeting of the cabinet, I attended further to the water utilities company special session, which took place on the 25th of July. Select committee members will remember that arising out of that session, it was agreed that a task force be delivered to ensure better coordination and communication around street works. Better coordination between the local authority, I ourselves and the water companies on flooding, drainage and working through sustainable solutions and also better coordination on planning, new developments and the network. Happy to report to the committee that the cabinet accepted these recommendations and they are now with the cabinet for implementation. So that was in relation to the water utilities company session. A second session was held more recently under the chairmanship of Keith with them with will be a separate and future item for this committee to consider. But on the same day that the committee or the cabinet considered the water utilities company report, the cabinet also considered an advertising and sponsorship report that was compiled by the vice chair of this committee last Spencer. And on hand over to Lance to comment and also to invite the committee to comment as well, over to you Lance. Thank you chair. So, not unexpectedly the cabinet didn't accept the green of futures reference group recommendation on the advertising sponsorship and effectively overruled the committee and supported the officer's report. So the advertising and sponsorship will go ahead without any restrictions whatsoever. Thank you Lance that is for noting the only other item to mention before we move into the workshop session is to remind the committee that the date of the next meeting is the 14th of June. And that is to look at the road safety strategy, which by that point would have been considered by the cabinet post public consultation which took place in March. So that's the end of the formalities of today's committee. Thank you colleagues for helping me through what was a extensive and wide ranging agenda. And it's now time to move into private session and to spend some time looking at the town and villages approach. could I take this opportunity to welcome the team. I can see you in front of