Agenda item

To receive a presentation from Surrey County Council officers on the Surrey 2050 Place Ambition which is currently open for consultation. Relevant documents are attached.

Sue Janota, Spatial Planning and Policy Manager from Surrey County Council, gave a presentation to the Committee setting out the history, background detail, and involvement of representatives from county, borough and district authorities, and business leaders in forming this initiative to provide a strong coherent voice on a number of areas to promote good sustainable economic growth, improve business opportunities and bid for large infrastructure projects across the county.

This had led to the setting up of a Place Ambition Task Group to take the work forward.  As part of the work, strategic priorities were agreed and eight strategic opportunity areas identified as areas to support long term prosperity.  The Strategic Opportunity Area (SOA) most relevant to Spelthorne was the Longcross – Staines – Heathrow Corridor. 

Following Covid-19 it was decided to review and refresh the strategy to reflect post-pandemic challenges and prepare an implementation framework.  The updated version identified four strategic priorities:

·         Improve connectivity both within Surrey and between strategically important hubs

·         Enhance the place offer of Surrey’s towns

·         Maximise the potential of our Strategic Opportunity Areas

·         Invest in natural capital and deliver nature recovery

A detailed implementation framework had been prepared setting out how it was proposed to deliver the priorities.  A consultation was open until Friday 4 March and responses were welcomed from all.  Following that the task group would reconvene, consider the results and what adjustments should be made before the District and Borough authorities were asked to endorse the proposals.

Work on this strategy had been taking place for some time and work was well underway in other areas of the county.  Surprise and concern was expressed by Spelthorne councillors that they had not been informed of this initiative before.  The Group Head for Regeneration and Growth explained that under the Council’s previous Strong Leader and Cabinet governance arrangements, updates and briefings would have been provided to the Leader and relevant Cabinet portfolio holder at that time but could not recall that the issue had been brought to Cabinet during that time.  The strategy had evolved over a number of years, however the leadership and direction of the Council had significantly changed over that period so it was considered appropriate that it was brought to the Committee for consideration. The Group Head for Regeneration and Growth acknowledged the concern of members and apologised that they had not been informed previously.

In response to a request from a Committee member, the Group Head for Regeneration and Growth offered to provide details of the relevant past meetings held about this matter and who had attended on behalf of Spelthorne Borough Council.  The information has been attached to the minutes of this meeting.

A communications message was to be published to notify councillors and residents of the consultation and encourage responses to the proposals.

Reassurance was sought that the strategy was relevant to other areas in Spelthorne and not just Staines.  Members were advised that Staines had been identified in relation to the Strategic Opportunity Area relating to Heathrow, and that strategic priority two covered all other areas. 

Concern was expressed at the lack of detail for an improved rail connection to Staines and that further connectivity elements needed to be drawn out.  The natural river divide emphasised the need to consider cross border areas and improved connectivity to Spelthorne and should be reflected in the strategic priority areas.  Transport issues raised included the view that a heavy rail scheme would have a negative impact on Staines and a light railway scheme was considered a better option.  The Committee was advised that work continued through the Heathrow Strategic Planning Group to find a solution to the railway connection.  It was understood that the government was giving thought to what was required and how to progress this and that both heavy and light rail options were under consideration.

Questions were asked about whether any increase in bus transport would be targeted at the identified SOAs or if it would be aimed at bolstering other areas in Surrey or a mixture of both.  A similar question was raised regarding proposed government cuts to rail funding and if this would impinge on the plans to develop the rail network and where might those cuts be applied. 

Sue Janota advised that she was unable to answer at this time and would need to refer back before responding.

It was also suggested that the introduction of cycling routes and footpaths would have a significant impact on connectivity and deserved further detail in the documents.

Staines Bridge and the roundabouts leading to it was also raised as a significant issue that needed to be addressed as it created a bottleneck prohibiting movement of traffic in and out of Staines.

In response to a question about how progress on the strategic priorities could be checked and monitored, the Committee was advised that a dashboard was being worked on and any comments on this aspect were welcomed through the consultation.   It was suggested that monitoring should adopt a more holistic approach and not simply rely on statistics.

Sue Janota advised that the question of how information would be disseminated to key players was still to be considered.   The Group Head for Regeneration and Growth suggested that updates could be provided to the Committee on how matters were progressing if they wished.

One Committee member considered that a greater emphasis on environmental issues was required and it should be a common theme running throughout the report.  

A further comment was that the disruption caused by Covid had not been fully explored and the future impact assessed.  A question was raised as to where funding was expected to come from, particularly in view of the government’s levelling up policy and the general exodus from the south.  It was acknowledged that when originally set up, it was envisaged that government funding would be available and there would be some still available in terms of transport, however it was agreed that the pandemic would have impacted on funding plans.

It was suggested that the framework was amended to clarify where responsibility and ownership lay for various matters as it was unclear at present.

On more local issues, the Committee was advised that, as the Place Ambition was regarded as being at a more strategic level, the results of the local borough survey on the Staines Development Framework had not been shared with them, but it was agreed to do so.

Whilst acknowledging that the Place Ambition was a collaborative vision, not necessarily that of each individual area, one member spoke of the importance of good design as increasingly developments of unimaginative design were being proposed.  Sue Janota advised that the Surrey Development Forum had been set up to promote good design and a number of initiatives were running.  Members were advised to speak to the borough’s strategic planning team about work on design codes and expectations.  The Group Head for Regeneration and Growth thought that it was important for Spelthorne to focus first on agreeing the Local Plan and Staines Development Framework and design work would follow on from that.

Councillors and residents were encouraged to respond to the consultation and it was agreed that a response should be sent on behalf of the Committee also.

The Committee resolved to note the presentation and delegated authority to the Group Head of Regeneration and Growth, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Environmental and Sustainability Committee and the joint Chairs of the Climate Change Working Group, to respond to the Place Ambition consultation on behalf of the Committee.

The Chair thanked Sue Janota for the presentation and answering the Committee’s questions.