Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 80 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN. View directions
Contact: Anne Gowing 020 8541 9938 Email: anne.gowing@surreycc.gov.uk
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Mrs Angell. |
|
|
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: 23 OCTOBER 2012
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 23 October 2012 were confirmed and signed by the Chairman.
|
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Minutes: There were no declarations of interest.
|
|
|
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
|
|
|
Members' Questions
Decision: Six Members questions and their responses are attached as Appendix 1. Minutes: Six Members questions were received and their responses were tabled and are attached as Appendix 1.
Supplementary questions:
Q1 – Mr Orrick asked the Cabinet Member for Community Safety if Surrey Fire and Rescue cover for the southern part of the county would continue at the current level. The Cabinet Member said that the latest performance figures indicated that Surrey Fire and Rescue were exceeding their target but it was being closely monitored. She also said that any major changes such as potential closure of fire stations were subject to public consultation and the Public Safety Plan was a bi-annual plan agreed last year.
Q2 – Mrs Watson considered the use of Farnham Castle for a Cabinet / CLT awayday was different to a conference that comprised of Councillors and Chief Executives from across the country and asked why Surrey County Council accommodation had not been used. The Leader of the Council responded by likening the Council to a 100FTSE company where top management went off-site for discussions on their strategic direction.
Q3 – Mrs Watson requested comparative data for the last 10 years and also asked the Cabinet Member for Community Services and 2012 Games to comment on any public transport links between Capel and Redhill. It was agreed that a response would be provided outside the meeting, within 10 days.
Q4 – Mrs Watson asked a supplementary question relating to the date that this item went to select committee and at which meeting of the Cabinet the policy was agreed. The Leader of the Council requested a full note of the question from Mrs Watson so that he could ask Mrs Angell to respond on her return from leave.
Q5 – Mr Beardsmore asked who would provide ‘due diligence’ now that Ascot Environmental was being wound up? The Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment confirmed that it had taken some time to get to this point and two other types had been looked at. He confirmed that the construction of the Ecopark would be for the betterment of Surrey.
Q6 – Mrs Watson asked for clarification that a response had been sent to the Secretary of State. The Leader of the Council confirmed that he had taken advice and submitted a response to the Department of Transport’s Draft Aviation Policy Framework Consultation.
|
|
|
Public Questions
Decision: Six questions from members of the public and the responses were tabled (Appendix 2) Minutes: Six questions from members of the public were received and the responses were tabled and are attached as Appendix 2.
Supplementary questions:
Q1 – Mr Tombs asked if the Public Value Review of Adult Mental Health Services would permit carers to highlight any omissions in the report. The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health responded by stating that the project group had not yet been set up but it would engage with the whole community and that he had his details. He also referred to the Engagement meeting on 21 January 2013.
Q2 – Mr Telford asked if the County Council would engage with CPRE and also Egham Museum? The Cabinet Member for Community Services and 2012 Games said that governance arrangements were at an early stage and it would become clearer as the process develops. She welcomed his assistance and interest in this area.
Q5 and 6 – Mrs Bates asked whether Runnymede Borough Council had received any private sponsorship since the last meeting? The Cabinet Member for Community Services and 2012 Games said that she could not answer for Runnymede Borough Council. She re-affirmed that the decision of the Cabinet taken on 23 October 2012, was ‘in priniciple’ and said that officers had been requested to prepare a business case. Mrs Bates also asked for assurance that a flood risk assessment would be undertaken and this was confirmed. |
|
|
Petitions
Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
Representations received on reports to be considered in private
Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
Reports from Select Committees, Local Committees and Other Committees of the Council
|
|
|
Communities Select Committee Call-in - Magna Carta 800th Anniversary Celebrations Additional documents: Decision: Confirmed the decision made at Cabinet on 23 October 2012.
Reasons for Decision
This is an in principle decision, which will be subject to consultation and a robust business case. Minutes: The comments of the Communities Select Committee ‘call-in’ meeting, held on 14 November 2012, to review the decision taken by Cabinet on 23 October 2012 to make an in principle decision to fund the Magna Carta Visitor Centre, were tabled.
Mr Cosser, Chairman of the Communities Select Committee was invited to present them. He said that his committee had taken the decision to ‘call-in’ the decision to support the National Magna Carta 800th Anniversary Celebrations because the report considered by Cabinet on 23 October did not contain a detailed business case. In summary, the select committee’s conclusions were: (i) whether or not it was appropriate for Surrey County Council to support making a contribution of £5m towards the funding of a new visitor centre for the Magna Carta celebrations, at a time when there were many pressures on the Council’s budget, and (ii) that a robust business case should be in place before decisions were taken, including consideration of the many risks that surrounded this project.
The Leader of the Council responded by stating that the agenda item and the minutes from the Cabinet’s 23 October 2012 meeting were clear that this was an ‘in principle’ decision.
The Cabinet Member for Community Services and the 2012 Games said that the select committee’s call-in and witnesses input would all form part of the process on whether the County Council would proceed with this decision. She informed Cabinet that she had received a large number of emails from local people which she would also consider. However, Cabinet needed an ‘in principle decision, in order to consider the proposal and investment in this project. It would only proceed, after further work has been undertaken, if she was satisfied that there was a robust business case and Cabinet would receive a further report.
Other Cabinet Members supported the ‘in principle’ decision and hoped that this would be an opportunity to showcase Surrey and celebrate in an appropriate way.
The Leader of the Council thanked everyone for their input and assured Members that further work would be undertaken before a final decision was taken.
RESOLVED:
That the decision made at Cabinet on 23 October 2012 be confirmed.
Reasons for Decision
This is an in principle decision, which will be subject to consultation and a robust business case. |
|
|
School Organisation Plan
Additional documents: Decision: That the School Organisation Plan 2012 – 22 be approved for recommendation to Council.
Reasons for Decisions
The School Organisation Plan is a key contextual document used by Schools and Education Stakeholders when making long term plans. Its annual review is necessary to ensure that the best information is used in this planning process. Any comments received can both inform the existing plan and shape future iterations.
Minutes:
The Cabinet Member for Children and Learning asked Cabinet to consider the Surrey School Organisation Plan 2012 -2022.
The Surrey School Organisation Plan (previously called ‘School Organisation in Surrey, SOIS) for 2012-21 was a contextual document which set out the policies and principles underpinning school organisation in Surrey. It highlighted the likely demand for school places as projected over a 10 year forecast period and set out the potential changes to provision that may be required in order to meet the statutory duty to provide suitable and sufficient places.
The Cabinet Member for Children and Learning said that it was a ‘live’ document with much detailed information and hoped all Members would read it to see how it affected their own divisions.
Cabinet Members made the following points:
· Reference to the huge increase in the birth rate and the five year capital programme to expand school places across the county, to provide 8000 more primary school places and 600 more secondary places. · That the county provides sufficient school places for all its pupils. · The importance of regular reviews and consideration of demographics and house building in the county. · Working relationships between schools and the Local Authority. · Local committees should challenge the results of schools in their areas, to ensure that all schools provided the best education for their pupils. · Paragraph 11.14 (Runnymede annex) to be amended to read 1500 not 3500 homes.
The Cabinet Member for Children and Learning thanked Members for their comments and said that she would ask the Chairman of the Education Select Committee to request that all local committees also reviewed the Plan. She would also share this information with Districts and Boroughs.
Finally, she thanked the County Council for its forward thinking approach in agreeing a capital programme and budget to enable the Plan to be delivered.
RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND:
That the School Organisation Plan 2012 – 22 be approved for recommendation to Council.
Reasons for Decisions
The School Organisation Plan is a key contextual document used by Schools and Education Stakeholders when making long term plans. Its annual review is necessary to ensure that the best information is used in this planning process. Any comments received can both inform the existing plan and shape future iterations.
|
|
|
Public Value Review Programme Closing Report
Additional documents: Decision: 1. That the achievements delivered through the Public Value Review Programme be acknowledged.
2. That officers, Members and other stakeholders who contributed to the PVR Programme be thanked.
3. That the PVR Programme be formally closed and Cabinet Members and Strategic Directors be asked to ensure agreed PVR improvements and savings are delivered and monitored through the Council’s financial, performance and risk management arrangements.
4. That Select Committees continue to play a vital role via monitoring and scrutiny to ensure delivery of PVR improvements and savings.
5. That the PVR Programme Closing Report be published on the Council’s website and circulated widely within and outside of the Council.
Reasons for Decisions:
The PVR Programme Closing Report provides a summary of the benefits the Programme has delivered (and will continue to deliver) for Surrey residents and also describes key lessons learnt over the past three years.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee] Minutes:
The Leader of the Council said that, as part of the Public Value Review (PVR) programme, 29 reviews had taken place with £279m of savings identified, which would be delivered by 2016 and no external consultants had been used in the process.
He also acknowledged the work of the Member Reference Groups and the excellent feedback from them and he stressed that select committees must continue to scrutinise services to ensure that the savings were being delivered.
He also praised the Rapid Improvement Events (RIEs) and said that this work had been recognised by Government. He thanked officers involved with the PVR programme including the Assistant Chief Executive, the Head of Policy and Performance and the Chief Finance Officer.
Other Cabinet Members made the following comments:
· As part of the transformation programme for the PVR in Services for Young People, there had been a reduction in NEETS (Not in Education, Employment or Training) · A large percentage increase in waste re-cycling · Huge efficiencies and savings across the Authority
RESOLVED:
1. That the achievements delivered through the Public Value Review Programme be acknowledged. 2. That officers, Members and other stakeholders who contributed to the PVR Programme be thanked. 3. That the PVR Programme be formally closed and Cabinet Members and Strategic Directors be asked to ensure agreed PVR improvements and savings are delivered and monitored through the Council’s financial, performance and risk management arrangements.
4. That Select Committees continue to play a vital role via monitoring and scrutiny to ensure delivery of PVR improvements and savings.
5. That the PVR Programme Closing Report be published on the Council’s website and circulated widely within and outside of the Council.
Reasons for Decisions
The PVR Programme Closing Report provides a summary of the benefits the Programme has delivered (and will continue to deliver) for Surrey residents and also describes key lessons learnt over the past three years. |
|
|
One County, One Team - Strengthening the Council's Approach to Innovation
Additional documents: Decision: 1. That the strategic framework for innovation set out in the report in order to build on the council’s recent achievements and further strengthen its innovation capacity and capability be agreed.
2. That the Chief Executive works with colleagues to develop and implement the strategic framework for innovation and a progress report be provided to the Cabinet on 26 March 2013
Reasons for Decisions:
To further refine and strengthen the council’s approach to innovation so it can exploit new opportunities, navigate significant challenges and achieve improved outcomes and value for money for Surrey’s residents.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee] Minutes: The Leader of the Council presented this report to Cabinet Members and stressed the importance of innovation for the Council in order to continue improving outcomes and value for money for Surrey’s residents. He cited specific examples of innovations – the street-lighting and highways contracts, changes to the provision of youth services, the introduction of community partnered libraries and the opening of citizen hubs run by and for disabled people. He also gave examples of innovative joint working with other organisations such as new agreements with Districts and Boroughs to regenerate local communities and work with South East 7 regional collaboration of highways.
He reminded Cabinet that, in his Leader’s statement to County Council on 16 October 2012, he had mentioned the need to strengthen capacity and capability to innovate in order to deal successfully with the significant challenges that the County Council would face over the next five to ten years.
Finally, he said that this report set out how the County Council would begin to go about achieving this. It would require sustained effort over the long term but he believed that staff and Members had a vital role to play in taking it forward. He also advised Cabinet that there would be an LGA organised peer challenge on innovation taking place between 26 February – 1 March 2013 and there would be an update report to Cabinet on 26 March 2013.
RESOLVED:
1. That the strategic framework for innovation set out in the report in order to build on the council’s recent achievements and further strengthen its innovation capacity and capability be agreed.
2. That the Chief Executive works with colleagues to develop and implement the strategic framework for innovation and provides a progress report to the Cabinet on 26 March 2013.
Reasons for Decisions
To further refine and strengthen the council’s approach to innovation so it can exploit new opportunities, navigate significant challenges and achieve improved outcomes and value for money for Surrey’s residents.
|
|
|
Public Value Review - Community Partnership
Additional documents: Decision: 1. The Community Partnership Public Value Review and its recommendations (as summarised in paragraph 6 and detailed in this report) be noted. 2. That the Cabinet Member for Community Services and the 2012 Games discuss the conclusions of the PVR report with the Local Committee Chairmen and agree how the recommendations will be taken forward. 3. That some of the recommendations will need full Council agreement be noted. Reason for Decisions
The aim of the Community Partnership PVR was to review the role of SCC’s Local Committees and the Community Partnership Team “to improve outcomes for residents by strengthening local democracy and placing much greater emphasis on partnership working.” (David Hodge, Leader of SCC).
The recommendations in this report are designed to:
· support Members in their role as community leaders and champions · improve decision making and speed-up processes · promote greater accountability and local scrutiny · increase the involvement of residents, local communities, businesses and partners.
The recommendations recognise that each local area is different and attempt to create flexibility within a framework, allowing each Local Committee to operate in a way which best suits the local need.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Communities Select Committee] Minutes:
The comments from the Communities Select Committee together with the Cabinet Member for Community Services and the 2012 Games’ response were tabled at the meeting (Appendix 4a and 4b).
Also, tabled were the comments from the Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Cabinet Member for Community Services and the 2012 Games’ response. (Appendix 5a and 5b)
Mr Cosser, Chairman of Communities Select Committee was invited to speak and present his report. He began by complimenting officers on how this Public Value Review had been conducted. He also asked the Cabinet Member for assurance on issues pertaining to Localism and the recommendations from his select committee’s Localism Task Group.
The Cabinet Member thanked both the Communities Select Committee and the Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee for their comments and made reference to her tabled responses. She confirmed that she was willing to continue to work with Members to take the recommendations forward. She fully supported the outcomes of this PVR but acknowledged that some recommendations, such as consideration of a joint committee model would require a constitutional change.
She thanked both Mark Irons, Head of Customer Services, who had worked hard to engage with all stakeholders and partners in this review and all the Community Partnership teams for their input.
The Leader of the Council expressed concern on two points; (i) paragraph 44, he said that the Council would not be in a position to give a definitive response until the forthcoming Government settlement had been received later in December, and (ii) the proposal for joint committees would stretch resources.
After a discussion on the report in which some concerns were raised, the Cabinet Member for Community Services and the 2012 Games confirmed that this was an ‘in principle’ decision, to deliver some services locally and that all recommendations were subject to further work.
RESOLVED:
1. The Community Partnership Public Value Review and its recommendations (as summarised in paragraph 6 and detailed in this report) be noted. 2. That the Cabinet Member for Community Services and the 2012 Games discuss the conclusions of the PVR report with the Local Committee Chairmen and agree how the recommendations will be taken forward. 3. That some of the recommendations will need full Council agreement be noted. Reason for Decisions
The aim of the Community Partnership PVR was to review the role of SCC’s Local Committees and the Community Partnership Team “to improve outcomes for residents by strengthening local democracy and placing much greater emphasis on partnership working.” (David Hodge, Leader of SCC).
The recommendations in this report are designed to:
· support Members in their role as community leaders and champions · improve decision making and speed-up processes · promote greater accountability and local scrutiny · increase the involvement of residents, local communities, businesses and partners.
The recommendations recognise that each local area is different and attempt to create flexibility within a framework, allowing each Local Committee to operate in a way which best suits the local need.
|
|
|
Public Value Reviews of Arts, Heritage and Adult & Community Learning
Additional documents: Decision: 1. That the outcomes of the three Public Value Reviews be agreed and these roll forward into a new strategy and vision for Cultural Services in Surrey, with detailed Service Improvement Plans in place by March 2013.
2. That a refreshed strategy and vision be developed for Cultural Services, including Libraries and Registration Services, which will position Surrey to become a leader for quality cultural activity in the country.
3. That a feasibility study be undertaken to create options for the provision of a new cultural hub that would position Surrey at the forefront of culture nationally and internationally, to be brought back to Cabinet for decision.
4. That a detailed research and evaluation project be undertaken to assess the potential benefits and risks of a new approach to the delivery of Cultural Services through other business models.
5. That, following completion of the Service Improvement Plans, a follow-up report be presented to the Cabinet Member, detailing all financial implications for final decision.
Reason for Decisions
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Communities Select Committee] Minutes:
The comments from the Communities Select Committee together with the Cabinet Member for Community Services and 2012 Games’ response were tabled at the meeting (Appendix 6a and 6b). Mr Cosser, Chairman of Communities Select Committee was invited to expand on the recommendations of his committee. He said that he welcomed the assurance of continued Member involvement in the completion of the individual Public Value Reviews, as well as the monitoring of the combined Cultural Services PVR and said that he hoped that the select committee would continue to contribute to policy development. The Cabinet Member for Community Services and the 2012 Games thanked him for his committee’s comments and referred to her tabled response. She confirmed that the outcome of this review was a serious proposition which needed to be developed and thanked the officers involved in delivering this Public Value Review. The Cabinet Member for Community Safety referred to the Equalities Impact Assessment, and the detailed and helpful information set out within it, which helped to provide an understanding of Surrey’s communities and different cultures so that services could be shaped to meet their needs. In relation to a query regarding Mental Health, the Cabinet Member for Community Safety agreed to provide a response to the Cabinet Member for Change and Efficiency outside the meeting.
RESOLVED: 1. That the outcomes of the three Public Value Reviews be agreed and these roll forward into a new strategy and vision for Cultural Services in Surrey, with detailed Service Improvement Plans in place by March 2013. 2. That a refreshed strategy and vision be developed for Cultural Services, including Libraries and Registration Services, which will position Surrey to become a leader for quality cultural activity in the country. 3. That a feasibility study be undertaken to create options for the provision of a new cultural hub that would position Surrey at the forefront of culture nationally and internationally, to be brought back to Cabinet for decision. 4. That a detailed research and evaluation project be undertaken to assess the potential benefits and risks of a new approach to the delivery of Cultural Services through other business models. 5. That, following completion of the Service Improvement Plans, a follow-up report is presented to the Cabinet Member, detailing all financial implications for final decision.
Carrying out the actions within this report will ensure SCC’s cultural services create a framework to deliver an innovative cultural and learning offer that ensures value for money and establishes a leading cultural role for SCC nationally. |
|
|
Public Value Review: Adult Mental Health Services
Additional documents: Decision: That the recommendations set out in the submitted report and in detail in paragraphs 16 -58 of the report be endorsed and that implementation should start immediately.
The recommendations from the PVR are as follows:
Recommendation 1: Establish a clear commissioning framework for mental health services, to ensure clear and measurable outcomes and expectations for providers of adult mental health services across Surrey.
Recommendation 2: Drive forward a strategic shift to early intervention and prevention, by investing more resources into the voluntary sector, to ensure equity across Surrey, to keep people well in their communities.
Recommendation 3: Embed personalisation in all adult mental health services in Surrey to create independence, not dependence, and promote choice and control for individuals.
Recommendation 4: Improve knowledge and awareness of mental health across the county, and address stigma and discrimination, to make sure mental health is everyones business. This will be done in partnership with Public Health, partners and the communications team.
Recommendation 5: A focus on improving the mental health and well-being of Surrey County Council’s workforce.
Recommendation 6: Ensure high quality services, by making sure people who use services and carers are involved in developing and delivering the services across all the districts and boroughs in Surrey and ensuring services reflect the outcomes of this PVR.
Recommendation 7: ‘Think family’ when working with people with mental health needs and include mental health indicators as part of Surrey’s Family Support Programme.
Recommendation 8:Value and support carers, by building on the delivery of successful carers support in the mental health field across all districts and boroughs in Surrey.
Recommendation 9:Improve the pathway through mental health services to make sure people don’t fall between the gaps in services. This will be achieved with our partners as a ‘whole systems’ local approach to mental health and emotional well-being.
Recommendation 10:Explore how we deliver social care outcomes and innovations in Adult Social Care mental health services across Surrey.
Recommendation 11:Provide support for people across Surrey with mental health and other needs by making links with other specialist areas of work such as learning disability services and substance misuse services.
Recommendation 12:Improve housing options and support to maintain tenancies by working in partnership with districts and boroughs, NHS Surrey/Clinical Commissioning Groups and housing providers, to enable people to find and maintain appropriate housing.
Recommendation 13:A focus on young people and transition, by working as one team to scope the needs of young people in Surrey who do not meet the criteria for young people’s or adult services, yet need support.
Recommendation 14:Promote access to information, support inclusion and reduce inequalities by implementing the PVR communication strategy and measuring all providers on equalities outcomes.
Reasons for Decisions
Over the past 10 months this PVR has identified the need for a strategic shift in the way that services for adults with mental health needs are commissioned and delivered in ... view the full decision text for item 165/12 Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health said that this Public Value Review (PVR) has provided an excellent opportunity to focus on improving adult mental health services in Surrey. The ‘bottom-up’, co-design approach taken had enabled Surrey County Council to work with a range of partners to develop recommendations that promote positive mental health, encourage innovation and make ideas a reality to improve the mental health of Surrey residents.
He asked for endorsement of the co-produced recommendations from the adult mental health services PVR and to agree that the implementation plan started immediately. He said that the fourteen recommendations would need to be embedded in Surrey’s culture and announced an Engagement event on 21 January 2013. He also said that the implementation of this Public Value Review (PVR) required additional funding for the personalisation agenda.
Mrs Marks, Chairman of the Adult Social Care Select Committee was invited to address the Cabinet. She informed Members that her select committee had held a special meeting to discuss this PVR and its recommendations. She confirmed that service users had been consulted and that the select committee had an in-depth debate on the PVR. She also stressed the importance of getting the transition from Children to Adults Service right, especially for those clients with Mental Health issues and she considered that the current six month waiting list for CAMHS was unacceptable and must be addressed. Finally, she thanked Donal Hegarty and his team for their work on this PVR.
The Cabinet Member for Community Safety commented on the Equalities Impact Assessment and commended the Communications Strategy (Annex 5 of the report).
The Leader of the Council thanked the Chairman of Adult Social Care Select Committee for her comments and her efforts in championing Adult Mental Health Services throughout Surrey.
RESOLVED:
That the recommendations set out below and in detail in paragraphs 16 -58 of the report be endorsed and that implementation should start immediately.
The recommendations from the Public Value Review are as follows:
Recommendation 1: Establish a clear commissioning framework for mental health services, to ensure clear and measurable outcomes and expectations for providers of adult mental health services across Surrey.
Recommendation 2: Drive forward a strategic shift to early intervention and prevention, by investing more resources into the voluntary sector, to ensure equity across Surrey, to keep people well in their communities.
Recommendation 3: Embed personalisation in all adult mental health services in Surrey to create independence, not dependence, and promote choice and control for individuals.
Recommendation 4: Improve knowledge and awareness of mental health across the county, and address stigma and discrimination, to make sure mental health is everyone’s business. This will be done in partnership with Public Health, partners and the communications team.
Recommendation 5: A focus on improving the mental health and well-being of Surrey County Council’s workforce.
Recommendation 6: Ensure high quality services, by making sure people who use services and carers are involved in developing and delivering ... view the full minutes text for item 165/12 |
|
|
Budget Monitoring Forecast 2012/13 (Period Ending October 2012)
Additional documents: Decision: 1. That the projected revenue budget (Annex 1 – Section A) and the Capital programme direction (Section B) be noted. 2. That government grant changes be reflected in directorate budgets (Section C). 3. That the one-off corporate contribution to the funding of personalisation in Adult Social Care, as highlighted by the Leader in June 2012 (paragraph 68, Section A) be approved. Reasons for Decisions
To comply with the agreed strategy of providing a monthly budget monitoring report to cabinet for approval and action as necessary.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee] Minutes: The Leader of the Council introduced the report and said that the council set a tough revenue budget that incorporated a number of risks, which were anticipated in the inclusion of contingencies.
He said that there were increasing demand pressures for services with both adults and children’s social care but that the contingencies prudently set aside were more than sufficient to cover these growing pressures this year and would lead to a forecast year end underspending of £5.5m.
However, it was important to look to the future and Strategic Directors were looking to see how these pressures can be managed or alternative savings found so that the Medium Term Financial Plan remained on track.
He reported that the great success of the council’s participation in the Olympics over the summer was all achieved within the budget set aside, and there was no recourse to the contingency set aside for this.
He said that one of the Council’s most important objectives was to empower more of our adult service users through personalisation and to progress this policy more rapidly, he proposed a one-off £1m corporate contribution to the Adult Social Care service, which would be funded through the unused provision for increased interest rates within the capital financing budget.
On Staffing, he said that Directorates were continuing to actively manage their staffing budgets, through holding vacancies to achieve savings and the appropriate use of temporary workers. Currently, 92% of staff were on contracts which was considered to be right for a healthy organisation. This had led to an underspending of £6.4m for the seven months to the end of October, and this was expected to fall to £5.1m by the end of the year as staff were recruited to our essential services. The number of occupied posts in August had increased to 7,266 while 209 posts were being recruited at the end of the month.
Finally, he said that the Cabinet was determined to deliver the Council’s capital programme, especially in building new classrooms and was on track to deliver this and at a lower cost this year due to improved procurement (and partnership working with Hampshire CC).
Management actions were in place to reduce overspend, however winter demand may play a factor in delivery and the Cabinet acknowledged that it would be tough to come within Budget by the end of the financial year.
RESOLVED:
1. That the projected revenue budget (Annex 1 – Section A) and the Capital programme direction (Section B) be noted. 2. That government grant changes be reflected in directorate budgets (Section C) 3. That the one-off corporate contribution to the funding of personalisation in Adult Social Care, as highlighted by the Leader in June 2012 (paragraph 68, Section A) be approved. Reasons for Decisions
To comply with the agreed strategy of providing a monthly budget monitoring report to cabinet for approval and action as necessary.
|
|
|
Supporting the Economy through Investment in Transport and Infrastructure 2012 - 2019
Decision: 1. That the revised list of Surrey County Council Major Schemes be endorsed and that this change to the Major Schemes programme in the Local Transport Plan be referred to the Council, as set out in Annexes 1 and 2. 2. That the choice of Major Schemes to be progressed in any given year to be taken by the Strategic Director Environment and Infrastructure in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment. 3. That the “New Homes Bonus” funding be used to provide for that proportion of the preparatory work relating to the schemes, which is not recoverable from capital funding. The estimated cost of this for the 2012-15 period is c. £1.2m. 4. That the Cabinet be provided with a high-level update on the Major Schemes programme every 2 years, except where significant developments require immediate referral. 5. That support continues to be given to Highways Agency (HA) and National Rail (NR) schemes in Surrey detailed in their programmes, set out in Annex 3 of the submitted report. 6. Delegated authority be given to the Strategic Director for Environment and Infrastructure in consultation with the Leader and Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment to approve changes to the list of schemes where these are individually valued at less than £5 million.
Reason for Decisions
The programme has been designed primarily to support economic growth and regeneration in Surrey, in partnership with district and borough councils. However, schemes will also be consistent, where applicable with other objectives in the Surrey Local Transport Plan.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Environment and Transport Select Committee] Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment said that, building on the council's success in attracting c. £20m of funding through the Local Sustainable Transport Fund, this report set out proposals for developing up to 16 schemes for bidding. The Government had released a number of new funding and financing sources to facilitate the development of major transport infrastructure, in particular those supporting the economy. This included the Growing Places funding provided to Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and most recently, financing expected to become available through the Local Transport Bodies (LTBs) yet to be set up. This is expected to amount to £7 – 10m per annum for Surrey, based on a per capita share. The report sought endorsement: (a) for the preparatory work required to enable Surrey County Council to bid for all new funding sources to deliver major transport infrastructure, and (b) for the list of Major Schemes. The paper summarised the various schemes being proposed as the new Major Schemes programme. This included some new schemes that have been proposed by district and borough councils, to tackle key areas of congestion on our transport network, including several town centres. It also re-prioritised the previous list of proposed schemes to be in line with the Government's proposed funding regime and to more accurately meet current and anticipated needs.
He said that a programme of major schemes had last been approved by the Executive in 2007. He also informed Members that the proposed schemes, set out in Annex 1, were not in priority order and that the first tranche of schemes ready for delivery in 2015 – 2019 would be submitted to the Local Transport Bodies by 31 March 2013.
Mr Munro, local Member for Farnham South was invited to speak. He welcomed the report and in particular, the inclusion of the Wrecclesham Relief Road and the A31 Hickley’s corner junction, both near his division. He considered that it was crucial that both schemes remained in the programme, however the development of Farnham town centre could result in the order of the schemes being reversed.
After Mr Munro urged local Members to get more involved in this area, the Leader of the Council requested that officers involved local Members in the consultation process – Think Councillor, Think Resident.
Cabinet Members made the following additional points: · Congestion (road, rail and aviation) was a key issue in Surrey · The importance of having a series of schemes that could quickly be developed when funding became available. · The inclusion of the A23/M23 Hooley scheme was welcomed. · That the local committee’s task groups were the forums for prioritising and agreeing the schemes.
Finally, the recommendations in the report were amended, and it was:
RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND: 1. That the revised list of Surrey County Council Major Schemes be endorsed and these changes to the Major Schemes programme in the Local Transport Plan be referred to the Council, as set out in Annexes 1 and 2. 2. That the choice of Major Schemes to be ... view the full minutes text for item 167/12 |
|
|
Taking Public Health Forward in Surrey
Additional documents: Decision: 1. That the Council’s public health responsibilities from April 2013 be acknowledged and welcomed.
2. That the aims and aspirations for public health in Surrey, as set out in the submitted report be agreed.
3. That the steps set out in the submitted report, that aim to encourage and enable all public agencies in Surrey to take actions to improve the life chances of every resident, be agreed.
4. That a programme of communication and engagement with stakeholders including boroughs, districts, communities and the voluntary, community and faith sector, be agreed.
Reason for Decisions
These recommendations are made because: · The Council is required to take on its new public health responsibilities, including six mandatory service areas (Annex 1 of the submitted report) from April 2013. · The public health team has the expertise to enable the Council to deliver its new responsibilities, working in partnership with other organisations, where appropriate, including Public Health England. · The Council needs to make the most of this opportunity for a new way of working and ensure that its policies reflect its role in providing local leadership for public health. Our partners need to understand how the Council will meet its new responsibilities.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Adult Social Care Select Committee] Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health introduced the report, explaining that following the Health & Social Care Act (2012), local authorities would take on a range of new responsibilities for protecting and promoting the public’s health from April 2013, funded by a ring-fenced grant. This includes the transfer of approximately 60 specialist public health staff from the NHS to local authorities to provide professional leadership for public health. The Surrey public health team relocated to Surrey County Council premises in April 2012 to support the Council in preparing to meet its new responsibilities.
The report outlined:
· the new public health responsibilities and functions transferring to Surrey County Council · an overview of how the function operates, including finance, people and performance. · the opportunities, impact and issues for the Council.
He confirmed that redistribution of public health finances was still being finalised. However, it would be set out in the forthcoming Council Budget papers. He also said that working arrangements had been developed with Borough and District Councils and the Clinical Commissioning Groups.
Cabinet Members welcomed the report and the opportunity that the transfer of Public Health to Surrey County Council would have to create a more integrated preventative approach for Surrey residents.
Finally, the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health agreed to attend local committees, if invited and give a similar presentation to them, as had been given to Borough and District Councils.
RESOLVED:
1. That the Council’s public health responsibilities from April 2013 be acknowledged and welcomed. 2. That the aims and aspirations for public health in Surrey, as set out in the submitted report, be agreed. 3. That the steps set out in the submitted report, that aim to encourage and enable all public agencies in Surrey to take actions to improve the life chances of every resident, be agreed. 4. That a programme of communication and engagement with stakeholders including boroughs, districts, communities and the voluntary, community and faith sector, be agreed.
Reasons for Decisions
These recommendations are made because:
· The Council is required to take on its new public health responsibilities, including six mandatory service areas (see Annex 1 of the submitted report) from April 2013.
· The public health team has the expertise to enable the Council to deliver its new responsibilities, working in partnership with other organisations, where appropriate, including Public Health England.
· The Council needs to make the most of this opportunity for a new way of working and ensure that its policies reflect its role in providing local leadership for public health. Our partners need to understand how the Council will meet its new responsibilities. |
|
|
Leader / Deputy Leader / Cabinet Member Decisions taken since the last Cabinet meeting
Decision: That the decisions taken by the Leader, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Members since the last meeting as set out in Appendix 3 be noted.
Reason for Decisions
To inform the Cabinet of decisions taken by Members under delegated authority. Minutes:
The Cabinet noted the delegated decisions taken by the Leader, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Members since the last meeting of the Cabinet.
RESOLVED:
That the decisions taken by the Leader, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Members since the last meeting as set out in Appendix 7 be noted.
Reason for Decisions
To inform the Cabinet of decisions taken by Members under delegated authority. |
|
|
English National Concessionary Travel Scheme - Surrey Scheme for 2013/14
Decision: 1. That the existing Surrey concession travel scheme offer be retained for 2013/14.
2. That the ability to decide on amendments to bus operator reimbursement be delegated to the Strategic Director for Environment and Infrastructure together with the Group Manager, Travel and Transport in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment.
Reason for Decisions
This is a statutory obligation for the council. The two local scheme enhancements proposed have a relatively low additional cost but a high value placed upon them by their users.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Environment and Transport Select Committee] Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment confirmed that Surrey County Council was responsible for the administration of the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme (ENCTS) within the county boundary and this report reviewed the existing scheme and set out the Surrey concessionary travel scheme for residents aged 60+ and disabled residents for 2013/14. He said that the scheme was driven by resident demand and that the two local scheme enhancements were a relatively small additional cost. He also said that figures quoted in paragraph 10 were still being validated and that he would update the Cabinet outside the meeting.
RESOLVED:
1. That the existing Surrey concession travel scheme offer be retained for 2013/14.
2. That the ability to decide on amendments to bus operator reimbursement is delegated to the Strategic Director for Environment and Infrastructure together with the Group Manager, Travel and Transport in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment.
Reason for Decisions
This is a statutory obligation for the council. The two local scheme enhancements proposed have a relatively low additional cost but a high value placed upon them by their users. |
|
|
Onslow Park and Ride Contract
Additional documents: Decision: Following consideration of the results of the procurement process, the award of a contract be agreed on the basis set out in the Part 2 Annex to design and construct a 550 space park and ride site at Onslow, west of the A3 and adjacent to the University of Surrey Sports Park. Reason for Decisions A full tender process, in compliance with the requirement of EU Procurement legislation, and Procurement Standing Orders has been completed, and the recommendations provide best value for money for the Council following a thorough evaluation process.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Environment and Transport Select Committee] Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Change and Efficiency thanked the Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment for his work with Guildford Borough Council which enabled Onslow Park and ride to come to fruition. She was also pleased to report that an excellent procurement exercise had been undertaken. Finally, she reported that commercial details were set out in a confidential annex (minute ref: 174/12) RESOLVED: Following consideration of the results of the procurement process, the award of a contract be agreed on the basis set out in the Part 2 Annex to design and construct a 550 space park and ride site at Onslow, west of the A3 and adjacent to the University of Surrey Sports Park. Reason for Decisions A full tender process, in compliance with the requirement of EU Procurement legislation, and Procurement Standing Orders has been completed, and the recommendations provide best value for money for the Council following a thorough evaluation process.
|
|
Decision: That following consideration of the results of the procurement process, set out in item 21, the award of a contract be agreed on the basis, as set out in the Part 2 Annex.
Reasons for Decisions
The existing contracts will expire on 31 December 2012, a waiver has been agreed by PRG number WR0590 (8/8/12) to extend existing contract arrangements for one month until 31 January 2013 to allow for adequate ‘start up’ processes to be ready. A full tender process, in compliance with the requirement of EU Procurement Legislation and Procurement Standing Orders has been completed, and the recommendations provide best value for money for the Council following a thorough evaluation process.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee] Minutes:
The Cabinet Member for Change and Efficiency presented the report and advised Cabinet that this was a renewal of an existing contract and that the commercial details were set out in a confidential annex (Minute ref: 175/12).
RESOLVED:
That following consideration of the results of the procurement process, set out in item 21, the award of a contract be agreed on the basis set out in the Part 2 Annex.
Reasons for Decisions
The existing contracts will expire on 31 December 2012, a waiver has been agreed by PRG number WR0590 (8/8/12) to extend existing contract arrangements for one month until 31 January 2013 to allow for adequate ‘start up’ processes to be ready. A full tender process, in compliance with the requirement of EU Procurement Legislation and Procurement Standing Orders has been completed, and the recommendations provide best value for money for the Council following a thorough evaluation process. |
|
|
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
Minutes: That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information under the relevant paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.
|
|
|
Onslow Park and Ride annex
Decision: That the contract be awarded to Skanska at the figure set out in the report and based on a bill of quantities. This scheme is fully funded by the LSTF.
Reason for Decisions
A full tender process, in compliance with the requirement of EU Procurement Legislation and Procurement Standing Orders has been completed, and the recommendations provide best value for money for the Council following a thorough evaluation process.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee]
Minutes: Further to the item considered in Part 1 of the meeting (Minute reference: 171/12), the Cabinet considered the commercial details relating to this contract and were pleased with the procurement savings of this contract.
RESOLVED:
That the contract be awarded to Skanska at the figure set out in the report and based on a bill of quantities. This scheme is fully funded by the LSTF.
Reason for Decisions
A full tender process, in compliance with the requirement of EU Procurement Legislation and Procurement Standing Orders has been completed, and the recommendations provide best value for money for the Council following a thorough evaluation process.
|
|
|
East Surrey Maintenance Contract for Schools and other Surrey County Council Properties - annex
Decision: That contracts be awarded to Lotus Landscapes Ltd for contracts numbered 2, 5 and 6, at a value, as set out in the submitted report, for 5 years for the provision of Grounds Maintenance at Schools and other Surrey County Council properties to commence on 1 February 2013 and that contracts be awarded to Quadron Services Ltd for contracts numbered 8, 9 and 10, as set out in the submitted report, per annum for 5 years for the provision of Grounds Maintenance at Schools and other Surrey CC Properties to commence on 1 February 2013.
Reason for Decisions
The existing contracts will expire on 31 December 2012. A full tender process, in compliance with the requirement of EU Procurement Legislation and Procurement Standing Orders has been completed, and the recommendations provide best value for money for the Council following a thorough evaluation process.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee] Minutes: Further to the item considered in Part 1 of the meeting (Minute reference: 172/12), the Cabinet considered the commercial details relating to this contract.
RESOLVED:
That contracts be awarded to Lotus Landscapes Ltd for contracts numbered 2, 5 and 6, at a value, as set out in the submitted report, for 5 years for the provision of Grounds Maintenance at Schools and other Surrey County Council properties to commence on 1 February 2013 and that contracts be awarded to Quadron Services Ltd for contracts numbered 8, 9 and 10, as set out in the submitted report, per annum for 5 years for the provision of Grounds Maintenance at Schools and other Surrey CC Properties to commence on 1 February 2013.
Reason for Decisions
The existing contracts will expire on 31 December 2012. A full tender process, in compliance with the requirement of EU Procurement Legislation and Procurement Standing Orders has been completed, and the recommendations provide best value for money for the Council following a thorough evaluation process.
|
|
|
PUBLICITY FOR PART 2 ITEMS
Minutes: That non-exempt information relating to the Onslow Park and Ride contract (item 20) and East Surrey Maintenance Contract for Schools and other SCC properties (item 21) considered in Part 2 of the meeting may be made available to the press and public, as appropriate. |