Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 75 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN
Contact: Anne Gowing or James Stanton 020 8541 9938 Email: anne.gowing@surreycc.gov.uk
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Mrs Angell.
|
|
|
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: 28 May 2013
Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 28 May 2013 were confirmed and signed by the Chairman.
|
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Additional documents: Minutes: There were none.
|
|
|
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
Additional documents: |
|
Additional documents: Decision: Five questions had been received from Members. The questions and responses were tabled and are attached as Appendix 1.
Minutes: Five questions had been received from Members. The questions and responses were tabled and are attached as Appendix 1.
The following supplementary questions were asked:
· Mr Evans asked a supplementary question in relation to the waste infrastructure and whether there was still the possibility that DEFRA could still request payment if the county council did not proceed with the Ecopark at Charlton Lane and had to find an alternative site in order to protect the grant. The Cabinet Member for Transport, Highways and Environment confirmed that DEFRA had indicated that they did not wish to withdraw the grant and had given permission for the county council to proceed.
· Mr Walsh referred to point (2) of the Cabinet Member for Transport, Highways and Environment’s response to his question which stated: ‘SITA had conducted a robust due diligence assessment to ensure that the gasification process technology proposed by Outotec was appropriate for the Eco Park’. He expressed concern about the word ‘robust’, stating that a desk assessment was carried out over a two week period – in his opinion, a short time. He asked whether Cabinet would consider conducting a further assessment over a longer timespan. The Cabinet Member said that all processes at the Eco Park were operating elsewhere and that the County Council would not use them or be allowed to operate them if safety was an issue.
· Mrs Watson asked the Cabinet Member for Assets and Regeneration Programmes to explain the difference between ‘peak utilisation’ and ‘office occupancy’ and also asked which offices had not yet submitted their occupancy data. The Cabinet Member explained that the occupancy studies were a repeated review, on a rolling basis for each building. The Leader of the Council also informed her that Surrey County Council had been invited by the Coalition Government to join a Government initiative on property rationalisation.
|
|
Additional documents: Decision: Six questions had been received from members of the public. The questions and responses were tabled and are attached as Appendix 2.
Minutes: Six questions had been received from members of the public. The questions and responses were tabled and are attached as Appendix 2.
The following supplementary questions were asked:
· Mr Beaman said that the hoped the County Council would submit a bid for funding from the Government’s Clean Bus Technology Fund and confirmed that he would be willing to assist with the submission, if required. · Mr Robertson made a detailed statement concerning the Eco Park. The Leader of the Council requested a copy of it so that an answer could be provided to Mr Robertson outside the meeting. · Mr Telford considered that the response had not said what action that Surrey County Council would take to protect the Green Belt in the Runnymede area. The Cabinet Member for Transport, Highways and Environment said that his response had stated the county position and re-affirmed that the need to protect the Green Belt was a matter decided at local level (the Runnymede Local Plan). However, the County Council was a consultee in the process and would respond to the consultation. · Mr Eastment expressed concern in relation to a small airport trying to obtain planning permission to build and encroach onto Green belt land. He referred to the Article 4 direction and acknowledged that they would know Surrey Heath Borough Council’s position after the meeting with Chobham Parish Council. However, he asked if Surrey County Council’s legal team could advise Surrey Heath Borough Council in relation to this matter. The Cabinet Member for Transport, Highways and Environment said that the county council was unable to impose their views on the borough council and referred to the last sentence of his response, which stated that there was no requirement for the borough council to consult third parties. However, he referred to the meeting with Chobham Parish Council and said this was the forum to raise it and ensure that Surrey Heath Borough Council was aware of their concerns.
· Ms Desoutter asked the Cabinet Member for Community Services whether, in future, the County Council would consult more widely with the general public before committing to events that involved road closures. She also asked whether there would be compensation for those residents whose holiday plans had been affected by the forthcoming road closures on 4 August 2013.
The Cabinet Member for Community Services said that information had been sent to those residents affected and more details would be sent out in July. She drew attention to the dedicated number included in her response that residents could use if they had specific concerns. She hoped that roads would re-open as soon as possible. She also informed Cabinet that a protocol detailing the process for organising future events involving road closures was being drawn up and would be subject to consultation over the summer months. With regard to compensation, she confirmed that none was available from Surrey County Council. · Mr Catt asked the Cabinet Member for Transport, Highways and Environment whether there were any restrictions within the contract with ... view the full minutes text for item 105/13 |
|
|
Petitions
Additional documents: Minutes: No petitions were received. |
|
|
Representations received on reports to be considered in private
Additional documents: Minutes: No representations were received.
|
|
|
Confident in Our Future: Corporate Strategy 2013 -18 and Supporting Strategies
Additional documents: Decision: 1. That ‘Confident in our future, Corporate Strategy 2013-2018’ be endorsed and that it be recommended for approval to the County Council meeting on 16 July 2013. 2. That the Directorate Strategies 2013–2018, as amended, and the Communications and Engagement Strategy which will support delivery of the Corporate Strategy be approved.
Reason for Decisions
The Council reviews and refreshes its Corporate Strategy each year. By confirming a long term vision for the county and setting priorities for the next year the Corporate Strategy provides a clear sense of direction for Council staff and signposts the Council’s approach for residents, businesses and partner organisations. As part of the Council’s Policy Framework (as set out in the Council’s Constitution) the Corporate Strategy must be approved by the County Council.
The Directorate Strategies and the Communications and Engagement Strategy will support delivery of the priorities set out in the Corporate Strategy, ensuring the Council delivers great value to Surrey residents.
[The decisions on this item may be called in by the Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee]
Minutes: The Leader of the Council drew Members’ attention to the following amendments to the Directorate Strategies (set out below) and requested that the Cabinet endorsed - Confident in our future, the Council’s Corporate Strategy 2013-2018, and approve the supporting Directorate Strategies and Communications and Engagement Strategy.
Amendments:
(i) Annex 2a – Adult Social Care - the right hand side pie chart has 'other expd' missing - which would make the total agree to the £404m once adjusted
(ii) Annex 2b – Children, Schools and Families – chart – ‘rest of Council figure’ should be £840m and not £1,361m
(ii) Annex 2c – Environment & Infrastructure – Priorities for 2013/14 - 1st bullet point to be amended to state ‘Repair road defects and deliver maintenance schemes including the five year programme to renew 500 kms of the worst roads in the county within specified timescales and budgets’
(iv) Annex 2f - Chief Executive’s Office - the left hand total table had CXO in twice - total should be £1,685m (currently (£1,698m), including public health
The Leader of the Council confirmed the Council’s strategy was to focus on working in the long term interests of Surrey and to ensure that residents remained healthy, safe and confident about their future. He also said that he was determined to continue to deliver excellent value for money to taxpayers and an increased focus on innovation would help to achieve this.
Other Members comments were:
· That the County Council had made significant improvements in the last four years and could be ‘Confident in our Future’. · A strong focus on quality, developing Surrey County Council staff and safeguarding vulnerable children and adults. · Proactive management of highways plus increased funding for its infrastructure. · Better engagement with local residents · The launch of a campaign to reduce litter in the county. · The Health and Wellbeing Board would be working with partners to examine the provision for mental health in Surrey. RESOLVED:
1. That ‘Confident in our future, Corporate Strategy 2013-2018’ be endorsed and that it be recommended to the County Council meeting on 16 July 2013 for approval. 2. That the Directorate Strategies 2013–2018, as amended, and the Communications and Engagement Strategy which will support delivery of the Corporate Strategy be approved.
Reason for Decisions
The Council reviews and refreshes its Corporate Strategy each year. By confirming a long term vision for the county and setting priorities for the next year the Corporate Strategy provides a clear sense of direction for Council staff and signposts the Council’s approach for residents, businesses and partner organisations. As part of the Council’s Policy Framework (as set out in the Council’s Constitution) the Corporate Strategy must be approved by the County Council.
The Directorate Strategies and the Communications and Engagement Strategy will support delivery of the priorities set out in the Corporate Strategy, ensuring the Council delivers great value to Surrey residents.
|
|
|
Budget Monitoring Forecast 2013/14 (Period Ending May 2013]
Additional documents: Decision: 1. That the forecast revenue budget underspend for 2013/14, as set out inAnnex 1, page 2 of the submitted report be noted.
2. That the forecast ongoing efficiencies and service reductions achieved by year end, as set out in Annex 1, page 12 of the submitted report be noted.
3. That the forecast capital budget position for 2013/14, as set out in Annex 1, page 13 of the submitted report be noted.
4. That management actions to mitigate overspends, as set out throughout Annex 1 of the submitted report be noted.
5. That the in year virement of £757,661 from the Central HR Training Budget to most services that have service specific training budget allocations for 2013/14 as set out in Annex 1, page 3 of the submitted report be approved.
6. That the re-profiling of -£2.5m capital budget carry forwards to 2013/14 as set out in Annex 1, page 13 of the submitted report be confirmed.
7. That the use of Fire Capital Grant to fund vehicle and equipment replacement as set out in Annex 1, page 13 of the submitted report be approved.
Reason 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 may be called in by the Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee] Minutes: The Leader of the Council presented the first budget monitoring report for the new financial year 2013/14 and stated that the Council continued to face growth in demand for services and reductions in funding as austerity continues.
On the Revenue Budget, he highlighted the following points:
· That the forecast end of year position was for a small overspend of +£0.7m, although if none of the risk contingency (set up to mitigate against non delivery of some service efficiencies) was required, this would become an underspend of -£12.3m.
· That the revenue budget reflected total efficiencies required of £68m and although it was early in the year, the report showed that services were making good progress in delivery of these plans: £11m had already been achieved and there was an increased confidence in many other areas. However, there was still a long way to go and there remained considerable risks and therefore, it was essential that progress was monitored closely throughout the year.
On the Capital Budget, he highlighted the following points:
· That the council’s capital programme not only improved and maintained the Council’s service delivery, but it provided a welcome boost to the local economy in these times and it was therefore important that the authority aimed to achieve the capital budget spend, and where some schemes were delayed, others were brought forward.
· At the beginning of the year the 2013/14 programme was reviewed and as a result a small number of schemes were reprofiled. However, forecasting was currently being reviewed to fully spend the council’s capital budget.
Other Cabinet Members made the following points:
· The Cabinet Member for Business Services drew attention to the change in format of Annex 1, which she considered more ‘user friendly and succinct’ and with more detailed explanation in the Appendix to the Annex. · The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care highlighted the ‘red’ risk relating to £15.5m of the savings within his portfolio, which were reliant on the success of the new policy to maximise the use of social capital. · The Cabinet Member for Schools and Learning drew attention to pressures in the Children, Schools and Families Budget and said that the financial position would become clearer at the start of the new academic year in September. · The Cabinet Associate for Fire and Police Services referred to the Fire Capital Grant (paragraph 52, Annex 1) and was pleased that it would be used towards funding of the Fire Vehicle and Equipment Replacement programme.
RESOLVED:
1. That the forecast revenue budget underspend for 2013/14, as set out in Annex 1, page 2 of the submitted report be noted.
2. That the forecast ongoing efficiencies and service reductions achieved by year end, as set out in Annex 1, page 12 of the submitted report be noted.
3. That the forecast capital budget position for 2013/14, as set out in Annex 1, page 13 of the submitted report be noted.
4. That management actions to mitigate overspends, as set out throughout Annex ... view the full minutes text for item 109/13 |
|
Additional documents: Decision:
1. That the Council charges £250 for any Deferred Payment Agreement, whether or not the matter proceeds to completion, plus the costs of any Land Registry fees it incurs on each transaction.
2. That the Council recovers legal fees of £125 whenever it discharges a Legal Charge.
3. That the level of these charges be reviewed annually and adjusted appropriately in line with general financial planning and budget setting.
Reason for Decisions
To ensure that the increased cost of servicing the continuing and growing demand for Deferred Payment Agreements is primarily met by those taking advantage of the scheme.
[The decisions on this item may be called in by the Adult Social Care Select Committee] Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care referred to a previous report to Cabinet (8 September 2009) detailing the operation of the Deferred Payment Scheme in relation to adults in residential care in Surrey. That report envisaged that the Council may in the future wish to recover the cost of the work it undertakes in relation to Deferred Payment Agreements. After a thorough review of the matter, a charging regime is proposed. Authorisation is also sought to increase the legal fees for discharging Legal Charges (mortgages) placed on properties as security for payment of deferred care costs. He commended the recommendations to Cabinet.
The Leader requested that the annual review of the level of charges be undertaken by the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
RESOLVED:
1. That the Council charges £250 for any Deferred Payment Agreement, whether or not the matter proceeds to completion, plus the costs of any Land Registry fees it incurs on each transaction.
2. That the Council recovers legal fees of £125 whenever it discharges a Legal Charge.
3. That the level of these charges be reviewed annually and adjusted appropriately in line with general financial planning and budget setting.
Reason for Decisions
To ensure that the increased cost of servicing the continuing and growing demand for Deferred Payment Agreements is primarily met by those taking advantage of the scheme.
|
|
Additional documents: Decision:
(1) That the Council enter into contracts for 2 years from 1 September 2013 with 63 providers as named in item 12, the confidential annex to this report, all of which are existing Independent Specialist College providers providing post-16 further educational services to young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities, on terms to be agreed with Legal Services for both existing and new placements with these providers.
(2) That the estimated value of these contracts over a two year period will not exceed £18.1m.
Reasons for Decisions
The recommendation ensures continuity of provision for young people already in placements that will continue into the academic year 2013-14 and provides a contractual basis for new placements starting in September 2013.
The new contracts will ensure 2 academic years are contracted with providers and this encompasses the variations in provider college holiday periods. No service will be required from the providers in the period from 31 July 2013 to 30 August 2013.
The current value of these contracts is £9,048,947 for a full academic year.
[The decisions on this item may be called in by the Children and Education Select Committee] Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Schools and Learning introduced the report and said that the Children and Families Bill was proposing a more integrated approach to provision for children and young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) across the 0-25 age range and that this report set out the changes.
Funding of education and training for young people aged 16-25 was changing. Previously this funding was allocated to providers by a national body, The Education Funding Agency (part of the Department for Education – EFA). From 1 September 2013, an element of the funding would be passed to Local Authorities to fund the commissioning of provision for young people resident in their area. The commissioning duty passed to Local Authorities in April 2010 and the change in the funding would now complete the shift to local commissioning arrangements.
The report outlined these changes and seeks agreement to new contracts for the education and training provision for young people in 63 Independent Specialist Colleges (ISCs) for 2 years from 1 September 2013, details of which were set out in agenda item 12, the confidential annex pertaining to this report.
The Cabinet Member for Business Services said that it was essential to agree the recommendations today, in order that there was a seamless process in place for these young people’s educational needs.
The Cabinet Associate for Children, Schools and Families referred to the positive comments from the recent Peer Review, relating to young people with SEND, as detailed in paragraph 13 of the report.
RESOLVED:
1. That the Council enter into contracts for 2 years from 1 September 2013 with 63 providers as named in agenda item 12, the confidential annex to the report, all of which are existing Independent Specialist College providers providing post-16 further educational services to young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities, on terms to be agreed with Legal Services for both existing and new placements with these providers.
2. That the estimated value of these contracts over a two year period will not exceed £18.1m.
Reasons for Decisions
To ensure continuity of provision for young people already in placements that will continue into the academic year 2013-14 and provide a contractual basis for new placements starting in September 2013.
The new contracts will ensure 2 academic years are contracted with providers and this encompasses the variations in provider college holiday periods. No service will be required from the providers in the period from 31 July 2013 to 30 August 2013.
The current value of these contracts is £9,048,947 for a full academic year. |
|
|
Amendment to Waste Contract between Surrey County Council and SITA Surrey
Additional documents: Decision: 1. Having received an update on technology and been notified of the proposed contractors, that the technology changes be approved.
2. Officers continue to progress work to vary the Waste Contract between Surrey County Council and SITA Surrey to reflect the changes necessary to deliver the proposed waste solutions. A further detailed report for final approval (including value for money, affordability considerations and evidence of DEFRA’s approval) be presented to the Cabinet meeting on 23 July 2013.
3. That the release of a Voluntary Transparency Notice announcing the Council’s intention to enter into a contract variation be approved.
Reasons for Decisions
The recommendations are necessary to provide proper authority to:
(1) Deliver the Eco Park which represents a corporate priority for the Council.
(2) Provide assurance to contractual and funding partners to the Council.
(3) Demonstrate commitment to use of best available, most appropriate technologies in terms of efficiency and environmental impact.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Environment and Transport Select Committee] Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Transport, Highways and Environment advised that the purpose of the report was for Members to receive updated information regarding the technologies, to consider value for money and affordability factors, to approve technology, to ask officers to continue to progress work to amend the Waste Contract with SITA Surrey and to prepare a detailed report to present at the 23 July 2013 Cabinet meeting, which will include legal, financial, procurement and risk assessments.
He highlighted key points from the report:
· The Environmental Permit issued by the Environment Agency on 8 October 2012 · The Drivers for Change and the increasing cost of landfill · The proposed amendments to the Waste Contract, their effect on the Council and the Assessment Process · The Footpath diversion which was currently awaiting a decision
He also referred to the Sustainability Assessment of the proposal to create the Eco Park, which had been carried out by the Council’s Waste and Sustainability teams and said that there would be significant reduction in the number of HGVs and miles travelled by these vehicles, associated with the Eco Park.
He also drew attention to Risk Management, Value for Money and Legal Implications and the S151 officer commentary detailed in the report, and in particular the Equalities Impact Assessment which had been reviewed and remained valid.
Finally, he said that he was aware of the concerns of some local residents and informed Cabinet that there had been extensive consultation, as set out in paragraph 96 of the report. Details of the responses to the main questions asked during the recent public engagement process were circulated at the meeting and are attached as Appendix 3 to these minutes.
The Leader of the Council referred to paragraph 112 and requested that recommendation (2) be amended to include ‘evidence of DEFRA’s approval’.
RESOLVED:
1. That, having received an update on technology and been notified of the proposed contractors, the technology changes be approved.
2. That officers continue to progress work to vary the Waste Contract between Surrey County Council and SITA Surrey to reflect the changes necessary to deliver the proposed waste solutions. A further detailed report for final approval (including value for money, affordability considerations and evidence of DEFRA’s approval) to be presented to the Cabinet meeting on 23 July 2013.
3. That the release of a Voluntary Transparency Notice announcing the Council’s intention to enter into a contract variation be approved.
Reasons for Decisions
To provide proper authority to:
1. Deliver the Eco Park which represents a corporate priority for the Council.
2. Provide assurance to contractual and funding partners to the Council.
3. Demonstrate commitment to use of best available, most appropriate technologies in terms of efficiency and environmental impact. |
|
|
Leader / Deputy Leader / Cabinet Member decisions taken since last Cabinet Meeting
Additional documents: Decision:
That the decisions taken by the Leader, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Members since the last meeting, as set out in Annex 1 of the submitted report, be noted.
Reasons for Decisions
To inform the Cabinet of decisions taken by Members under delegated authority. Minutes: RESOLVED:
That the decisions taken by the Leader, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Members since the last meeting, as set out in Annex 1 of the submitted report, be noted.
Reasons for Decisions
To inform the Cabinet of decisions taken by Members under delegated authority. |
|
|
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
Additional documents: Minutes: RESOLVED 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 paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.
PART TWO – IN PRIVATE
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS OF BUSINESS WERE CONSIDERED IN PRIVATE BY THE CABINET. SET OUT BELOW IS A PUBLIC SUMMARY OF THE DECISIONS TAKEN.
|
|
|
Awards of Contracts for the Delivery of Post 16 Further Education Services to Young People with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND)
Minutes: This item is the confidential annex to item 8 on the agenda and the recommendation is set out in the main (part 1) report. |
|
|
Salfords Fire Station and Secondary Control Facility
Decision: 1. That the freehold acquisition of units 14/15 iO Centre, Salfords, Surrey be approved, at a cost set out in the submitted report. 2. That the premises will require a fit out in relation to the fire station be noted and once these costs have been confirmed, a further report will be presented in accordance with recommendation (4).
3. That the premises will require a fit out in relation to the secondary control facility be noted and once these costs have been confirmed, a further report will be presented in accordance with recommendation (4). 4. That the approval of the fit out costs of the units in relation to their use as a Fire Station and Secondary Control Room be delegated to the Strategic Director of Adult Social Care, in consultation with the Leader, the Cabinet Member for Assets and Regeneration Programmes and the Cabinet Member for Community Services.
5. That the Service will seek to develop plans for alternative savings (£0.9m) which are then reflected in the review of the Medium Term Financial Plan (2013-18) taking place in quarter 1 2013/14.
Reason for Decisions
To allow Surrey Fire & Rescue Service to provide fire cover in the area and improve efficiency and operational response of cover.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by either the Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee or the Communities Select Committee] Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Assets and Regeneration Programmes presented this report and said that he was delighted that two freehold units were available, which could be utilised for a new fire station and a secondary control facility, at the iO centre in Salfords.
The Cabinet Associate for Fire and Police Services said that local residents were supportive of the proposals for a new fire station in Salfords and requested that this decision was publicised.
RESOLVED:
1. That the freehold acquisition of units 14/15 iO Centre, Salfords, Surrey be approved, at a cost set out in the submitted report. 2. That the requirement for a fit out of the premises in relation to the fire station be noted and once these costs have been confirmed, a further report be presented in accordance with recommendation (4).
3. That the requirement for a fit out of the premises in relation to the secondary control facility be noted and once these costs have been confirmed, a further report be presented in accordance with recommendation (4). 4. That the approval of the fit out costs of the units in relation to their use as a Fire Station and Secondary Control Room be delegated to the Strategic Director of Adult Social Care, in consultation with the Leader, the Cabinet Member for Assets and Regeneration Programmes and the Cabinet Member for Community Services.
5. That the Service will seek to develop plans for alternative savings (£0.9m) which are then reflected in the review of the Medium Term Financial Plan (2013-18) taking place in quarter 1 2013/14.
Reason for Decisions To allow Surrey Fire & Rescue Service to provide fire cover in the area and improve efficiency and operational response of cover.
|
|
|
PUBLICITY FOR PART 2 ITEMS
Additional documents: Minutes: RESOLVED:
That non-exempt information relating to items considered in part 2 of the meeting may be made available to the press and the public, as appropriate, in relation to Salfords Fire Station.
|