Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 231 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN. View directions
Contact: Vicky Hibbert or Anne Gowing 020 8541 9938 Email: anne.gowing@surreycc.gov.uk
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Apologies for Absence
Additional documents: Decision: Apologies were received from Ms Le Gal. Minutes: Apologies were received from Ms Le Gal. |
|
|
Minutes of Previous Meeting: 15 December 2015
Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 15 December 2015 were confirmed and signed by the Chairman. |
|
|
Declarations of Interest
Additional documents: Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
Procedural Matters
Additional documents: |
|
|
Members' Questions
Additional documents: Minutes: There were no questions received from Members. |
|
Additional documents: Decision: Questions were received from Julie Brown, Allen Johnson and Susan Darling and responses are attached as Appendix 1. Minutes: Questions were received from Julie Brown, Allen Johnson and Susan Darling and responses are attached as Appendix 1.
Mrs Brown asked a supplementary question regarding how the Newlands Corner drop in sessions would be advertised and was informed that this would be done through the website and social media.
Mrs Darling asked a supplementary question regarding whether Newlands Corner was a revenue stream in line with a statement made at 23 June 2015 Cabinet meeting. She was informed that she would receive a detailed reply outside of the meeting. |
|
Additional documents: Decision: A petition was presented regarding Newlands Corner containing 7,545 signatures. A response is attached as Appendix 2. Minutes: A petition was presented by Sally Blake regarding Newlands Corner containing 7,545 signatures.
Mrs Blake highlighted the following points when presenting the petition to the Cabinet: · Some visitors to Newlands Corner would not be able to afford the parking charges · A commercial development was unacceptable and would spoil the view · The play trail was not needed and the Council were spending £400k on non-essential works · Signatories did not believe that proper review and consultation had taken place · Asked the Cabinet to drop all proposals at Newlands Corner.
A response to this petition is attached as Appendix 2. |
|
|
Representations received on reports to be considered in private
Additional documents: Minutes: No representations were received.
|
|
Additional documents: Decision: Responses to reports from the Economic Prosperity and Environment and Highways Board and the Council Overview Board are attached as Appendices 3, 4 and 5. Minutes: Responses to reports from the Economic Prosperity and Environment and Highways Board and the Council Overview Board are attached as Appendices 3, 4 and 5.
The Chairman of the Economic Prosperity and Highways Board addressed the Cabinet and stated that he was pleased that the Cabinet agreed with the recommendations. He informed Members that he was impressed with the work that the member reference group had undertaken.
The Chairman of the Council Overview Board thanked the Cabinet for the response to the budget recommendations and stressed the frustration around the lack of information available. He urged the Cabinet to work closely with the Overview Board and to share information in good time. |
|
|
Confident in Surrey's Future: Corporate Strategy 2016 - 2021
Additional documents: Decision:
That the refreshed version of Confident in Surrey’s future, Corporate Strategy 2016-2021 be endorsed and that it be recommended for presentation at the County Council meeting on 9 February 2016 for approval alongside the Revenue and Capital Budget 2016-2021.
Reasons for Decisions:
By reconfirming a long term vision for the county and setting goals and key actions for the next financial year the refreshed Corporate Strategy provides a clear sense of direction for Council staff, residents, businesses and partner organisations. As part of the Council’s Policy Framework (as set out in the Constitution) the Corporate Strategy must be approved by the County Council.
Minutes: The Leader introduced the refreshed Corporate Strategy and informed Members that this would ensure that Surrey residents remain healthy, safe and confident about their future. He stressed that the Council continued to face challenges around delivering more with less financial resource and that the strategy helped to focus attention on what really mattered.
He explained that the strategy presented the Council’s key priorities and set out the strategic goals of wellbeing, economic prosperity and resident experience which were well recognised by staff. He said that there were 5 key actions to be achieved under each goal and that some of the priorities remained similar to last year and asked the Cabinet to endorse the refreshed strategy before it was presented to County Council for approval.
Members confirmed that they were keen to endorse the strategy and that despite the financial situation it was important to be ambitious and keep focussed for Surrey residents.
RESOLVED:
That the refreshed version of Confident in Surrey’s future, Corporate Strategy 2016-2021 be endorsed and that it be recommended for presentation at the County Council meeting on 9 February 2016 for approval alongside the Revenue and Capital Budget 2016-2021.
Reasons for Decisions:
By reconfirming a long term vision for the county and setting goals and key actions for the next financial year the refreshed Corporate Strategy provides a clear sense of direction for Council staff, residents, businesses and partner organisations. As part of the Council’s Policy Framework (as set out in the Constitution) the Corporate Strategy must be approved by the County Council.
|
|
|
Revenue and Capital Budget 2016/17 to 2020/21
Additional documents: Decision: That the following recommendations be made to the Full County Council on 9 February 2016: To note the following important features of the revenue and capital budget: 1. The Director of Finance’s statutory report says the budget for 2016/17 is only sustainable and robust if the council uses substantial reserves and capital receipts from the sale of assets, and crucially, receives significant transitional relief while an unprecedented scale of service transformation is developed and delivered going forward. (Annex 1 of the submitted report). 2. The Council will require transitional funding from Government of £20m to balance the 2016/17 budget in respect of the late announcement of a change to the distribution of the Revenue Support Grant, and a further £37m in 2017/18. 3. If the Council receives no transitional relief in the final settlement, the Leader will arrange an emergency Cabinet meeting to determine how to balance the 2016/17 budget. This is not expected to affect the council tax precept for 2016/17. 4. It is expected that the Final Settlement will set out requirements for reporting use of the adult social care precept. 5. At a date yet to be determined by Government, there will be an opportunity for the Council to accept the Government’s offer of a four year funding settlement as set out in paragraphs 15 to 19 of this report. Cabinet recommendations to Full County Council on the revenue and capital budget: 6. Increase the level of the general council tax by 1.99%. 7. Increase council tax by a further 2% for the adult social care precept. 8. Set the County Council precept for band D council tax at £1,268.28 which represents a 3.99% up-lift. 9. Agree to maintain the council tax rate set above after the Final Settlement. 10. Support the 2016/17 budget by using £17.2m from reserves as set out in paragraph 72. 11. Delegate powers to the Leader of the Council and the Director of Finance to finalise budget proposals and recommendations to full County Council updated to take into account new information in the Final Settlement. 12. Require the Chief Executive and the Director of Finance to continue their work to track and monitor existing MTFP efficiencies and to lead and oversee a Public Value Transformation programme of all service delivery to ensure the county council’s revenue budget becomes sustainable and to develop robust plans for further savings for the remaining years of this MTFP. 13. Approves the set up of a Public Value Transformation (PVT) Fund of £30m to meet the revenue costs of a transformation programme, to be funded by capital receipts from asset sales. 14. Approves the County Council’s £1681m gross revenue expenditure budget for 2016/17. 15. Agrees the capital programme specifically to: · fund essential schemes over the five year period (schools and non-schools) to the value of £635m including ring-fenced grants; · make adequate provision in the revenue budget to fund the revenue costs of the capital programme, including a borrowing requirement of £187m over the five ... view the full decision text for item 10/16 Minutes: The Leader of the Council introduced the report by stating that the Council was faced with a significant and unexpected shock cut of £50m for 2016/17. This also had an impact on the next 3 years by £37m in 2017/18, £17m in 2018/19 and £27m in 2019/20.
He acknowledged the 2% adult social care precept increase which amounted to £12m and recognised that council tax could be increased by 1.99% however the funding shortage resulted in the Council having to use £17.2m of reserves.
He went on to state that the Council would be undertaking a Public Value Transformation to review all services and a fund of £30m would be made available for this from the receipt of asset sales.
He said that the Council’s gross expenditure for 2016/17 would be £1681m (recommendation 14) and the capital expenditure would be £635m for 2016/20 (recommendation 15). He stressed that £20m of funding was needed now and £37m would be needed for 2017/18.
He highlighted issues with the Better Care Fund in 2019/20, the equalisation of school places funding and a £40m concern with Special Educational Needs.
Members were informed that the Cabinet were proposing a 3.99% increase in council tax to be approved at County Council on 9 February 2016.
Members raised the following points during the debate: · The unexpected nature of the changes had not been done under the normal consultation process. · That 58p in every £1 of council tax money goes to adult social care and the 2% adult social care precept was welcomed however with growth the council was still looking at a £12m shortage. · Government were urged to relook at the Better Care Fund grant cut back. · It was a shock reduction in the amount of expected settlement already received and this had given rise to uncertainty. · The national funding formula meant that Surrey received the lowest amounts per pupil and the high needs block had been frozen 2 years ago. Further school places were needed and this was a huge cost to the authority. · The Council has a long term commitment to support residents through its corporate strategy and through this 200 miles of road had been resurfaced which was not easy to achieve. · The Council would be going back to government and putting a case forward for transitional funding. · The work undertaken by the Director of Finance and her team was commended.
It was agreed that the following recommendations be made to the Full County Council on 9 February 2016:
To note the following important features of the revenue and capital budget: 1. The Director of Finance’s statutory report says the budget for 2016/17 is only sustainable and robust if the council uses substantial reserves and capital receipts from the sale of assets, and crucially, receives significant transitional relief while an unprecedented scale of service transformation is developed and delivered going forward. (Annex 1 of the submitted report). 2. The Council will require transitional funding from Government of £20m to balance the 2016/17 budget in ... view the full minutes text for item 10/16 |
|
|
Finance and Budget Monitoring Report - December 2015
Additional documents: Decision: That the report be noted, including the following: 1. That the council forecasts a £5.0m overall revenue budget underspend at year end, which includes use of £6.9m central government grant plus temporary use of £0.8m unplanned underspend against Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards budget to offset pressures in Adult Social Care, as set out in the Annex, paragraph 1 of the submitted report. 2. That services forecast to achieve £64.4m efficiencies and service reductions by year end, as set out in Annex, paragraph 31 of the submitted report. 3. That total forecast capital expenditure for 2015/16, including long term investments, is £225.5m, as set out in the Annex, paragraph 39 of the submitted report. 4. That the quarter end positions for: balance sheet, earmarked reserves, debt and treasury management be noted, as set out in Annex 1, paragraphs App 7 to 20 of the submitted report. 5. That Services’ management actions to mitigate overspends, were set out throughout the submitted report.
Reasons for Decisions:
This report is presented to comply with the agreed policy 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 Board]
Minutes: The Leader of the Council presented the budget monitoring report for the ninth month of the 2015/16 financial year, covering the period up to 31 December 2015. He stated that this saw the Council continuing to face ever more intense pressures and hard choices as service demand grew and funding declined.
He explained that in December, the Government’s Provisional Settlement set out severe, shock reductions in grant funding. In these circumstances, the budget would be sustainable provided that the Council received transitional funding from Government; that existing savings plans were delivered in full; and that considerable base budget cost reductions were quickly identified through the Public Value Transformation programme. These cuts, imposed centrally, almost inevitably meant some service reductions locally.
He confirmed, as stated at each Cabinet meeting that, the Council’s financial strategy had four key drivers to ensure sound governance in managing finances and providing value for money for Surrey residents.
These were:
Keep any additional call on the council taxpayer to a minimum That the current forecast end of year revenue position was for an underspend of -£5.0m and managing the budgets and overall resources to achieve an underspend this year was vital for giving some headroom and flexibility for managing future spending plans. He confirmed that he was confident Cabinet’s support for managers’ actions would make this the sixth consecutive year there was a small underspend or balanced outturn across the Council.
Overall, -£5.0m underspend was forecast at year end and most services forecast a balanced outturn or small underspend which was important for delivering services this year and sustaining capacity to do so in future. He highlighted the underlying demand and savings pressures within this, in particular Adult Social Care’s forecast balanced out turn includes £7.7m one off support.
Continuously drive the efficiency agenda That at the end of December, services forecasted delivering £64.4m efficiencies and of this, £36m had either already been implemented or was on track, £7m had some issues, £21m was additional in year or one off savings and only £0.5m is considered to be at risk.
Reduce the Council’s reliance on council tax and government grant income. That reducing reliance on government grants and council tax was key to balancing budgets over the longer term. The Revolving Infrastructure & Investment Fund was part of this strategy and forecasted investing £63m this year.
Continue to maximise our investment in Surrey That the Council had a £696m capital programme for 2015-20 to improve and maintain services, invest in Surrey and generate income for the Council and that the Council forecast capital investment of £225m this year.
Other Cabinet Members were invited to highlight the key points and issues from their portfolios, as set out in the Annex to the report.
RESOLVED: That the report be noted, including the following: 1. That the council forecasts a £5.0m overall revenue budget underspend at year end, which includes use of £6.9m central government grant plus temporary use of £0.8m unplanned underspend against Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards budget to ... view the full minutes text for item 11/16 |
|
Additional documents: Decision:
RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL:
Recommendation 1 That admission criteria are introduced for Year 3 entry to Beacon Hill Primary School for September 2017 as follows:
a. Looked after and previously looked after children b. Exceptional social/medical need c. Siblings d. Children for whom the school is the nearest to their home address e. Any other children
Reasons for Recommendation · As it is proposed to introduce a Published Admission Number for Year 3, the local authority has a duty to determine criteria which confirm how children would be admitted · The criteria are in line with those that exist for admission to Reception and this would ensure there is consistency in the way children are admitted to each intake · They are also consistent with the admission arrangements that exist for the majority of Surrey’s other community and voluntary controlled schools · It is supported by the school which has asked for a Year 3 intake to ensure vacancies can be filled when children drop out to the independent sector at the end of Year 2
Recommendation 2 That a new criterion for Chennestone Primary School is introduced for Year 3 in September 2017, to provide priority for children attending Beauclerc Infant School as follows:
a. Looked after and previously looked after children b. Exceptional social/medical need c. Siblings d. Children attending Beauclerc Infant School e. Children for whom the school is the nearest to their home address f. Any other children
Reasons for Recommendation · It would introduce a feeder link for Beauclerc Infant School where currently none exists · It would provide continuity and a clearer transition for parents, children and schools and would reduce anxiety for parents · It would maximise the opportunity for families to keep children together or at schools with agreed links · The schools are federated and share the same headteacher and this criterion would support their joint working · It is supported by the Headteacher and Governing Body of the federated Governing Body of Beauclerc Infant and Chennestone Primary schools · It is consistent with Surrey’s planning principles set out in the School Organisation Plan · Eligibility to transport is not linked to the admission criteria of a school and as such attendance at Beauclerc Infant School would not confer an automatic right to transport to Chennestone Primary School
Recommendation 3 That admission criteria are introduced for Year 3 entry to Cranleigh CofE Primary School for September 2017 as follows:
a. Looked after and previously looked after children b. Exceptional social/medical need c. Siblings d. Children for whom the school is the nearest to their home address e. Any other children
Reasons for Recommendation · As it is proposed to re-introduce a Published Admission Number for Year 3, the local authority has a duty to determine criteria which confirm how children would be admitted · The criteria are in line with those that exist for admission to Reception and this would ensure there is consistency in the way children are admitted to each intake · They are also consistent with the admission ... view the full decision text for item 12/16 Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement began by explaining the importance of the report that covered the admission arrangements Surrey’s community and voluntary controller schools and the co-ordinated admission schemes that would apply to all of Surrey’s state maintained schools for September 2017.
She informed Members that last September 25,000 parents had applied for school places for their children and that around 95% who had applied for primary school places and 96% who had applied for secondary school places were allocated one of their preferred schools.
She explained that this was a statutory report that had to be considered every year before the admissions arrangements were published in September for the following year, September 2017. She highlighted the 8 proposed changes within the recommendations which included:
· Beacon Hill Primary School (Hindhead) – Recommendation 1 · Chennestone Primary School (Sunbury-on-Thames) - Recommendation 2 · Cranleigh CofE Primary School (Cranleigh) – Recommendation 3 · West Ewell Infant School (Ewell) – Recommendation 4 · Start date to primary admissions round – Recommendation 5 · Published Admission Numbers for other community and voluntary controlled schools – Recommendation 6 · Admission arrangements for which no change is proposed – Recommendation 7 · Primary and secondary coordinated admission schemes that will apply to all schools for 2017 – Recommendation 8
She referred to the enclosures and appendices along with the equalities impact assessment which showed no negative impacts from the introduction of any of the new arrangements that were proposed.
She summarised by thanking the Education Service, in particular the Head of Schools Commissioning and Admissions and their team for all their efforts along with the Head of School Admissions and Transport.
Members agreed that it was a very well put together report and highlighted that it impacted on 80% of children in Surrey. They stated that they were very impressed with the way the service was being run and that changing the start date for applications was a sensible idea that would help parents in the long term.
RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL:
Recommendation 1 That admission criteria are introduced for Year 3 entry to Beacon Hill Primary School for September 2017 as follows:
a. Looked after and previously looked after children b. Exceptional social/medical need c. Siblings d. Children for whom the school is the nearest to their home address e. Any other children
Reasons for Recommendation · As it is proposed to introduce a Published Admission Number for Year 3, the local authority has a duty to determine criteria which confirm how children would be admitted · The criteria are in line with those that exist for admission to Reception and this would ensure there is consistency in the way children are admitted to each intake · They are also consistent with the admission arrangements that exist for the majority of Surrey’s other community and voluntary controlled schools · It is supported by the school which has asked for a Year 3 intake to ensure vacancies can be filled when children drop out to the ... view the full minutes text for item 12/16 |
|
|
Kier Contract Extension and Variation
Additional documents: Decision:
1. That the contract extension commitments and associated contract modifications, agreed with Kier together with the extension of the highway maintenance contract to its full term (31 March 2021) be approved. 2. That Highways and Transport develop proposals to accommodate the increased revenue cost within the budget from 2017/18, in line with paragraph 24 of the submitted report. Reasons for Decisions: Extending the Kier contract to its full term is the optimum commercial option at the current time. A value for money and market analysis exercise demonstrates that the current contract price is competitive and remains below Retail Price Index (RPIX) and tender price inflation. Although there is a revenue cost increase, extending the contract is the best value for the council. It is performing well, extending it will bring social and other benefits and the alternative carries significant financial and performance risks.
The option of retendering the contract has been considered as part of the decision making process but there is strong evidence to suggest that this is likely to result in a significant cost increase to Surrey in the current market. Increasing demand in a consolidated highway and construction sector fuelled by major infrastructure projects like HS2 and Crossrail (TFL), alongside a £50bn investment through Highways England in the strategic road network, has created a supplier led market which is enabling large contractors to command higher profit levels. The value for money analysis has also taken into account the additional cost to Surrey of re-procuring and mobilising a new highways contract, which would be around £1.2m - £1.8m.
Surrey has worked with Kier to develop an extension agreement for the remainder of the contract which delivers greater strategic alignment, value for money and improved services for residents. This includes an increase in the safety defect lump sums, to reflect the actual cost of this service, and the introduction of an annual cap on defects. The increased costs and transfer of risk will be balanced by an equivalent reduction in the costs of Capital schemes so that the economic balance of the contract is not altered. In addition, Kier will be providing additional social value through a number of initiatives, which are detailed in this report.
All these commitments will be enshrined in the Kier contract extension agreement. Although there is no significant change to the scope of the contract, there are a number of formal modifications required to the contract to deliver the commitments agreed.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways Scrutiny Board]
Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding introduced the report by reminding Members that the Council’s Highways and Transport core maintenance contract was with Kier. He stated that the original contract was set up in 2011 for a term of 6 years with options to extend. He explained that the proposal was to vary the contract instead of retendering and that a value for money analysis had been carried out and this showed that the costs of retendering would exceed the costs of the contract.
He went on to say that he believed the Kier contract aligned to the Council’s values and the Corporate Strategy. He referred to the 5 contractual extension commitments and their social values and highlighted plans for a construction academy and a social educational enterprise organisation.
He summarised by congratulating officers for their negotiations and stated that he felt it was a fair outcome for both the Council and Kier.
Members were supportive of the proposals and felt that the extension commitments provided a fantastic opportunity for young people and that Kier had delivered well against the existing contract.
RESOLVED:
1. That the contract extension commitments and associated contract modifications, agreed with Kier together with the extension of the highway maintenance contract to its full term (31 March 2021) be approved. 2. That Highways and Transport develop proposals to accommodate the increased revenue cost within the budget from 2017/18, in line with paragraph 24 of the submitted report. Reasons for Decisions: Extending the Kier contract to its full term is the optimum commercial option at the current time. A value for money and market analysis exercise demonstrates that the current contract price is competitive and remains below Retail Price Index (RPIX) and tender price inflation. Although there is a revenue cost increase, extending the contract is the best value for the council. It is performing well, extending it will bring social and other benefits and the alternative carries significant financial and performance risks.
The option of retendering the contract has been considered as part of the decision making process but there is strong evidence to suggest that this is likely to result in a significant cost increase to Surrey in the current market. Increasing demand in a consolidated highway and construction sector fuelled by major infrastructure projects like HS2 and Crossrail (TFL), alongside a £50bn investment through Highways England in the strategic road network, has created a supplier led market which is enabling large contractors to command higher profit levels. The value for money analysis has also taken into account the additional cost to Surrey of re-procuring and mobilising a new highways contract, which would be around £1.2m - £1.8m.
Surrey has worked with Kier to develop an extension agreement for the remainder of the contract which delivers greater strategic alignment, value for money and improved services for residents. This includes an increase in the safety defect lump sums, to reflect the actual cost of this service, and the introduction of an annual ... view the full minutes text for item 13/16 |
|
|
Prudential Ride London-Surrey 100 and Classic (PRLS)
Additional documents: Decision:
1. Cabinet agrees to host the Prudential Ride London-Surrey 100 and Classic across same route as in 2015 for the 2018 and 2019 events. (Note: the agreement is in place for 2016 and 2017) 2. Subject to the event continuing to be fully supported by the Mayor of London, the request from London/Surrey Cycle Partnership (the event organiser) for them to establish new route for a 46 mile event for 2016, be approved in principle. 3. That authority be delegated to the Strategic Director for Environment and Infrastructure, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Localities and Community Wellbeing and the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding to agree any changes that may be required prior to the 2018 and 2019 events taking place. Reasons for Decisions:
Recommendation 1 – The recommendation has been made to allow for the detailed plan for the 2018 and 2019 events to be started, the map of the route for the London-Surrey 100 and Classic is attached to the submitted report as Annex 1.
The event has received good feedback from those who were surveyed on the event day and has received national and international awards. Concerns remain as to the impact of the event on communities on the route particularly in the Leith Hill area that the event organiser will continue to address.
Recommendation 2 – As a response to the Cabinet Member’s direction to ensure that where possible roads are reopened as early as possible, the event organiser has put forward the proposal of the 46 mile route.
The benefits of the proposal are seen as: · Allowing the earlier road reopening on the western section of the route · The shorter route is likely to support the strategic objective of encouraging new cyclists to take part in the event · The shorter route is aimed at opening the event to new demographic groups who would be more likely to take part in the shorter event The detailed proposal document is attached to the submitted report as Annex 2. Recommendation 3 - The delegation will ensure that there is continued strategic and elected Member oversight of the event arrangements during the detailed planning phases of the event plan and that changes can be made to the event arrangements in a proactive manner to ensure the needs of residents, participants and spectators continue to be met.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Resident Experience Scrutiny Board]
Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Localities and Community Wellbeing informed Members of the Cabinet that the purpose of this report was to agree to allow the Prudential Ride London Surrey events to continue and to approve the introduction of a new 46 mile route.
He explained that the Prudential Ride London-Surrey 100 and Classic events were part of the wider Prudential Ride London festival and largely followed the Olympic road cycling race route making them a key part of the Olympic legacy. Members were reminded that the Prudential Ride London-Surrey 100 was an annual mass participation event for amateur cyclists and the Prudential Ride London-Surrey Classic was an elite race of 150 professional riders.
He highlighted the charitable element of the races and the income generation from sponsorship and informed Members that the race had won 7 national and international awards.
He went on to talk about the concerns raised by some communities along the route and explained that the Council had worked hard with the race organiser to address these which included the use of rolling road closures and a large amount of engagement with residents was planned.
He referred Members to further information on the new 46 mile race that had been proposed and to the equalities impact assessment that demonstrated that the event organiser has responded to points raised.
Members were pleased to see the introduction of the new route and commended the use of rolling road closures to ensure that roads open as quickly as possible after the race has passed. They felt that the event was a key aspect of the County’s Olympic Legacy and that the route that most cyclists wanted to follow, were the event routes for the Olympic Road race and time trial. Residents concerns were recognised and Members were pleased to see plans to ensure that roads were reopened in good time after the event. Members also agreed that the equality impact assessment identified a clear action plan to address issues.
RESOLVED:
1. Cabinet agrees to host the Prudential Ride London-Surrey 100 and Classic across same route as in 2015 for the 2018 and 2019 events. (Note: the agreement is in place for 2016 and 2017) 2. Subject to the event continuing to be fully supported by the Mayor of London, the request from London/Surrey Cycle Partnership (the event organiser) for them to establish new route for a 46 mile event for 2016, be approved in principle. 3. That authority be delegated to the Strategic Director for Environment and Infrastructure, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Localities and Community Wellbeing and the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding to agree any changes that may be required prior to the 2018 and 2019 events taking place. Reasons for Decisions:
Recommendation 1 – The recommendation has been made to allow for the detailed plan for the 2018 and 2019 events to be started, the map of the route for the London-Surrey 100 and Classic is attached to the submitted report as ... view the full minutes text for item 14/16 |
|
|
Orbis Public Law: Establishment of Shared Legal Service
Additional documents: Decision:
1. That the creation of a Legal Services partnership arrangement with Brighton & Hove City Council and East and West Sussex County Councils to be known as Orbis Public Law, with effect from 1 April 2016, be approved.
2. That the establishment of a Joint Committee as the governing body for Orbis Public Law to oversee the discharge of the Council’s Legal Services function be agreed.
3. That the attached terms of reference for the Joint Committee and the appointment of the Cabinet Member for Business Services and Resident Experience to that Committee be approved.
4. That officers develop a Business Case for a Limited Company (which would be jointly owned by the four authorities) as the vehicle for an Alternative Business Structure (ABS), in a form approved by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority and if appropriate, present this to Cabinet for approval in due course.
5. That authority be delegated to the Director of Legal, Democratic and Cultural Services, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Business Services and Resident Experience to take any action necessary or incidental to the implementation of the above including an Inter Authority Agreement between the partner authorities.
Reasons for Decisions:
Developing a single shared service will benefit residents and contribute to corporate priorities by enabling a reduction in the overall cost of legal services through economies of scale and reducing duplication. At the same time it will increase resilience and flexibility, allowing the partners to reduce reliance on external suppliers and to develop areas of excellence and expertise.
The creation of an ABS would widen opportunities to generate more external income to further reduce the costs of services to partner councils.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Council Overview Board]
Minutes: The Leader of the Council introduced the report on Orbis Public Law and explained that this was the creation of a shared legal service between Brighton & Hove City Council, East Sussex County Council, Surrey County Council and West Sussex County Council with effect from 1 April 2016.
He informed Members that the new arrangements would be overseen by a joint committee and that Members would still have control over the arrangements and staff would remain employed by their existing council. He also confirmed that each council would retain its own monitoring officer arrangements.
He said that working in partnership would enable all 4 councils to achieve savings and that this was set out in the business case. He went on to state the officers had also developed a business case for a limited company in order to be able to generate income.
Members confirmed that they were pleased to build on the good work done by the Orbis partnership and that it was a benchmark for the future.
RESOLVED:
1. That the creation of a Legal Services partnership arrangement with Brighton & Hove City Council and East and West Sussex County Councils to be known as Orbis Public Law, with effect from 1 April 2016, be approved.
2. That the establishment of a Joint Committee as the governing body for Orbis Public Law to oversee the discharge of the Council’s Legal Services function be agreed.
3. That the attached terms of reference for the Joint Committee and the appointment of the Cabinet Member for Business Services and Resident Experience to that Committee be approved.
4. That officers develop a Business Case for a Limited Company (which would be jointly owned by the four authorities) as the vehicle for an Alternative Business Structure (ABS), in a form approved by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority and if appropriate, present this to Cabinet for approval in due course.
5. That authority be delegated to the Director of Legal, Democratic and Cultural Services, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Business Services and Resident Experience to take any action necessary or incidental to the implementation of the above including an Inter Authority Agreement between the partner authorities.
Reasons for Decisions:
Developing a single shared service will benefit residents and contribute to corporate priorities by enabling a reduction in the overall cost of legal services through economies of scale and reducing duplication. At the same time it will increase resilience and flexibility, allowing the partners to reduce reliance on external suppliers and to develop areas of excellence and expertise.
The creation of an ABS would widen opportunities to generate more external income to further reduce the costs of services to partner councils.
|
|
|
Countryside Works Framework
Additional documents: Decision: 1. That the Countryside Works framework be awarded to the 34 listed contractors, as set out in the submitted part 2 report.
2. The authority to approve works via the framework, as detailed in the part 2 report, be delegated to Local Highway Services Group Manager and Countryside Group Manager.
3. Approval be given for the County Council to continue delegating related services, through formal agency agreements to District and Parish Councils to the Assistant Director for Highways, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding.
Reasons for Decisions:
A full tender process, both in compliance with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and Procurement Standing Orders, has been completed and the recommendations to provide best value for money. The tender process was constructed based directly on findings from a comprehensive Category strategy, a supplier engagement day and working group meetings.
Past Agency Agreements with District and Parish Councils have successfully enabled grass cutting, trees and weeds to be locally managed. New agency agreements will permit joined up working with local influence.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways Scrutiny Board]
Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding introduced the report and informed Members that this contract covered a number of areas including verges, roadside safety, grass cutting, tree surgery and others. He explained that it was a framework agreement that had been created following a successful open day. He said that due to the spread and nature of the works to be undertaken there was no one provider that could provide everything therefore this option increased certainty for residents and met the Council’s duty to provide these services.
It was queried whether this could be used by parish councils and confirmed that close work is undertaken with parishes in this area and this could be considered.
RESOLVED:
1. That the Countryside Works framework be awarded to the 34 listed contractors, as set out in the submitted part 2 report.
2. The authority to approve works via the framework, as detailed in the part 2 report, be delegated to Local Highway Services Group Manager and Countryside Group Manager.
3. Approval be given for the County Council to continue delegating related services, through formal agency agreements to District and Parish Councils to the Assistant Director for Highways, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding.
Reasons for Decisions:
A full tender process, both in compliance with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and Procurement Standing Orders, has been completed and the recommendations to provide best value for money. The tender process was constructed based directly on findings from a comprehensive Category strategy, a supplier engagement day and working group meetings.
Past Agency Agreements with District and Parish Councils have successfully enabled grass cutting, trees and weeds to be locally managed. New agency agreements will permit joined up working with local influence.
|
|
|
Leader / Deputy Leader / Cabinet Member Decisions Taken Since the Last Cabinet Meeting
Additional documents: Minutes: RESOLVED:
That the decisions taken by 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 Cabinet 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.
|
|
|
Countryside Works Framework
Minutes: Members were informed that this item contained the detailed contract information for item 13 and that due diligence had been undertaken.
RESOLVED:
1. That the Countryside Works Framework be awarded to the 34 listed contractors, as detailed in the submitted report. 2. The authority to approve works via the framework, as detailed in the part 2 report be delegated to Local Highway Services Group Manager and Countryside Group Manager. 3. The Assistant Director for Highways, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding, be authorised to enter into new agency agreements up to the duration of the framework contract for the delivery of grass cutting, weed control and arboriculture services with District and Parish Councils.
Reasons for Decisions:
A full tender process, in compliance with the requirement of Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and Procurement Standing Orders has been completed, and the recommendations provide best value for money for the Council following a thorough evaluation process.
|
|
|
Property Transactions
Decision: 1. That the sale of the property as outlined on the attached plan to the submitted report extending to 6 ha (15 acres) be approved to the company detailed in the report, on an unconditional basis for a proposed residential development of 180 units.
2. That a variation in the agreed sale price, as outlined in paragraph 15 of the submitted report, to reflect possible changes and circumstances as a result of the ongoing sale process, be delegated to the Chief Property Officer, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Business Services and Resident Experience and the Leader of the Council,
Reasons for Decisions:
In 2012, the Council signed a Statement of Intent with Reigate & Banstead Borough Council (R&BBC) in relation to the regeneration of the Preston Estate, part funded by the receipts from land sales by both authorities. The sale of the land is as a result of this initiative and was approved in principal at Cabinet in April 2012 where a forward capital contribution by Surrey County Council was provided towards the regeneration of the Preston Estate, in particular the re-provision of the Preston Youth and Leisure Centre. That decision was predicated on the sale receipts to the council of the De Burgh site, which was no longer required for service delivery nor capable of generating significant income, exceeding the capital contribution, and with the S106 monies from any sale further contributing to the regeneration programme.
Minutes: Councillors Michael Gosling and Nicholas Harrison addressed Cabinet as the local members for the area and stated that despite a lot of work being undertaken around regeneration they felt some financial matters still required attention.
The Cabinet agreed that supporting the regeneration of Preston had been a significant commitment by Surrey County Council and that the Council would look carefully at requests for small amounts of funding to complete the work.
RESOLVED:
1. That the sale of the property as outlined on the attached plan to the submitted report extending to 6 ha (15 acres) be approved to the company detailed in the report, on an unconditional basis for a proposed residential development of 180 units.
2. That a variation in the agreed sale price, as outlined in paragraph 15 of the submitted report, to reflect possible changes and circumstances as a result of the ongoing sale process, be delegated to the Chief Property Officer, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Business Services and Resident Experience and the Leader of the Council,
Reasons for Decisions:
In 2012, the Council signed a Statement of Intent with Reigate & Banstead Borough Council (R&BBC) in relation to the regeneration of the Preston Estate, part funded by the receipts from land sales by both authorities. The sale of the land is as a result of this initiative and was approved in principal at Cabinet in April 2012 where a forward capital contribution by Surrey County Council was provided towards the regeneration of the Preston Estate, in particular the re-provision of the Preston Youth and Leisure Centre. That decision was predicated on the sale receipts to the council of the De Burgh site, which was no longer required for service delivery nor capable of generating significant income, exceeding the capital contribution, and with the S106 monies from any sale further contributing to the regeneration programme.
|
|
|
PUBLICITY FOR PART 2 ITEMS
Additional documents: Minutes: It was agreed that non-exempt information may be made available to the press and public, where appropriate.
|