Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 395 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: Minutes: Apologies were received from Mr Peter Martin. |
|
|
Minutes of Previous Meeting: 20 September 2016
The minutes will be available in the meeting room half an hour before the start of the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 20 September were agreed and signed by the Chairman. |
|
|
Declarations of Interest
To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.
Notes: · In line with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, declarations may relate to the interest of the member, or the member’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom the member is living as husband or wife, or a person with whom the member is living as if they were civil partners and the member is aware they have the interest. · Members need only disclose interests not currently listed on the Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests. · Members must notify the Monitoring Officer of any interests disclosed at the meeting so they may be added to the Register. · Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest. Additional documents: Minutes: None received. |
|
|
Procedural Matters
Additional documents: |
|
|
Members' Questions
The deadline for Member’s questions is 12pm four working days before the meeting (12 October 2016).
Additional documents: Decision: A question was received from Mrs Hazel Watson and a response can be found at Appendix 1. Minutes: A question was received from Mrs Watson and a response can be found at Appendix 1.
Mrs Watson stated that reference to a recent office occupancy survey undertaken by the Council had been made at a meeting of the Council Overview Board on 6 October 2016. In light of the response, Mrs Watson asked to receive the results from the most recent office occupancy survey completed by the Council. The Cabinet Member for Business Services informed Mrs Watson that the Council had undertaken a utilisation survey and that this may have been what was discussed at the Council Overview Board. The Cabinet Member confirmed that a copy of the results from the most recent office occupancy survey would be circulated to Mrs Watson. |
|
|
Public Questions
The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (11 October 2016).
Additional documents: Decision: A question was received from XXXX a response can be found at Appendix 2. Minutes: A question was received from Dominick Lemanski, a response can be found at Appendix 2. |
|
|
Petitions
The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received.
Additional documents: Decision: None received. Minutes: No petitions were received. |
|
|
Representations received on reports to be considered in private
To consider any representations received in relation why part of the meeting relating to a report circulated in Part 2 of the agenda should be open to the public. Additional documents: Decision: None. Minutes: No representations were received. |
|
A report has been received from the Economic Prosperity Environment and Highways Board. Additional documents: Decision: A report was received from the Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways Board regarding Winter Maintenance and a response to this can be found as Appendix 3. Minutes: A report was received from the Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways Board regarding Winter Maintenance and a response to this can be found as Appendix 3.
The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding indicated that the response to recommendations from the Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways Board tabled at the meeting outlined the manner in which the Council would seek to identify savings within its winter maintenance budget and that officers were working with Kier Group, the company contracted by the Council to provide winter maintenance services, to reduce the annual lump sum that the Council pays for these services. |
|
|
Surrey Safeguarding Adults Board Annual Report 2015-2016
The Surrey Safeguarding Adults Board is a statutory Board. Its responsibilities are set out in the Care Act and is headed by an Independent Chairman. Safeguarding Adults Boards nationally have a statutory duty to publish an annual report, the Surrey Safeguarding Adults Board Annual Report for 2015/16 is contained in Annex 1. This report is presented to the Cabinet by the Independent Chairman and complies with the statutory requirements under the Care Act 2014. The recommendation within this report supports the Council’s strategic ‘Wellbeing’ priority.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Social Care Services Scrutiny Board]
Additional documents: Decision:
RESOLVED:
That the Cabinet considered and noted the attached Surrey Safeguarding Adults Board Annual Report prior to it being published.
Reasons for Decisions
This annual report highlights the achievements of the Surrey Safeguarding Adults Board during the year and provides the Cabinet with an opportunity to understand the issues within the Adult Social Care directorate in respect of safeguarding over the past year.
Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care introduced the report and stated that the Surrey Safeguarding Adults Board has a statutory duty to publish an annual report. Attention was drawn to page 17 of the report which highlighted some of the headline figures around safeguarding in Surrey. The Cabinet Member highlighted that there had been a reduction in the number of new safeguarding enquiries from the previous year but stated that the introduction of a cap on household benefits at £20,000 per annum may lead to this figure rising next year.
The Cabinet Member for Localities and Communities Wellbeing referenced the percentage of safeguarding enquiries which related to financial abuse and highlighted the work of Trading Standards in protecting vulnerable residents from being financially exploited by prosecuting unscrupulous traders that operated in the County.
Concerns were raised by the Cabinet Member for Wellbeing and Health in regard to the potential impact that the benefits cap could have on vulnerable residents in the County informing the Cabinet that there are a significant number of residents in Surrey who suffer from mental health problems or drug abuse issues who would be adversely impacted by the reduction in the amount of benefits that households can claim. She highlighted that Surrey County Council (SCC) would work closely with district and borough councils to mitigate the impact of the benefits cap on vulnerable residents.
Other Cabinet Members made the following comments:
· Attention was drawn to the contribution oft Surrey Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) to safeguarding in the County through newly implemented Safe and Well Visits. Fire officers visited elderly and vulnerable residents signposting them to relevant services · 18 October was Modern Slavery Awareness day and it was fitting that Cabinet was considering the Surrey Safeguarding Board Annual Report given that human trafficking was a reality throughout the UK including in Surrey. · Surrey is often viewed as an affluent county but this masks the fact that they are a significant number of vulnerable residents who require protection for a variety of reasons. · The Surrey Safeguarding Adults Board was congratulated for the great work it does in protecting elderly, disabled and otherwise vulnerable individuals in the County.
RESOLVED:
That the Cabinet considered and noted the attached Surrey Safeguarding Adults Board Annual Report prior to it being published.
Reasons for Decisions
This annual report highlights the achievements of the Surrey Safeguarding Adults Board during the year and provides the Cabinet with an opportunity to understand the issues within the Adult Social Care directorate in respect of safeguarding over the past year. |
|
|
Sustainability and Transformation Plans
Surrey County Council is playing an important role in the development of the three Sustainability and Transformation Plans (STPs) across Surrey. These Plans will play a pivotal role in shaping the future health and care landscape across Surrey.
This report follows the Sustainability and Transformation Plans report presented to the Cabinet on 21 June 2016 – it provides an update on the emerging STPs and asks for delegated authority to sign off the STPs on behalf of the County Council. [The decisions on this item can be called in by the Social Care Services Board and/or the Wellbeing and Health Scrutiny Board]
Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
That the Cabinet:
1. noted the update on the emerging NHS Sustainability and Transformation Plans; 2. approved the terms of reference for, and the County Council’s participation in, the Surrey Heartlands Sustainability and Transformation Plan Committees in Common; 3. appointed the Chief Executive, the Cabinet Member for Wellbeing and Health and the Strategic Director Adult Social Care and Public Health to Surrey County Council’s Sustainability and Transformation Committee (as part of the Surrey Heartlands STP Committees in Common arrangement) and delegates authority for them to sign off the final Surrey Heartlands Sustainability and Transformation Plan submission and delivery plan; and 4. delegated authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Wellbeing and Health, to sign off the Frimley Health and Care and Sussex and East Surrey Sustainability and Transformation Plan submissions and associated delivery plans on behalf of the Council through its membership of the relevant Sustainability and Transformation Plan Transformation / Programme Boards. Reasons for Decisions
The deadlines and tight timescales for the preparation and submission of NHS Sustainability and Transformation Plans necessitate the recommendation included in this report to delegate authority to sign off the STPs on behalf of the Council ahead of the deadline for submission to NHS England.
Minutes: An introduction to the report was provided by the Cabinet Member for Wellbeing and Health who outlined that Sustainability and Transformation Plans (STP) represent a bid by NHS England to create place-based systems of health and social care delivery. The rationale for STPs was to tackle financial challenges by utilising available resources more effectively while simultaneously introducing local accountability into the delivery of healthcare services which was vital to the establishment of successful STPs. The Cabinet Member stated that there would be three STPs which would operate in Surrey, East Surrey and Sussex STP, Frimley Heallth and Care STP and Surrey Heartlands STP with the latter covering roughly 80% of Surrey residents. It was highlighted that the Chief Executive of SCC was Chairman of the Surrey Heartlands STP Transformation Board, one of only three local authority Chairman for Transformation Boards across the 44 STP footprints. The Cabinet Member for Wellbeing and Health further stated that Surrey Heartlands STP had introduced a Committee in Common to facilitate open and transparent decision-making as well as providing the opportunity for residents to challenge decision-makers.
The Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement drew attention to the Ofsted Inspection of SCC’s Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) service and stated that she had been impressed by the close partnership working between the Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCG), healthcare providers and the County Council. The Cabinet Member stressed that co-commissioning and close collaboration between health and social care commissioners and providers are at the heart of STPs and this would deliver better outcomes for residents.
The Leader of the Council noted his thanks to the Chief Executive for the work that he had done in supporting CCGS to put STP packages together, particularly Surrey Heartlands STP which had been recognised nationally as a robust plan.
RESOLVED:
That the Cabinet:
1. noted the update on the emerging NHS Sustainability and Transformation Plans; 2. approved the terms of reference for, and the County Council’s participation in, the Surrey Heartlands Sustainability and Transformation Plan Committees in Common; 3. appointed the Chief Executive, the Cabinet Member for Wellbeing and Health and the Strategic Director Adult Social Care and Public Health to Surrey County Council’s Sustainability and Transformation Committee (as part of the Surrey Heartlands STP Committees in Common arrangement) and delegates authority for them to sign off the final Surrey Heartlands Sustainability and Transformation Plan submission and delivery plan; and 4. delegated authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Wellbeing and Health, to sign off the Frimley Health and Care and Sussex and East Surrey Sustainability and Transformation Plan submissions and associated delivery plans on behalf of the Council through its membership of the relevant Sustainability and Transformation Plan Transformation / Programme Boards.
Reasons for Decisions
The deadlines and tight timescales for the preparation and submission of NHS Sustainability and Transformation Plans necessitate the recommendation included in this report to delegate authority to sign off the STPs on ... view the full minutes text for item 199/16 |
|
Consultation with families, schools and other stakeholders has identified a significant opportunity to improve the speech and language therapy service for children and young people in Surrey.
In response to this feedback, Cabinet agreed a joint commissioning strategy between Surrey County Council and Surrey Clinical Commissioning Groups in May 2015. Cabinet agreed that speech and language therapy services for mainstream schools would be delivered directly by Surrey County Council and services for specialist settings would be delivered by schools. New arrangements for this service would be implemented from September 2016.
This paper details the principles for TUPE arrangements as the service moves towards implementation. It also outlines the proposal to bring the service for specialist settings into Surrey County Council to sit alongside the mainstream service and changes to joint commissioning arrangements between Surrey County Council and Surrey Clinical Commissioning Groups for the Special School Nursing Service provided to children and young people in Surrey special schools.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Education and Skills Board] Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
It is recommended that the Cabinet agree that:
1. Surrey County Council will continue to jointly commission the Specialist School Nursing service with Surrey Clinical Commissioning Groups.
2. the speech and language therapy service for special schools and specialist settings will be transferred to Surrey County Council alongside the mainstream school service from April 2017
3. That approximately 64 staff will transfer across to Surrey County Council from April 2017.
Reasons for Decisions
Speech and Language Therapy
In February 2014, Cabinet agreed to issue new contracts to Virgin Care Services Ltd and CSH Surrey Ltd for an additional three years whilst joint commissioning arrangements were agreed with Health. These contracts expire in March 2017; therefore there is a requirement for new service arrangements to be in place from April 2017.
In May, 2015, Cabinet agreed the following decisions regarding the future joint commissioning and delivery of a Speech and Language Therapy Service in Surrey:
1. that the Cabinet approves the draft commissioning strategy and the five joint commissioning principles within the strategy; 2. that the Cabinet agrees in principle to the realignment of commissioning responsibilities for the Council and Surrey Clinical Commissioning Groups; 3. that the Cabinet agrees for work to continue in developing a detailed costing model for a new speech and language therapy service. At this stage it is estimated to mean an increase of £377,000 in the Council’s budget, to be made available from the Schools’ High Need Block and will be subject to Schools Forum approval in June; and 4. that the Cabinet agrees that the new speech and language therapy service should be procured through devolving funding directly to special schools and specialist centres and bringing the mainstream service in-house to the Council. This service will be fully in place from September 2016.
The joint commissioning strategy agreed between Surrey County Council (SCC) and Surrey Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCG) means the realignment of commissioning responsibilities for each organisation. SCC will become responsible for commissioning the school aged services and Surrey CCGs will re-direct resource into Early Years.
This Cabinet paper sets out further changes to the proposals detailed in the May 2015 Cabinet paper. These changes are:
· postponing the implementation date from September 2016 to April 2017. This date was put back whilst discussions took place with current providers of the service. Following further dialogue, both providers were satisfied that their concerns were being addressed and implementation could progress; and
· bringing the service for specialist settings (Surrey special schools and specialist centres) into SCC to sit alongside the mainstream service.
A jointly commissioned service that brings the school-aged service into SCC will offer the following benefits. These include:
· a service that achieves value for money – where the therapy service will be educationally focused and child-centred; · reducing the gap in accessing speech and language therapy input between children and young people who have an Education, Health and Care plan and those that do not; · offering a school-based delivery model rather than ... view the full decision text for item 200/16 Minutes: An introduction to the report was provided by the Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement who highlighted that the delivery of Speech and Language Therapy services in Surrey had been patchy over the past few years. The recommendations outlined in the report were designed to improve how these services were delivered. Members were informed that the recommendations within the previous report considered by Cabinet at its meeting in May 2015 could not be agreed with schools and so it had been concluded that the best way to deliver an effective Speech and Language Therapy Service would be for SCC to manage it centrally. The Cabinet Member stressed that this would enable the development of a more consistent, streamlined and cost efficient service and that responsibility for funding would continue to be split between the Council in the sum of £2.8m which is provided from the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) and the CCG's with an estimated current spend of £1.7m. She further advised that the Council would not incur additional costs for the provision of pensions for speech and language therapists TUPEd over to the Council as a result of the proposed changes to the delivery of this service.
The Cabinet Associate for Children and Families Wellbeing stated that moving to a centralised model for the delivery of Speech and Language Therapy services supported the strategic goals of the SEND 2020 programme by focusing delivery around customers and service users. The aim was to enable children who require speech and language therapy to access these services at an early age and would therefore support inclusive education by giving them the best possible chance of attending a mainstream school.
The Cabinet Member for Wellbeing and Health said that the report demonstrated how joint commissioning with healthcare partners can create better services for residents not only in relation to Speech and Language Therapy but also specialist school nurses who help to ensure that children with an Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCP) can attend mainstream schools.
RESOLVED
It is recommended that the Cabinet agree that:
1. Surrey County Council will continue to jointly commission the Specialist School Nursing service with Surrey Clinical Commissioning Groups.
2. the speech and language therapy service for special schools and specialist settings will be transferred to Surrey County Council alongside the mainstream school service from April 2017
3. That approximately 64 staff will transfer across to Surrey County Council from April 2017.
Reasons for Decisions
Speech and Language Therapy
In February 2014, Cabinet agreed to issue new contracts to Virgin Care Services Ltd and CSH Surrey Ltd for an additional three years whilst joint commissioning arrangements were agreed with Health. These contracts expire in March 2017; therefore there is a requirement for new service arrangements to be in place from April 2017.
In May, 2015, Cabinet agreed the following decisions regarding the future joint commissioning and delivery of a Speech and Language Therapy Service in Surrey:
1. that the Cabinet approves the draft commissioning strategy and ... view the full minutes text for item 200/16 |
|
|
Local Government Finance Settlement - Technical Consultation
On 15 September 2016 the Department for Communities and Local Government issued a technical consultation paper on the 2017/18 Local Government Finance Settlement.
The consultation covers a number of funding areas and seeks the views of local authorities and their representative bodies. The areas covered particularly affecting Surrey County Council include the four year offer; the methodology for distributing the improved Better Care Fund; council tax referendum principles, the business rates revaluation and more indirectly, the treatment of areas piloting 100% retention of business rates.
As a key part of its financial sustainability strategy, the council will respond to this consultation and input into other representative bodies’ responses. The deadline for responses is 28 October 2016.
Annexes 1 and 2 to this report will be tabled at the meeting.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Council Overview Board]
Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
1. That the Council’s response to the consultation paper (Annex 1 of the submitted report), be approved. 2. That the Leader’s covering letter to the Department for Communities and Local Government (Annex 2 of the submitted report) be approved. Reasons for Decisions Surrey County Council (SCC) is facing a significant financial challenge in creating a balanced and sustainable budget for 2017/18 and beyond. The methodologies to distribute resources within the Local Government Finance Settlement will have a material impact on the council’s funding.
Minutes: The Leader of the Council opened the item by welcoming the introduction of a technical consultation by Government. He drew attention to the challenging financial position that SCC was in as a result of the four year funding settlement proposed by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). He highlighted that the four year funding settlement offered by DCLG would mean that SCC would not only lose its Revenue Services Grant from the Government but would be required to pay £17 million back to the Exchequer annually. This was compounded by a reduction in funding provided to Surrey through the Better Care Fund (BCF) which would fall to £1.5 million by 2019/2020. Furthermore, the 2% increase in the Social Care Precept allowed by Central Government would not be enough to cover the cost of the rising demand for Adult Social Care services in the County. The Leader of the Council also expressed concern about the local government funding formula used to determine the allocation of grant funding to local authorities which is based on deprivation and the ability to raise council tax rather than the numbers of older people, those with learning disabilities and children with special education needs. In order to address the funding gap faced by SCC, the Leader of the Council advised that he has proposed the following solutions to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:
a) Enable an additional ASC precept – to allow SCC to increase the precept to meet need – and not impose an arbitrary 2% cap.
b) Review Improved Better Care Fund allocations so SCC receives the £25m it is entitled to
c) Agreement that SCC’s Revenue Services Grant will not go negative in 2019/20
Other Cabinet Members made the following comments:
· reducing Surrey’s share of the Better Care Fund allocation would have an adverse impact on acute hospital trusts whose costs would rise as a result of increased delays in discharging elderly and vulnerable patients from hospital. The CCGs should use their voice to put pressure on the Government not to reduce Surrey’s share of the Better Care Fund. · There would be serious implications for SCC if it did not secure a fairer funding settlement from DCLG and may require the Council to reset its budget. It is vital to continue talking to the Secretary of State as well as Surrey’s MPs to ensure that the County Council receives fair funding from the Government. · It was unfair for residents to be funding services in other local authority areas to the tune of £17 million a year. · Decreased funding for SCC would lead to reductions in frontline services for residents · Surrey suffers from the preconception that it is affluent which masks the fact that poor people and communities still exist in the County and this is exacerbated by the high cost of living.
RESOLVED:
1. That the Council’s response to the consultation paper (Annex 1 of the submitted report), be approved. 2. That the Leader’s covering letter to ... view the full minutes text for item 201/16 |
|
|
Finance and Budget Monitoring Report to 30 September 2016
The Council takes a multiyear approach to its budget planning and monitoring, recognising the two are inextricably linked. This report presents the Council’s financial position as at 30 September 2016 (month six). The annex to this report gives details of the Council’s financial position and will be tabled at the meeting.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Council Overview Board] Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED: 1. That the forecast revenue budget outturn for 2016/17 is a +£22.4m overspend (Annex, paragraph 1 of the submitted report) be noted. 2. That the forecast efficiencies and service reductions for 2016/17 is £60.3m (Annex, paragraph 32 of the submitted report) be noted. 3. That the quarter end positions for: balance sheet, earmarked reserves, debt and treasury management (Appendix, paragraphs App 8 to App 32 of the submitted report) be noted. 4. That the Section 151 Officer’s commentary, Financial and Value for Money Implications and the Monitoring Officer’s Legal Implications commentary (main report, paragraphs14 to 18 of the submitted report) be noted. 5. That Members and officers should act urgently to identify, agree and implement actions to reduce the 2016/17 overspend (Annex, paragraph 4 of the submitted report) 6. That the Cabinet and other leading members to bring the council’s budget issues to the attention of Surrey’s MPs (Annex, paragraph 5 of the submitted report) 7. That a request to reprofile Surrey Fire & Rescue Service’s capital budget (Annex, paragraph 42 of the submitted report) be approved. 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.
Minutes: The Budget Monitoring report was introduced by the Leader of the Council who reiterated the significant challenges which existed to SCC’s long term financial sustainability which included a forecast overspend of £22.4 million for 2016/17. He highlighted that urgent action would be required to tackle this overspend and to present a balanced budget to Full Council at its meeting in February 2017.
The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Wellbeing and Independence indicated that increased demand for services presented significant budget challenges for the Adult Social Care Directorate. ASC had successfully reduced the average cost of social care packages which had achieved savings for the Directorate but advised that these had been offset by the increase in volume of those requiring social care packages from the Council. The Cabinet Member stated that forecast spend for ASC in the financial year would be around £389 million but this would be contingent on winter demand as well as the financial resilience of residential and home-based care providers.
The Cabinet Member for Children and Families Wellbeing advised that the Children’s Services had a projected overspend of £4.3 million for the 2016/17 financial year. She highlighted that it was vital to maintain strong child protection and social work services despite demand for these service growing faster than anticipated. This was compounded by the fact that Children’s Services was also providing for young people with increasingly complex needs some of whom required care packages that could cost the Council up to £300,000 annually. Child asylum seekers also represented an additional financial burden on SCC as the funding that the Government provided for asylum seeking children placed in Surrey did not fully cover the costs that the Council incurred by looking after them.
The Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement detailed the financial challenges that were being faced by schools in the County. Surrey receives the lowest funding per pupil of any local authority in England which meant that many schools were struggling to present balanced budgets. The Cabinet was informed that Schools were also finding it challenging to recruit and retain teaching staff as a result of the high cost of living in Surrey and the fact that schools in London could afford to pay teachers much more competitive salaries. The Cabinet Member did, however, advise that savings were being made through the implementation of the SEND 2020 strategy which would create an improved and more cost-effective service.
The Cabinet Member for Business Services and Resident Experience drew attention to significant underspends in a number of service areas that had been delivered by the Council and which demonstrated the extent of the action that would be required in order for SCC to achieve a balanced budget. This could include considering the possibility of SCC only delivering on its basic statutory duties. The Cabinet Member further highlighted the impact of quantitative easing which was having an adverse impact on the Council’s ability to accrue savings.
Other members of the Cabinet made the following comments: ... view the full minutes text for item 202/16 |
|
|
Leadership Risk Register
The Surrey County Council Leadership Risk Register is presented to Cabinet each quarter and this report presents the Leadership Risk Register as at 31 August 2016.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Council Overview Board]
Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
That the content of the Surrey County Council Leadership risk register (Annex 1 of the submitted report) be noted and the control actions put in place by the Statutory Responsibilities Network be endorsed.
Reasons for Decisions
To enable the Cabinet to keep Surrey County Council’s strategic risks under review and to ensure that appropriate action is being taken to mitigate risks to a tolerable level in the most effective way.
Minutes: Attention was drawn to L1 on the Leadership Risk Register by the Cabinet Member for Business Services and Resident Experience who indicated that a lack of funding leading to significant constraints on the delivery of Council Services was no longer simply a risk but rather a reality. All mitigation measures had been exhausted to secure fair funding and SCC was now facing a watershed moment in terms of funding services.
The Leader stressed that the challenges in the midst of which SCC now found itself was not as a result of incompetence or poor financial management on the part of the Council but rather changes to allocation of the Revenue Services Grant which would result in SCC owing the Exchequer £17 million annually.
Other Cabinet Members made the following comments:
· The involvement of scrutiny boards in considering risks to the Council was welcomed as it is vital that all Members are aware of potential challenges that have been identified.
· Consideration should be given to reviewing L1 on the Leadership Risk Register to indicate that this was no longer a risk but rather an actual issue that the Council was required to tackle.
RESOLVED:
That the content of the Surrey County Council Leadership risk register (Annex 1 of the submitted report) be noted and the control actions put in place by the Statutory Responsibilities Network be endorsed.
Reasons for Decisions
To enable the Cabinet to keep Surrey County Council’s strategic risks under review and to ensure that appropriate action is being taken to mitigate risks to a tolerable level in the most effective way.
|
|
|
Street lighting - introduction of a part night lighting programme
Surrey County Council’s street lights consume nearly 25 million kilowatt hours of electricity and generate around 12,500 tonnes of CO2 each year which currently costs the Council £3 million per annum.
Increasing energy costs and the significant environmental impact of street lighting consumption places a responsibility on the Council to ensure it is using its infrastructure efficiently and cost effectively. This includes ensuring the lights are on full power when needed but that lighting is adapted when this is less so – for example, the vast majority of Street Lights are currently dimmed by up to 50% power from 2200 – 0530 hours each night.
Following a consultation, in which over 75% of respondents expressed support, this report proposes that some street lights in Surrey are turned off for part of the night. Turning off 44,000 street lights in residential areas would save the Council approximately £210,000 per annum along with reducing its CO2 “footprint”.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways Scrutiny Board]
Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
Reasons for Decisions
The introduction of the Central Management System for controlling street lights initially allowed the Council to introduce a dimming regime in 2010 but also provided the future flexibility to adapt lighting profiles including turning lights off. The expected £210,000 annual saving represents a 7% saving on the Council’s electricity budget. The reduction in CO2 output by 1250 tonnes per annum as a result not only contributes to the Council’s objective to reduce its CO2 impact but achieves a further £22,500 saving in avoided Carbon Tax.
The recommendations follow a review of the increasing number of local authorities implementing part-night lighting and the outcome of the research by the LANTERNS project as described in point 8. Whilst the Council’s public consultation identified concerns around personal safety and road safety with implementing part-night lighting, over 75% of respondents were in favour of switching off at least some street lights.
Building on good practice in other local authorities, the introduction of part-night lighting will only be implemented in locations where it is deemed safe to do so based on a combination of factors including a site visit and risk assessment and, consultation with the Council’s Road Safety Team and Surrey Police to mitigate against the concerns highlighted
Minutes: An introduction to the report was provided by the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding who advised that the Cabinet was being asked to take a decision on whether to reduce street-lighting further in certain areas of the County where it is deemed appropriate to do so following consultation with highways officers and police officers. Reducing the number of street-lights turned on would generate savings for SCC while also reducing the Council’s carbon footprint. The Council was aware that residents would have concerns about a lack of street lighting at particular locations, such as at train stations, and members of the public would therefore be able to request that the Council turn on street-lights in certain areas.
The Chairman of the Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways Board asked to contribute to this item. He expressed his support for the policy and advised the Cabinet that the significant savings identified through the introduction of part-night lighting would be achieved at relatively low risk to residents and the Council. He welcomed the Cabinet Member’s comments that residents would be able to make the case for street-lights being turned on in certain areas. The Chairman suggested that an amendment be made to the recommendations to state that requests from residents to change patterns of street-lighting would be given consideration by the Council. The Cabinet agreed the suggested amendments to the recommendations contained within the report.
Other Members of the Cabinet made the following comments:
· Important that residents will be able to request that lights remain on in certain locations as vital to ensure that shift workers and those returning home after a night out feel safe. · LED lights have the potential to deliver further savings for the Council and consideration was being given to developing an iterative process for introducing these across the County.
RESOLVED:
1. That the implementation of a part-night lighting policy across Surrey commencing with residential roads where assessed safe to do so be approved resulting in lights in selected roads being turned off from midnight to 0500 hours each night. 2. That authority be delegated to the Assistant Director for Highways and Transport in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding to determine the final programme of roads included and in future to vary the road categories to be included and future timings of part-night lighting in response to local circumstance where assessed to be safe to do so. Reasons for Decisions
The introduction of the Central Management System for controlling street lights initially allowed the Council to introduce a dimming regime in 2010 but also provided the future flexibility to adapt lighting profiles including turning lights off. The expected £210,000 annual saving represents a 7% saving on the Council’s electricity budget. The reduction in CO2 output by 1250 tonnes per annum as a result not only contributes to the Council’s objective to reduce its CO2 impact but achieves a further £22,500 saving in avoided Carbon Tax.
The recommendations follow a review of the increasing ... view the full minutes text for item 204/16 |
|
In their Strategic Economic Plans (SEPs), the two Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) covering Surrey, Enterprise M3 (EM3) and Coast to Capital (C2C), have set out their proposals for supporting economic development in their areas. Surrey County Council has worked with them to develop these plans which include improvements to transport infrastructure to provide economic benefits. Funding for the schemes included in the SEP comes from the Local Growth Fund (LGF), government funding through the LEPs. The arrangements require a local contribution to be made to the cost for these schemes and for this to be identified when business cases are submitted.
On 23 September 2014, the Cabinet approved arrangements for local contribution for the first tranche of three schemes of the 2015-16 SEP programme. On 14 December 2014 approval was given for local contribution for the second tranche of seven schemes of the same programme and, on 15 December 2015 the Cabinet approved further local contribution for the third tranche of four schemes of the same 2015-16 SEP programme.
Approval is now sought for the development and submission of business cases for a further four schemes; namely Wider Staines STP (phase 1), A30 London Road Camberley, Greater Leatherhead STP and A24 Epsom town centre Resilience, to be added to the third tranche of the 2016/17 SEP programme. The total estimated cost for these four schemes is £16.533m with a potential LGF contribution from the LEPs of £12.570m.
Approval is sought for a County Council contribution of approximately £1.789m for these schemes to be match funded from the existing Surrey County Council Local Growth Deal and Project Horizon capital budgets.
Partner and S106 developer committed contributions are currently £2.174m which could increase as discussions are still in progress with partners.
The business cases for these four schemes are planned to be submitted during the autumn /winter of 2016/17. Detailed design could commence on some of these schemes during Q4 of 2016/17.
The Council has been in discussions with the relevant borough councils to secure their share of the local contribution. It is a requirement that the County Council confirms that the specified local contribution is available when it submits the business cases.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Economic Prosperity Environment and Highways Board] Additional documents: Decision: Cabinet has deferred consideration of this item until such times as a sustainable budget for the County Council has been achieved.
Minutes: This item was deferred. |
|
|
River Thames Scheme Funding Contribution
Serious flooding from the River Thames causes severe hardship and suffering to many Surrey residents and damage to the County’s economy. Many are yet to fully recover from the last major flood event in 2013/14 and the risk of future flooding is significant.
The Environment Agency (EA) is responsible for flood risk management of the Thames and is developing a major flood alleviation scheme that would benefit the Surrey stretch of the Thames. It is called the River Thames Scheme (RTS) and is estimated to cost a total of £461m. The Government and other national bodies do not fully fund such flood alleviation schemes and therefore large contributions from other sources are required if schemes are to be successfully developed and built. There is currently a £213.6m funding gap for the RTS and the County Council is supporting work to secure further contributions.
Although there is a risk, at this stage, that the scheme may not receive the necessary funding, consents and Government approval to facilitate completion, it is proposed that the County Council contribute a total of £2.5m towards its development costs because of the importance of Thames flood protection to Surrey residents and businesses. The total cost of the development phase of the RTS is estimated at £55.7m and in the absence of further financial support from the Government at this stage, this “pump priming” investment by the County Council will help to get the scheme fully developed to a “shovel ready” state and this will increase its prospect of achieving full funding.
Further flood events of the scale of 2013/14 or greater would incur significant costs for the County Council in fulfilling its statutory duties and this risk would be reduced if the scheme is built.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways Scrutiny Board]
Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
That the Cabinet approved a total funding contribution of £2.5m from 2016-20 towards capital activities in the development phase of the River Thames Scheme.
Reasons for Decisions
Cabinet has previously indicated its support for the scheme by approving provision of £2.5m in the Medium Term Financial Plan in March 2016. A decision is now required for the contributions to be enacted.
Although there is no specific statutory responsibility for the County Council to contribute to flood alleviation schemes, in its capacity as Lead Local Flood Authority SCC has a duty to develop a strategy for flood risk management and to adopt a co-ordinated and co-operative approach with other Risk Management Authorities under sections 9 and 13 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 respectively. Delivery of the RTS is both part of SCC’s strategy for flood risk management and a key element of its co-ordinated approach with partners; therefore a contribution towards delivery of the RTS will enable the Council to fulfil these particular statutory responsibilities.
Flooding is a significant concern to the residents of Surrey. The River Thames Scheme would significantly reduce the risk and impact of flooding to a number of communities in the County and provision of this funding would assist with the development of the scheme and will show a strong commitment to supporting the EA and other partners in successfully delivering the scheme. Minutes: This item was introduced by the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding who advised that the decision of whether to commit £2.5m in funding to the River Thames Scheme would be a difficult one for the Cabinet to make given the financial challenges faced by the Council. He did, however, stress that the scheme would significantly reduce the risk of flooding to thousands of homes and businesses in Surrey. The scheme also constituted a great return on investment as SCC would receive a significant return on investment arising from the amount of money committed by other organisations to developing flood defences in Surrey. The Cabinet Member further stated that the River Thames Funding Scheme was the culmination of significant collaboration between a number of organisations including district and borough councils, other local authority areas, the Environment Agency and Local Enterprise Partnerships. Given the number of partners involved, any delay by SCC in deciding whether to commit funding to the project could create a domino effect which would collapse the scheme. Cabinet was further informed that discussions were ongoing with local businesses, other public sector organisations and utility companies in regard to making a contribution towards the River Thames Scheme and make up some of the existing shortfall in funding for the project.
The Chairman of the Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways Board was invited to speak on this item. He stressed the significant risk that Surrey faced as a result of flooding and asked Cabinet to agree the recommendations in the interests of residents and the economic prosperity of the County.
The Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement inquired as to whether there were any similar schemes being developed to improve flood defences on rivers and tributaries in Surrey. The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding responded by stating this scheme was a one-off in terms of the scope of the project but highlighted that there were a number of initiatives ongoing to bolster flood defences across the County.
The Leader of the Council announced that until SCC’s financial sustainability had been addressed, it would not be possible to commit funding to other flood defences of this nature as they fell outside of the Council’s statutory responsibilities.
RESOLVED:
That the Cabinet approved a total funding contribution of £2.5m from 2016-20 towards capital activities in the development phase of the River Thames Scheme.
Reasons for Decisions
Cabinet has previously indicated its support for the scheme by approving provision of £2.5m in the Medium Term Financial Plan in March 2016. A decision is now required for the contributions to be enacted.
Although there is no specific statutory responsibility for the County Council to contribute to flood alleviation schemes, in its capacity as Lead Local Flood Authority SCC has a duty to develop a strategy for flood risk management and to adopt a co-ordinated and co-operative approach with other Risk Management Authorities under sections 9 and 13 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 respectively. Delivery of the ... view the full minutes text for item 206/16 |
|
Surrey Fire Rescue Service (SFRS) wishes to conduct a trial of a new type of vehicle for responding to incidents with an option to roll-out the concept across the Service, where relevant, on completion of a successful trial.
An ‘Initial Response Vehicle’ (IRV) is a van sized vehicle (see Annex B) normally to be crewed by two firefighters, in comparison to the traditional LGV sized fire engine crewed by four firefighters. It has the capability and will be appropriately equipped and crewed to attend a defined range of routine incidents (see Annex C) and to provide support at more complex situations. This vehicle will also deliver a range of community safety activities and could play an important role in SFRS’s fleet, leading to both capital and revenue savings.
Subject to the results of the trial, the intention would be to recommend purchase of additional IRVs to replace/assist part of the current fleet.
This report, detailed in part two, also seeks approval to award a contract for an IRV concept for SFRS to commence on the 4November 2016
N.B. an annex containing exempt information is contained in Part 2 of the agenda – item 18.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Council Overview Board and/or the Resident Experience Board] Additional documents: Decision: Cabinet has deferred consideration of this item until such times as a sustainable budget for the County Council has been achieved.
Minutes: This item was deferred. |
|
|
Leader / Deputy Leader / Cabinet Member Decisions Taken Since the Last Cabinet Meeting
To note any delegated decisions taken by the Leader, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Members since the last meeting of the Cabinet.
Please note that the annex to this report will be circulated separately prior to the Cabinet meeting. Additional documents: Decision: 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. Minutes: RESOLVED:
That the 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
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. 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 the relevant paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.
|
|
|
Award a Contract For SFRS Initial Response Vehicle Concept From 4 November 2016.
This is a part 2 annex relating to item 16.
Exempt: Not for publication under Paragraph 3
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Council Overview Board and/or the Resident Experience Board] Decision: Cabinet has deferred consideration of this item until such times as a sustainable budget for the County Council has been achieved.
Minutes: This item was deferred. |
|
|
Property Transaction 1
Property Acquisition
Exempt: Not for publication under Paragraph 3
Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)
[The decision on this item may be called in by the Council Overview Board]
Decision: RESOLVED:
1. That Surrey County Council agrees to provide equity investment and a long-term loan to its wholly owned property company, Halsey Garton Property Ltd (HGP), as detailed in paragraphs 11 to 13 of the submitted report. 2. That Legal Services be authorised to agree appropriate contractual arrangements for the provision of financing on behalf of the Council with funds to be released upon the completion of appropriate due-diligence in relation to the property acquisition. 3. That HGP be authorised to acquire the freehold interest in the property as detailed in the submitted part 2 report for a total purchase cost, including associated costs of purchase, as set out in the submitted report.
Reasons for Decisions
The provision of financing to the Council’s property company to facilitate the proposed investment acquisition is in accordance with the Council’s Investment Strategy and provides an asset that will contribute to the creation of a diversified portfolio over time to spread risk. The investment will deliver an ongoing income to the Council, enhancing financial resilience in the longer term.
Minutes: The Cabinet agreed that Recommendation 3 in the report should be amended so that it refers to the ‘total cost’ rather than the ‘purchase cost’.
RESOLVED:
1. That Surrey County Council agrees to provide equity investment and a long-term loan to its wholly owned property company, Halsey Garton Property Ltd (HGP), as detailed in paragraphs 11 to 13 of the submitted report. 2. That Legal Services be authorised to agree appropriate contractual arrangements for the provision of financing on behalf of the Council with funds to be released upon the completion of appropriate due-diligence in relation to the property acquisition. 3. That HGP be authorised to acquire the freehold interest in the property as detailed in the submitted part 2 report for a total purchase cost, including associated costs of purchase, as set out in the submitted report.
Reasons for Decisions
The provision of financing to the Council’s property company to facilitate the proposed investment acquisition is in accordance with the Council’s Investment Strategy and provides an asset that will contribute to the creation of a diversified portfolio over time to spread risk. The investment will deliver an ongoing income to the Council, enhancing financial resilience in the longer term.
|
|
|
Property Transaction 2
Property Acquisition
Exempt: Not for publication under Paragraph 3
Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)
[The decision on this item may be called in by the Council Overview Board] Decision: RESOLVED: 1. That Surrey County Council agrees provide equity investment and a long-term loan to its wholly owned property company, Halsey Garton Property Ltd (HGP) as outlined in paragraphs 10 to 12 of the submitted report. 2. That Legal Services be authorised to agree appropriate contractual arrangements for the provision of financing on behalf of the Council with funds to be released upon the completion of appropriate due-diligence in relation to the property acquisition. 3. That HGP be authorised to acquire the freehold interest in the property as detailed in the submitted part 2 report for a total purchase cost, including associated costs of purchase, as set out in the submitted report.
Reasons for Decisions
The provision of financing to the Council’s property company to facilitate the proposed investment acquisition is in accordance with the Council’s Investment Strategy and provides an asset that will contribute to the creation of a diversified portfolio over time to spread risk. The investment will deliver an ongoing income to the Council enhancing financial resilience in the longer term.
Minutes: The Cabinet was informed that Recommendation 3 in the report should be amended so that it refers to the ‘total cost’ rather than the ‘purchase cost’.
RESOLVED: 1. That Surrey County Council agrees provide equity investment and a long-term loan to its wholly owned property company, Halsey Garton Property Ltd (HGP) as outlined in paragraphs 10 to 12 of the submitted report. 2. That Legal Services be authorised to agree appropriate contractual arrangements for the provision of financing on behalf of the Council with funds to be released upon the completion of appropriate due-diligence in relation to the property acquisition. 3. That HGP be authorised to acquire the freehold interest in the property as detailed in the submitted part 2 report for a total purchase cost, including associated costs of purchase, as set out in the submitted report.
Reasons for Decisions
The provision of financing to the Council’s property company to facilitate the proposed investment acquisition is in accordance with the Council’s Investment Strategy and provides an asset that will contribute to the creation of a diversified portfolio over time to spread risk. The investment will deliver an ongoing income to the Council enhancing financial resilience in the longer term.
|
|
|
Property Transaction 3
Property Acquisition
Exempt: Not for publication under Paragraph 3
Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)
[The decision on this item may be called in by the Council Overview Board]
Decision: RESOLVED:
1. That Property Services be instructed to progress and submit a detailed planning application to enable the construction and development of a headquarter training and production facility as set out in paragraph 20 of the submitted report. 2. That Property Services commence the contractor selection programme, with pre-construction contracts to be awarded at SCC’s risk and full contract award pending receipt of a Resolution to Grant of a planning approval. 3. That Property Services conclude the negotiation of commercial terms with the proposed tenant and enter into an Agreement for Lease on a ‘subject to planning’ basis upon confirmation from the Chief Property Officer that the terms agreed with the tenant comply with S123 of the Local Government Act 1972. 4. That approval be delegated to proceed to the two stage construction process for Phase 2 of the project to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Business Services & Residence Experience, subject to the following pre-conditions: · receipt of a resolution to grant of a detailed planning consent; · completion of the Agreement for Lease with the tenant in line with the heads of terms; and · confirmation that agreed contracts do not exceed a gross capital cost as detailed in the submitted report, or where this is exceeded, it relates solely to Tenant works which are to be recovered in full.
Reasons for Decisions
To allow Surrey County Council to secure a significant, pre-committed and long term revenue stream in line with the Council’s stated Investment Strategy from the development of a bespoke and advanced headquarter training and production facility on a pre-let basis. This development means that there continues to be the opportunity to make available the remaining land area and offices within the Phase 1 construction just completed for emergency service use. Such accommodation may be required, subject to any necessary revised planning consent, in any future joint strategic partnership for a combined dispatch and control centre or shared operational office/training accommodation as part of the Public Service Transformation Network (PSTN).
Minutes: RESOLVED: 1. That Property Services be instructed to progress and submit a detailed planning application to enable the construction and development of a headquarter training and production facility as set out in paragraph 20 of the submitted report. 2. That Property Services commence the contractor selection programme, with pre-construction contracts to be awarded at SCC’s risk and full contract award pending receipt of a Resolution to Grant of a planning approval. 3. That Property Services conclude the negotiation of commercial terms with the proposed tenant and enter into an Agreement for Lease on a ‘subject to planning’ basis upon confirmation from the Chief Property Officer that the terms agreed with the tenant comply with S123 of the Local Government Act 1972. 4. That approval be delegated to proceed to the two stage construction process for Phase 2 of the project to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Business Services & Residence Experience, subject to the following pre-conditions: · receipt of a resolution to grant of a detailed planning consent; · completion of the Agreement for Lease with the tenant in line with the heads of terms; and · confirmation that agreed contracts do not exceed a gross capital cost as detailed in the submitted report, or where this is exceeded, it relates solely to Tenant works which are to be recovered in full.
Reasons for Decisions
To allow Surrey County Council to secure a significant, pre-committed and long term revenue stream in line with the Council’s stated Investment Strategy from the development of a bespoke and advanced headquarter training and production facility on a pre-let basis. This development means that there continues to be the opportunity to make available the remaining land area and offices within the Phase 1 construction just completed for emergency service use. Such accommodation may be required, subject to any necessary revised planning consent, in any future joint strategic partnership for a combined dispatch and control centre or shared operational office/training accommodation as part of the Public Service Transformation Network (PSTN).
|
|
|
PUBLICITY FOR PART 2 ITEMS
To consider whether the item considered under Part 2 of the agenda should be made available to the Press and public. Additional documents: Minutes: It was agreed that non-exempt information may be made available to the press and public, where appropriate. |