Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 384 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 Few. |
|
|
Minutes of Previous Meeting: 23 February 2016
Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 23 February 2016 were confirmed and signed by the Chairman.
|
|
|
Declarations of Interest
Additional documents: Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
Procedural Matters
Additional documents: |
|
|
Members' Questions
Additional documents: Decision: Four questions were received from Mr Essex. The responses are tabled as Appendix 1. Minutes: Four questions were received from Mr Essex. The responses are tabled as Appendix 1.
Mr Essex asked supplementary questions to question (2) and (4).
Question 2: As the 2% Adult Social Care (ASC) precept would not cover all ASC demand pressures, he asked the Leader of the Council whether he would continue to lobby the Government to ascertain whether the 2% ASC precept could be increased above 2%? The Leader confirmed that he would continue to lobby for fair funding for Surrey. He also said that ASC provision was a major issue for our society.
Question 4: He asked for clarity on the review process and the Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs), whether they would be carried out for individual organisations and for confirmation of when the information would be published. The Cabinet Associate for Adult Social Care, Wellbeing and Independence confirmed that there would be an EIA for each voluntary organisation. |
|
|
Public Questions
Additional documents: Decision: Questions were received from five members of the public. The responses are attached as Appendix 2. Minutes: Questions were received from five members of the public. The responses are attached as Appendix 2.
Mrs Blake referred to the public meeting held last week, where most of the people attending disagreed with the proposals for Newlands Corner and she asked whether the Cabinet would vote in favour of the recommendations before them today before considering any other options.
Mrs Brown made reference to the Leader’s Statement made at the County Council meeting on 15 March 2016, in which he said that residents were at the heart of every decision that the County Council made. She also referred to the press article concerning the proposed play trail at Newlands Corner, which had suggested that the County Council was already working with designers and therefore she asked if the Administration would be listening to concerns from residents?
The Leader of the Council responded to both supplementary questions. He said that over one million people lived in Surrey and that it was important to remember that when trying to improve facilities for all residents. He recognised that not everyone agreed with decisions made by the Cabinet and cited decisions made in the past, in particular the decisions relating to keeping Surrey libraries open. He said that he was proud to be a Surrey resident and that it was important to ensure that Surrey facilities were the best that the Council could make them.
The Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning confirmed that the Council had involved a wide number of groups, including schools and disability groups in its consultation on the play trail.
|
|
|
Petitions
Additional documents: Minutes: There were no petitions. |
|
|
Representations received on reports to be considered in private
Additional documents: Minutes: There were no representations. |
|
Additional documents: Decision: (i) A response to the report from the Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways Scrutiny Board in relation to the agreement between Surrey County council and Surrey Wildlife Trust to manage the countryside estate is attached as Appendix 3.
(ii) A response to the report from the Council Overview Board in relation to their review of Service Budgets 2016/17 is attached as Appendix 4. Minutes: (i) A response to the report from the Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways Scrutiny Board in relation to the agreement between Surrey County council and Surrey Wildlife Trust to manage the countryside estate is attached as Appendix 3.
(ii) A response to the report from the Council Overview Board in relation to their review of Service Budgets 2016/17 is attached as Appendix 4.
[Note: The Leader of the Council agreed to re-order the agenda and take item 10: The Agreement with Surrey Wildlife Trust for the management of the County Council’s Countryside Estate next]
|
|
Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
1. That the Surrey Wildlife Trust decision and recommendation be noted and endorsed. 2. That the Strategic Director for Environment and Infrastructure, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning and the Director of Legal, Democratic and Cultural Services be required to work with Surrey Wildlife Trust to ensure the business plan is delivered. Reasons for Decisions:
Approval of the recommendations will put in place a mechanism to make the management of the Countryside Estate more efficient whilst improving and maintaining the countryside, delivering improvements for visitors, reducing the Council's financial contribution to nil by December 2021, and agreeing the distribution of any surplus income thereafter.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways ScrutinyBoard]
Minutes: Both the Chairman, Chris Wilkinson and the Finance Director, Roger Wild from Surrey Wildlife Trust were in attendance for this item and were invited to speak.
Mr Wilkinson made the following points:
· This was an important paper, which provide the direction of travel for Surrey’s Countryside Estate · It recognised the severe budgetary constraints that the County Council was under · He supported the proposals and had worked hard with Council officers to get to this stage · The five year rolling business plan had been produced by Surrey Wildlife Trust (SWT), as part of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between SWT and Surrey County Council (SCC) · SWT was a conservation organisation · The proposals set out in the report provided an opportunity to generate income to help the estate, SCC and wildlife.
Mr Wild made the following points:
· That SWT had been working closely with the Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning · In relation to the strategic goals of SCC, these proposals ‘ticked all the boxes’ · Budget demands for other services meant that it was vital to make SWT self financing · He stressed the importance of protecting the environment and thanked SWT officers for the work that they had achieved during the last two years · Referred to the partnership meeting which had taken place the day before and provided confirmation that the trustees were supportive of this approach · That paragraphs 6 and 7 in the report set out the governance arrangements and those that had endorsed this approach, following detailed consideration of other options · The MoU formalised the commitment of SCC /SWT to work together and that the five year rolling business plan had taken considerable time to put together · Drew attention to the report from Knight Frank, commissioned by SCC Property Services, in relation to the Property Asset Management Plan · Confirmed that there would be closer joint working between SCC and SWT, which will be robust and accountable, using agreed key performance indicators · Finally, he said that there would be an annual review of the business plan by the Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways Board, plus an annual report to Cabinet.
Cabinet Members made the following points:
· That many residents would welcome the proposals · Norbury Park and the work that SWT had undertaken there had offered many opportunities for residents’ leisure time, including those for young people · The report set out the relationship between SCC and SWT · That the county of Surrey had large areas of green space. It was important to increase the number of residents who could enjoy access to it, as detailed in paragraph 23 of the report – public health implications · The SWT Finance Director was asked about the risk management and implications of the annual business cases. He responded by stating that future business plans would set out a number of different routes, including some trading opportunities and that there would be a number of different opportunities being considered to increase footfall. He also confirmed that SWT had recruited an income generation team. In relation to governance ... view the full minutes text for item 50/16 |
|
|
Medium Term Financial Plan 2016 - 2021
Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED (as amended): 1. The 2016/17 service strategies that will deliver the Corporate Strategy 2016?21, as set out in Annex 1 to the submitted report, be approved. 2. The detailed service revenue and capital budgets for the year 2016/17 and indicative budgets for the years 2017?21, including amendments resulting from the final Local Government Financial Settlement and other Government funding changes announced since 9 February 2016, as set out in Annex 1 to the submitted report, be approved. 3. The use of a further £7.5m of earmarked reserves to support the 2016/17 revenue budget, as detailed in paragraph 25 of the submitted report, be approved. 4. The proactive and systematic engagement of the County Council in responding to proposed changes in local government funding to ensure these changes do not further disadvantage Surrey, and the recognition of the costs of delivering services in Surrey be approved. 5. The highway maintenance capital budget for 2016/17 be increased by £5m, offset by a £5m reduction to the 2017/18 highway maintenance budget, as set out in paragraphs 55 to 56 of the submitted report. 6. The publication of the service revenue and capital budgets as the Medium Term Financial Plan 2016?21 be approved. 7. A £400 charge for arranging a funeral for an individual who has received Adult social Care services commissioned by the Council, where there is no one else to make these arrangements be noted. 8. The Director of Finance’s letter to the Department for Communities and Local Government confirming that the adult social care precept will be spent entirely on adult social care functions, as detailed in paragraph 11 of the submitted report be noted. 9. That a programme has been established in line with previous recommendations to deliver on Public Value Transformation that will identify base budget reductions to deliver up to £50m through additional continuing savings or funding, beyond those already in MTFP (2016?21), over the next two years to make the Council’s finances sustainable, as set out in paragraphs 29 to 38 of the submitted report. 10. The fees & charges approved under delegated powers, as set out in Annex 2 to the submitted report, be noted. 11. The Equality Impact Assessment of the savings proposals within the Directorate and Service Budgets, as set out in Annex 3 to the submitted report, be noted.
Reasons for Decisions: The Corporate Strategy 2016?21 sets out the Council’s key strategic goals of wellbeing, economic prosperity and residents’ experience. The underpinning service strategies provide detail on the objectives and actions to achieve these corporate goals. The Medium Term Financial Plan 2016?21 is a five year budget aligned to the corporate strategy. It reflects assumptions about the current local and national financial, economic and political environment. Setting a five year budget is a key element of the council’s multi-year approach to financial management. Regular reporting through the year will enable effective tracking and management of progress with the strategy and the budget.
[The decisions on this item ... view the full decision text for item 51/16 Minutes: The Leader of the Council introduced the report and said that last month, the Council’s refreshed five year corporate strategy Confident in Surrey’s Future and overall budget and council tax precept for 2016/17 and indicative budgets for the following four financial years were approved by the County Council. He said that the Council strategy focused on Surrey’s long-term interests and making sure: · everyone in Surrey had a great start to life and could live and age well; · Surrey’s economy remained strong and sustainable; and · Residents experience services that are easy to use, responsive and value for money.
He reported the following details for Cabinet approval. · Service strategies to deliver the overall corporate strategy for 2016-21 · Revenue and capital budgets for 2016/17 and indicative budgets for 2017/18 to 2020/21, which included: o grant changes in the Final Local Government Financial Settlement; o fees and charges; and o Equality Impact Assessments for our savings proposals.
He said that the Financial Settlement had partly mitigated Surrey’s shock grant reductions in the Provisional Settlement. However, the Counci still needed to draw £7.5m more from its reserves in 2016/17 than had been anticipated last month and over £30m reserves in total to balance 2016/17 and 2017/18. He informed Cabinet that savings of over £330m had been made in the past five years, including £64m in 2015/16. However, falling Government funding and rising demand for Council services, especially social care, meant that the Council needed to achieve over £360m of new base budget savings or additional income over the next five years to continue to maintain a lawful, balanced and sustainable budget. To help achieve this unprecedented level of base budget reductions, the Public Value Transformation Programme had been set up, to identify and deliver an extra £50m lasting savings over the next two years. He said that, inevitably, delivering over £360m savings on top of what had already achieved will involve difficult and uncomfortable choices. However, a robust Medium Term Financial Plan was critical to delivering the ambitions and goals and ensuring value for money for Surrey’s residents. The clear aim from this MTFP was to maintain a robust and sustainable financial base from which to transform and deliver the services that matter most to the people of Surrey. Finally, he drew attention to additional information plus an extra recommendation 7 (subsequent recommendations were re-numbered), which was tabled at the meeting.
This was, the inclusion of the following paragraph after paragraph 74 in the main report:
‘Adult Social Care seeks approval of a £400 charge for arranging the funeral for an individual who has received Adult Social Care Services commissioned by the Council, where there is no one else to make these arrangements. The Council is already involved in arranging funerals, but the process is currently finished by the relevant District or Borough Council who then applies the charge. This change will streamline the process and allow the Council to make the charge. The potential volume of these charges is unknown, so the budgeted ... view the full minutes text for item 51/16 |
|
|
Finance and Budget Monitoring Report for February 2016
Additional documents: Decision:
That the report be noted, including the following:
1. That Services forecast a £8.7m revenue budget variance at year end which includes use of £7.4m central government grant, as set out in the Annex, paragraph 1 to the submitted report 2. That Services forecast to achieve £65.1m efficiencies and service reductions by year end, as set out in the Annex, paragraph 39 of the submitted report. 3. That total forecast capital expenditure for 2015/16, including long term investments, is £224.1m, as set out in the Annex, paragraph 47 of the submitted report. 4. That Services’ management actions to mitigate overspends were set out throughout the report. 5. That £0.5m virement to reduce the budget in 2015/16 for the SEND Reform Grant intended to support implementation of the new Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) system, as detailed in the Annex, paragraph 3 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.
[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 eleventh month of the 2015/16 financial year, covering the period up to 29 February 2016. He said that, since the Council set its budget for 2016/17 demographic demand pressures continued to grow, which reinforced the need and resolve to find new ways of delivering Council services and that was why the Public Value Transformation programme was so important to ensure that the Council’s finances would be sustainable in the future.
As he has stated at each Cabinet meeting, the Council’s financial strategy had four key drivers to ensure sound governance in managing finances and providing value for money.
These were:
1. To keep any additional call on the council taxpayer to a minimum 2. To continuously drive the efficiency agenda 3. To reduce the Council’s reliance on council tax and government grant income 4. To continue to maximise the Council’s investment in Surrey.
Other Cabinet Members were given the opportunity to highlight key points and issues from their portfolios, as detailed in the annex to this report.
RESOLVED:
That the report be noted, including the following:
1. That Services forecast a £8.7m revenue budget variance at year end which includes use of £7.4m central government grant, as set out in the Annex, paragraph 1 to the submitted report 2. That Services forecast to achieve £65.1m efficiencies and service reductions by year end, as set out in the Annex, paragraph 39 of the submitted report. 3. That total forecast capital expenditure for 2015/16, including long term investments, is £224.1m, as set out in the Annex, paragraph 47 of the submitted report. 4. That Services’ management actions to mitigate overspends were set out throughout the report. 5. That £0.5m virement to reduce the budget in 2015/16 for the SEND Reform Grant intended to support implementation of the new Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) system, as detailed in the Annex, paragraph 3 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.
|
|
|
Health and Social Care Integration
Additional documents: Decision: 1. That the update on health and social care integration planning in Surrey and the emerging Sustainability and Transformation Plans be noted.
2. That authority be delegated to the Strategic Director for Adults Social Care and Public Health, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Wellbeing and Independence and the Cabinet Member for Wellbeing and Health, to finalise and approve the 2016/17 Surrey Better Care Fund plan from the Council’s point of view in line with the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan.
3. That the finalised 2016/17 Better Care Fund Plan should be presented to the Surrey Health and Wellbeing Board for final approval on 7 April 2016.
Reasons for Decisions:
Integration of health and social care will support the provision of better outcomes to Surrey residents and enable the council to better influence and control the source of demand for social care services.
Pursuing opportunities for further integration will help to ensure the County Council meets its statutory duties, set out in both the Care Act 2014 and the Health and Social Care Act 2012, for encouraging and promoting the integration of health and social care.
A specific requirement of the Better Care Fund Planning process is to secure approval of plans from the Council, the relevant CCGs and the Health and Wellbeing Board.
The deadlines and tight timescales for submission necessitate the recommendation included in this report to delegate authority to the Strategic Director for Adults Social Care and Public Health (in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Wellbeing and Independence and the Cabinet Member for Wellbeing and Health) to finalise and approve the 2016/17 Surrey Better Care Fund plan on behalf of the Council before it is presented to the Health and Wellbeing Board on 7 April 2016.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Wellbeing and Health Scrutiny Board]
Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Wellbeing and Health said that one of her responsibilities, together with the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Wellbeing and Independence, was to promote social care and health. She said that the move towards integrated services had become a fundamental part of the way the Council and its partners developed and delivered services for adults and children across Surrey. This has been accelerated in health and social care by the introduction of the Better Care Fund, the publication of the NHS Five Year Forward View and was a key strategy for Surrey’s Adult Social Care service to manage increasing demand.
She said that the NHS planning guidance introduced Sustainability and Transformation Plans as the overarching strategy plan for local health and care systems covering the period October 2016 – March 2021 and referred to the geographic ‘footprint’, as set out in the report.
She considered that the first year of the Better Care Fund had been quite successful with the work of the Health and Wellbeing Board helping to improve relationships between NHS England and the County Council. She also highlighted the joint working relationships to date and hoped that the next stage of integration of health and social care services would be as successful, although she acknowledged that there were a number of risks associated with integration, including financial implications and governance arrangements.
The Cabinet Associate for Adult Social Care, Wellbeing and Independence also endorsed the views of the Cabinet Member for Wellbeing and Health.
The Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement said that whilst this report had focussed on Adult Social Care she would also like to endorse a similar integration for Children’s Services because she considered that health colleagues were a key partner in the work of this service and that she supported the direction of travel of this initiative.
[Note: the Cabinet Member for Business Services and Resident Experience left the meeting at 3.30pm, before these recommendations were resolved]
RESOLVED:
1. That the update on health and social care integration planning in Surrey and the emerging Sustainability and Transformation Plans be noted.
2. That authority be delegated to the Strategic Director for Adults Social Care and Public Health, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Wellbeing and Independence and the Cabinet Member for Wellbeing and Health, to finalise and approve the 2016/17 Surrey Better Care Fund plan from the Council’s point of view in line with the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan.
3. That the finalised 2016/17 Better Care Fund Plan should be presented to the Surrey Health and Wellbeing Board for final approval on 7 April 2016.
Reasons for Decisions:
Integration of health and social care will support the provision of better outcomes to Surrey residents and enable the council to better influence and control the source of demand for social care services.
Pursuing opportunities for further integration will help to ensure the County Council meets its statutory duties, set out in both the Care Act ... view the full minutes text for item 53/16 |
|
|
Consultation on a revised Charging Policy for Adult Social Care
Additional documents: Decision: That the following recommendations be approved:
1. To consult on the following proposals as part of a revised charging policy for Adult Social Care services, that: · The Council will charge an administration fee in any case where the person is able to pay the full cost of their care and support at home but nevertheless asks the Council to commission care on their behalf. · The Council will increase the amount of available income contributed in charges for non-residential services from 90% to 100%. · The Council will include the full rate of Higher Rate Attendance Allowance/ Disability Living Allowance/Personal Independence Payment (excluding mobility elements) in the calculation of income. · The Council will no longer give a discretionary allowance of £20 per week when calculating the available income for respite services. . 2. That subject to consultation, any changes will take effect from 2 October 2016. 3. That Cabinet receives a further report at its meeting on 14 July 2016, detailing the response to the consultation and the proposed Charging Policy. Reasons for Decisions:
The Council has previously consulted on the policy of charging for care and support. The recommendations made in this report do not change charging for those people in residential and nursing care but may impact on people currently receiving care and support in their own homes and it is right that we consult people who may be adversely affected by the revised proposals. People who can afford to contribute towards their care and support should do so in a fair and equitable way.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Social Care Services Scrutiny Board]
Minutes: In the absence of the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Wellbeing and Independence, the Cabinet Associate for this portfolio introduced the report. He said that the report provided details of proposed changes to the charging policy to increase income to help bridge the funding gap for Adult Social Care services and that it also made recommendations for a full consultation on the proposals with people who received chargeable services.
He said that the report explained the rationale behind the proposals, as detailed within it under the following headings:
· The Council will charge an administration fee to full cost payers · The increase in the percentage of available income taken in charges · The full rate of Attendance Allowance / Disability Living Allowance / Personal Independence Payment (excluding mobility elements) should be included in the calculation of income · The removal of the £20 per week disregard when charging for respite care
He said that the consultation of the proposals would take place between 7 April – 16 June 2016 and that the recommendation today was to go out to consultation on these proposals, with a report being brought back to Cabinet on 14 July 2016 for determination.
Finally, he said that it was important to stress that those residents who currently qualified for free support would continue to receive the necessary care and support to help maintain their independence and wellbeing.
The Cabinet Associate for Community Safety Services drew Cabinet’s attention to the Equality Impact Assessment, attached as Annex 2, and said that this was an initial assessment which would be updated as the consultation progressed.
RESOLVED:
That the following recommendations be approved:
1. To consult on the following proposals as part of a revised charging policy for Adult Social Care services, that: · The Council will charge an administration fee in any case where the person is able to pay the full cost of their care and support at home but nevertheless asks the Council to commission care on their behalf. · The Council will increase the amount of available income contributed in charges for non-residential services from 90% to 100%. · The Council will include the full rate of Higher Rate Attendance Allowance/ Disability Living Allowance/Personal Independence Payment (excluding mobility elements) in the calculation of income. · The Council will no longer give a discretionary allowance of £20 per week when calculating the available income for respite services. . 2. That subject to consultation, any changes will take effect from 2 October 2016. 3. That Cabinet receives a further report at its meeting on 14 July 2016, detailing the response to the consultation and the proposed Charging Policy. Reasons for Decisions:
The Council has previously consulted on the policy of charging for care and support. The recommendations made in this report do not change charging for those people in residential and nursing care but may impact on people currently receiving care and support in their own homes and it is right that we consult people who may be adversely affected by the revised proposals. ... view the full minutes text for item 54/16 |
|
|
Guildford County School
Additional documents: Decision: That, subject to the agreement of the detailed financial information for the expansion set out in item 15 in Part 2 of this agenda, the business case be approved for the expansion of Guildford County School to provide an additional 20 places per year (100 places in total).
Reasons for Decisions:
The proposal supports the Authority’s statutory obligation to provide sufficient school places relative to demand.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by either the Council Overview Board or the Education and Skills Scrutiny Board]
Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement introduced the first of two reports for school expansions on the agenda today. She requested that Cabinet approve the business case for the expansion of Guildford County School, which is an Academy, so that it could expand from a 160 place per year 5 Form of Entry secondary (800 places) to a 180 place per year 6 Form of Entry secondary (900 places) to meet the demand for 100 additional secondary places in Guildford from September 2017.
She informed Members that a number of primary school expansions had taken place in the area and plans now need to be put in place to ensure that there would be adequate secondary places in the area. She said that the project would create a three-storey extension and also would provide a multi-use games area to help mitigate the limited recreation space at this school.
Finally, she confirmed that following the consultation process, the School’s Governing Body had unanimously agreed to a Published Admission Number (PAN) increase to 180 from September 2017, subject to approval of the business case for the school’s expansion.
RESOLVED:
That, subject to the agreement of the detailed financial information for the expansion set out in item 15 in Part 2 of this agenda, the business case be approved for the expansion of Guildford County School to provide an additional 20 places per year (100 places in total).
Reasons for Decisions:
The proposal supports the Authority’s statutory obligation to provide sufficient school places relative to demand.
|
|
|
Danetree Junior School, Ewell
Additional documents: Decision: That, subject to the agreement of the detailed financial information for the expansion set out in item 16 in Part 2 of this agenda, the business case for the provision of an additional 360 primary places plus 52 nursery places in Ewell be approved.
Reasons for Decisions:
The proposal supports the Authority’s statutory obligation to provide sufficient school places relative to demand.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by either the Council Overview Board or the Education and Skills Scrutiny Board]
Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement said that this business case for the approval of expansion of Danetree Junior School from a 4 Form of Entry junior (480 places) to a 4 Form of Entry primary (840 places) creating an additional 360 primary places, plus those places at Guildford County School meant that the County Council was creating a total of 460 additional school places today.
The project would include a new two-storey building that would provide a new nursery and six new infant classrooms. She said that this expansion formed part of an area re-organisation of primary schools within Ewell that sought to deliver 630 additional primary places across three schools and would help meet the basic need requirements in the Ewell and NW Epsom primary planning areas from September 2017. She also said that there would be a maintained 52 place nursery for children aged 2 to 4 years on the Danetree school site.
As the school was an Academy, part of the Glyn Learning Foundation, it conducted the consultation for the expansion which subsequently the Governing Body approved in principle. This decision had now been ratified by the Secretary of State via the Regional Schools’ Commissioner and therefore, the Cabinet Member commended its expansion to Cabinet.
RESOLVED:
That, subject to the agreement of the detailed financial information for the expansion set out in item 16 in Part 2 of this agenda, the business case for the provision of an additional 360 primary places plus 52 nursery places in Ewell be approved.
Reasons for Decisions:
The proposal supports the Authority’s statutory obligation to provide sufficient school places relative to demand.
|
|
|
Leader / Deputy Leader / Cabinet Member Decisions Taken Since the Last Cabinet Meeting
Additional documents: Decision: That the delegated 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: An updated Annex 1 was tabled at the meeting.
RESOLVED:
That the delegated decisions taken by Cabinet Members since the last meeting, as set out in revised Annex 1 to 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: Decision: 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.
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.
|
|
|
Guildford County School
Decision: 1. That the business case for the project to expand Guildford County School by 100 places, at a total cost as set out in the submitted report, be approved. 2. That the arrangements by which a variation of up to 10% of the total value may be agreed by the Strategic Director for Business Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement, the Cabinet Member for Business Services and Resident Experience and the Leader of the Council be approved.
Reasons for Decisions:
The proposal delivers and supports the Authority’s statutory obligation to provide sufficient school places to meet the needs of the population in the Guildford area.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by either the Council Overview Board or the Education and Skills Scrutiny Board]
Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement said that this report contained the financial and value for money information relating to item 11 and drew attention to the average programme target cost set out within the report.
The Cabinet Associate responsible for Community Safety Services asked whether sprinklers would be fitted as part of the building work for both this and Danetree Schools. The Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement agreed to check with officers after the meeting and provide both the Cabinet Associate and the Leader with a response.
RESOLVED:
1. That the business case for the project to expand Guildford County School by 100 places, at a total cost as set out in the submitted report, be approved. 2. That the arrangements by which a variation of up to 10% of the total value may be agreed by the Strategic Director for Business Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement, the Cabinet Member for Business Services and Resident Experience and the Leader of the Council be approved.
Reasons for Decisions:
The proposal delivers and supports the Authority’s statutory obligation to provide sufficient school places to meet the needs of the population in the Guildford area.
|
|
|
Danetree Junior School, Ewell
Decision: 1. That the business case for the project to expand Danetree Junior School by 360 places plus 52 new nursery places at a total cost as set out in the submitted report, be approved. 2. That the arrangements by which a variation of up to 10% of the total value may be agreed by the Strategic Director for Business Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement, the Cabinet Member for Business Services and Resident Experience and the Leader of the Council be approved. Reasons for Decisions:
The proposal delivers and supports the Authority’s statutory obligation to provide sufficient school places to meet the needs of the population in the Ewell and NW Epsom area.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by either the Council Overview Board or the Education and Skills Scrutiny Board]
Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement said that this report contained the financial and value for money information relating to item 12.
RESOLVED:
1. That the business case for the project to expand Danetree Junior School by 360 places plus 52 new nursery places at a total cost as set out in the submitted report, be approved.
2. That the arrangements by which a variation of up to 10% of the total value may be agreed by the Strategic Director for Business Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement, the Cabinet Member for Business Services and Resident Experience and the Leader of the Council be approved.
Reasons for Decisions:
The proposal delivers and supports the Authority’s statutory obligation to provide sufficient school places to meet the needs of the population in the Ewell and NW Epsom area.
|
|
|
Property Transaction
Decision: 1. That Surrey County Council provides equity investment and a long-term loan its wholly owned property company, the Halsey Garton Property (HGP) Group, as outlined in paragraphs 9 -11 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 detailed in the submitted report for a purchase cost including associated costs, also detailed 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.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Council Overview Board]
Minutes: The Cabinet Associate Member for the Built Environment introduced the next two items, both property acquisitions, to Cabinet.
Due to the impact of stamp duty charges, announced on 16 March 2016, revised recommendations for both items were tabled at the meeting.
RESOLVED: 1. That Surrey County Council provides equity investment and a long-term loan its wholly owned property company, the Halsey Garton Property (HGP) Group, as outlined in paragraphs 9 -11 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 detailed in the submitted report for a purchase cost including associated costs, also detailed 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
Decision: 1. That Surrey County Council provides equity investment and a long-term loan to its wholly owned property company, Halsey Garton Property Group (HGP), as outlined in paragraphs 9 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 detailed in the submitted report for a purchase cost, including associated costs of purchase, also detailed 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.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Council Overview Board]
Minutes: RESOLVED: 1. That Surrey County Council provides equity investment and a long-term loan to its wholly owned property company, Halsey Garton Property Group (HGP), as outlined in paragraphs 9 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 detailed in the submitted report for a purchase cost, including associated costs of purchase, also detailed 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.
|
|
|
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.
|