Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 218 KBVenue: Council Chamber, Surrey County Council, Woodhatch Place, 11 Cockshot Hill, Reigate, Surrey ,RH2 8EF
Contact: Huma Younis or Sarah Quinn
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Apologies for Absence
To note any apologies for absence. Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies were received from Clare Curran, Paul Deach and Steve Bax. |
|
|
Minutes of Previous Meeting: 24 September 2024
To agree the minutes of the last meeting as a correct record of the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: These were agreed as a correct record of the meeting.
|
|
|
Declarations of Interest
All Members present are required to declare, at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter:
(i) Any disclosable pecuniary interests and / or (ii) Other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this meeting NOTES:
· Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest · As well as an interest of the Member, this includes any interest, of which the Member is aware, that relates to the Member’s spouse or civil partner (or any person with whom the Member is living as a spouse or civil partner) · Members with a significant personal interest may participate in the discussion and vote on that matter unless that interest could be reasonably regarded as prejudicial. Additional documents: Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
Procedural Matters
Additional documents: Minutes: The Leader explained that the agenda would be re-ordered so the substantive item on London Road could be taken earlier as a number of members of the public had attended the meeting for this item. |
|
|
Members' Questions
The deadline for Member’s questions is 12pm four working days before the meeting (23 October 2024).
Additional documents: Minutes: There were none.
|
|
The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (22 October 2024).
Additional documents: Minutes: There were seven public questions. A response from the Cabinet was published in the supplementary.
Pat Daffarn asked a supplementary question in response to his original which was if all road and housing developments would be refused until a sustainable infrastructure was in place so that Surrey County Council could actually deliver their zero carbon commitments. The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth explained that all planning applications reside with Guildford Borough Council as the development authority and Surrey County Council was consulted on applications and made recommendations as necessary. The council funded bikeability and feet first training which targetted schools and had positive take up. The Cabinet Member did not believe that applications would be refused by the districts until a comprehensive network was in place but recognised that walking and cycling provision needed to be improved as new developments increased.
Doug Clare asked a supplementary question in response to his original which was if the Cabinet was going to listen to 2000 school children with no votes or listen to a small group of objectors stopping progress. The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth stated that a public consultation had been undertaken and people on both sides of the debate had been heavily lobbying the Cabinet.
Oliver Greaves asked a supplementary question in response to his original question which was if the Cabinet believed the impact on traffic, air quality, the cost benefit and the needs of all road users were relevant matters for Section 1. If not, then why not. Assuming the council did believe these were relevant matters, how could the council comply with its constitutional obligations when it do not have the traffic modelling report for Section 1, no pollution report had been produced for Section 1, no report had been produced considering the needs of all road users and no cost benefit analysis had been produced. The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth stated that as part of the consultation, a number of the points that the questioner raised were published and considered as part of the report. The Cabinet Member would be happy to share these documents with the questioner. The whole route including Section 1 had traffic modelling carried out which was shared with the stakeholder group and also published. The scheme would reduce air pollution and improve air quality with increased cycling.
|
|
|
Petitions
The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received.
Additional documents: Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
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: Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
Reports from Select Committees, Task Groups and other Committees of the Council
To consider any reports from Select Committees, Task Groups and any other Committees of the Council. For Cabinet to consider the following reports:
A. The Cabinet received a report from the Additional Needs and Disabilities Parent Carer Experience Task Group at its meeting on 24 September. A response from the Cabinet is attached.
Additional documents: Minutes: A Cabinet response to the report from the Additional Needs and Disabilities Parent Carer Experience Task Group was included in the supplementary agenda.
RESOLVED:
That the Cabinet response to the Select Committee report is noted.
|
|
To note any delegated decisions taken by the Leader, Deputy Leader, Cabinet Members, Strategic Investment Board and Committees in Common Sub-Committee since the last meeting of the Cabinet. Additional documents: Minutes: There were six decisions for noting.
RESOLVED:
That the decisions taken since the last Cabinet meeting are noted.
|
|
London Road, Guildford is an active travel scheme, funded by an Active Travel England grant. This report provides an update on the outcome of an independent technical review of section 1 on the proposed active travel corridor scheme from New Inn Lane to York Road along the A3100 London Road, Guildford.
(The decisions on this item can be called-in by the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee) Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
A vote was taken by the Cabinet on the following recommendations:
It is recommended that Cabinet:
2. Proceeds with the construction of Section 1 –based on the strength of support from the local community, alongside the conclusions of the independent technical review.
There were THREE votes FOR and SIX votes AGAINST. The decision was therefore not carried.
(The decisions on this item can be called-in by the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee)
Minutes: The Leader briefly introduced the item explaining that discussions around the scheme had been ongoing for nearly two years. The speakers would be given 3 minutes to speak on the item, followed by an introduction by the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth and then a discussion by the Cabinet.
Terry Newman from the London Road Action Group, made the following key points:
· Spoke against the report. Concerns were raised around inaccuracies in the ARUP report. It was commented that ARUPs accident data was inaccurate, official data reveals five slight car and pedal accidents in the five years to 2023, that was one a year and not two so the road was not worse than the rest of Surrey. · 1.5 meter separation is unreliable and passing HGV mirrors were just centimetres away. · The Highway Code protects pedestrians by prohibiting cycling on pavements, yet still condones sharing. If mixing pedestrians and cyclists is a last resort for 45% of the length and is considered safe why not use foot ways to create 100% shared paths. · DfT has spent £2.3 billion knowing far too little about what this spending has achieved. No evidence has appeared to enable an opinion about net zero achievement, but a 5% reduction in traffic would need the removal of 750 vehicles daily only adding 300 hundred more cyclists. · Surrey Highways actually wrote the road will remain the same width as it is currently, and that is incorrect, at the pinch point reviewed existing distance between kerbs is 8 metres. Yasmin Broome from the Surrey Coalition of Disable People, made the following key points:
· Strongly opposing the scheme. Blind, visually impaired, disabled, older and vulnerable bus passengers should be able to get on and off the bus independently and directly from or to the pavement, as they have always done. They should not have to cross cycle lanes or step into a cycle lane to get on and off a bus. · These designs are not safe or accessible for blind, visually impaired, older and many vulnerable groups of bus passengers. They create a new barrier to accessing public transport independently. · Many people cite that shared bus stops are working well in other countries but this is not the case. In Denmark injuries to bus passengers caused by cyclists went up from 5 to 73 after the shared style bus stop design was introduced. In Islington, London in 2016 a shared bus stop was removed as it did not take account of the safety and accessibility needs of blind and visually impaired bus passengers. · Zebra crossing and flashing lights have been tried and tested and will not change the behaviour of cyclists. We believe an number of incidents at these shared bust stops are going unreported. There is political support for a moratorium on shared bus stops. Lord Holmes of Richmond made a recommendation in the House of Lords on the 25 of April 2024 around the dangers of floating bus stops.
William Clark and Charles Graham ... view the full minutes text for item 141/24 |
|
|
Cabinet Member of the Month
To receive an update from Natalie Bramhall, Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure. Additional documents: Minutes: The report was introduced by the Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure. The following points were made:
· The redevelopment of the former Debenhams site, Winchester was near completion. New tenants on the ground floor were at fit out stage ready to trade before Christmas and new tenants for upstairs had been found. · Brightwells, Farnham: Practical Completion of the development of this new retail and leisure commercial scheme occurred in September. The council funded the commercial retail element of the regeneration of Farnham and also the substantial infrastructure. · In terms of disposals, over the last five years, £150 million of capital receipts had been achieved and the council was on track to achieve another £55m for 2025/26. · All soft and hard facilities management had been outsourced to Macro. The in-house team had reduced from 125 FTEs to a client team of 16 FTEteam. · Land & Property achieved the ISO 45001 certification following a recent audit. This is an international safety accredited certificate, and a great achievement following 2 years of operational improvements. · The Resource and Circular Economy Team were progressing a planning application and developing the business case for a Surrey Materials Recycling Facility (MRF). The MRF will sort kerbside collected recyclables into component streams of paper, glass, metals and plastics etc. · The Resource and Circular Economy Team were developing a proposal for a Reuse Hub on Ivy Dean Cottage which is immediately adjacent to the Eco Park at Charlton Lane, Shepperton. · Work was progressing on the A320 HIF bid north of Woking,with a view to mobilise works from November / December at the earliest. The works programme will be 18-months plus. · Special thanks was given to land and property staff, the Managing Director for Halsey Garton Properties and waste and infrastructure staff for all the good work being done.
RESOLVED:
That the Cabinet Member of the Month report is noted.
|
|
|
YOUR FUND SURREY APPLICATION- NEW ROWLEDGE VILLAGE HALL PROJECT, FARNHAM
This report sets out the key information on the New Rowledge Village Hall, FarnhamYour Fund Surrey (YFS) application, for the consideration of Cabinet. (The decisions on this item can be called-in by the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee)
Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED: 1. That Cabinet agrees to fund the full amount requested of £800,000, comprised of: · capital funding towards the development of the new village hall, to be paid in staged payments, on evidence of spend · Including 5% to be held by SCC until final evidence of completion and building control sign-off and income and expenditure provided 2. That Cabinet agrees that funding would be conditional on evidence of the sale of their existing land and all other funding being in place before release of any grant. Reasons for Decisions: This application has been the subject of a rigorous assessment process by officers, as set out in the body of this report. Officers consider the project to meet the aims and published criteria of the fund and to satisfy the requirements to award funding. New Rowledge Village Hall Project aim to create a welcoming and supportive community space that will advance the health and wellbeing of the community including physical activities. (The decisions on this item can be called-in by the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee)
Minutes: The report was introduced by the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member Customer and Communties. The report recommended Cabinet to approve £800k towards the development of a new village hall. The current building was not fit for purpose and had little insulation, a leaking roof, did not meet environmental standards and was impossible to maintain economically. The existing hall was well-used, open-to-everyone and the only low-cost general-purpose community building within South Farnham. The new Rowledge Village Hall would serve the residents in the Rowledge community in South Farnham which is going through rapid growth with over 100 new homes having been built in the last 3 years. The Cabinet was being asked to fund 27% of the total project cost. The remainder of the funding would be secured via other means including CIL funding. It was commented that the Your Fund Surrey programme had delivered 325 projects over the last 4 years with £21m being allocated to projects. The Cabinet Member for Fire and Rescue, and Resilience commented that it was positive to see that other sources of funding had already been secured for the new village hall. RESOLVED: 1. That Cabinet agrees to fund the full amount requested of £800,000, comprised of: · capital funding towards the development of the new village hall, to be paid in staged payments, on evidence of spend · Including 5% to be held by SCC until final evidence of completion and building control sign-off and income and expenditure provided 2. That Cabinet agrees that funding would be conditional on evidence of the sale of their existing land and all other funding being in place before release of any grant. Reasons for Decisions: This application has been the subject of a rigorous assessment process by officers, as set out in the body of this report. Officers consider the project to meet the aims and published criteria of the fund and to satisfy the requirements to award funding. New Rowledge Village Hall Project aim to create a welcoming and supportive community space that will advance the health and wellbeing of the community including physical activities. (The decisions on this item can be called-in by the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee)
|
|
|
2024/25 Month 5 (August) Financial Report
This report provides details of the Council’s 2024/25 financial position, for revenue and capital budgets, as at 31st August 2024 (M5) and the expected outlook for the remainder of the financial year. (The decisions on this item can be called-in by the Resources and Performance Select Committee) Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED: 1. That Cabinet notes the Council’s forecast revenue budget and capital budget positions for the year. Reasons for Decisions:
This report is to comply with the agreed policy of providing a monthly budget monitoring report to Cabinet for information and for approval of any necessary actions. (The decisions on this item can be called in by the Resources and Performance Select Committee)
Minutes: The report was introduced by the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources. It was explained that there was an inaccuracy on the front page of the report under the Capital heading which should read that ‘At M5, capital expenditure of £319.3m is forecast for 2024/25. This is £2.8m more than the re-phased budget’. At M5, the Council was forecasting an overspend of £16.7m against the 2024/25 revenue budget. This was a £1.3m deterioration in the forecast overspend compared with the end of month 4. The overspend reflected the challenges the council faced especially in the areas of home to school transport assistance and Older People care packages. Work was being undertaken to contain the overspend in the home to school transport budget which was now at £7.4m. Mitigating measures needed to be identified to compensate for the forecast overspend. Although the council had a £20m contingency in the budget the idea would be to use this minimally. An update was given on the Capital budget. The month five forecast was £319.1m, which is £2.8m more than the re-phased budget. The key challenge would be working together with services to identify mitigating measures to pull back the forecast overspend. The Leader stated it would be important to continue to make the point to government around the difficulty in balancing the budget due to the increase in demand in adult social care services for adults with disabilities and the cost of home to school transport which was now costing the council over £70m. The local government finance settlement would be due in December and an item on the 2025/26 draft budget and MTFS would be considered at the November Cabinet meeting. Andy Brown had joined the council as Deputy Chief Executive and Section 151 Officer and was already working on the budget. RESOLVED: 1. That Cabinet notes the Council’s forecast revenue budget and capital budget positions for the year. Reasons for Decisions:
This report is to comply with the agreed policy of providing a monthly budget monitoring report to Cabinet for information and for approval of any necessary actions. (The decisions on this item can be called in by the Resources and Performance Select Committee)
|
|
|
Surrey Safeguarding Adults Board Annual Report 2023/24
Cabinet is asked to consider and note the Surrey Safeguarding Adults Board Annual Report 2023/24. Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
1. That Cabinet considers and notes the Surrey Safeguarding Adults Annual Report for 2023/24. Reasons for Decisions:
This recommendation demonstrates that the Council is fulfilling its statutory requirement under the Care Act 2014 in having established a Safeguarding Adults Board in its area. It will support the SSAB to be transparent by providing information to the public on the performance of the Board and its strategic plan.
Minutes: The report was introduced by Teresa Bell, Independent Chair of the Surrey Safeguarding Adults Board who explained that the term ‘safeguarding is everyone’s business’ was overused and not every perceived risk required a referral through the Section 42 process under the Care Act. Safeguarding was not achieved by one single agency but by partners cooperating to prevent abuse and neglect and identifying this as early as possible. Appropriate action should then be taken by the partnership with the person impacted at the centre. It was explained that a new approach was being taken to the safeguarding adults reviews to ensure timeliness and avoiding lengthy delays. Helen Coombs and Luke Adams were thanked for their support to the Board.
The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care welcomed the report and stated that it was good to see what the boards focus and priorities were. The Cabinet Member thanked the Independent Chair for her work and commented that she had galvanised partners across the board. The Leader echoed thanks to the Independent Chair stating that the Board was moving forward in a positive and constructive way.
RESOLVED:
1. That Cabinet considers and notes the Surrey Safeguarding Adults Annual Report for 2023/24. Reasons for Decisions:
This recommendation demonstrates that the Council is fulfilling its statutory requirement under the Care Act 2014 in having established a Safeguarding Adults Board in its area. It will support the SSAB to be transparent by providing information to the public on the performance of the Board and its strategic plan.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Leaders Statement
Additional documents: Minutes: The Leader explained that in light of new legal advice around the Project Libra report, the Council would not act further on the decision made by Cabinet on 24 September 2024. In the event that the matter came back to Cabinet, it would be considered wholly afresh.
|
|
|
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. |