Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 394 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN
Contact: Vicky Hibbert or Angela Guest 020 8541 9938 Email: angela.guest@surreycc.gov.uk
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Apologies for Absence
Additional documents: Minutes: There were none.
|
|
|
Minutes of Previous Meeting:
Additional documents: Minutes: The Minutes of the meeting held on 26 September 2017 were agreed and signed by the Chairman subject to the following amendment:
That Minute 148/17 (last two sentences of 6th paragraph) should read:
It was highlighted that following the responses to the detailed consultation, it had been decided to retain 30% of grants for older adults and disabled people. For socially excluded groups 80% of the grant would be retained and the service would be reconfigured accordingly.
|
|
|
Declarations of Interest
Additional documents: Minutes: Colin Kemp declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 14 and question 4 of Members’ Questions as he was an Executive Member at Woking Borough Council.
|
|
|
Procedural Matters
Additional documents: |
|
Additional documents: Decision: Six questions in total were received from Mrs Hazel Watson, Mr Will Forster and Mr Jonathan Essex. Responses to these can be found at Appendix 1.
Minutes: Six questions in total were received from Mrs Hazel Watson, Mr Will Forster and Mr Jonathan Essex. Responses to these can be found at Appendix 1.
Supplementary questions
Q1: Mrs Watson asked what the council’s strategy was in order to provide housing that residents could actually afford. The Cabinet Member for Property and Business Services responded that the council were looking at all forms of housing and that provision was dependent on a number of factors including local planning, transport links and others. However, the council wished to see a significant number of homes built.
Q3: Mr Forster requested further information breakdown to his question. The Leader stated that what Mr Forster wanted was operational information which was not the Cabinet’s jurisdiction but an issue for the Chief Fire Officer who was responsible for ensuring that operations ran correctly.
Q4: Mr Forster sought clarification that the response given was a ‘no’. The Cabinet Member for Communities explained that there was no duty on the fire service to ensure that buildings were built according to building regulations.
Q5: Mr Essex asked if the information on the Joint Venture would be made available when a decision had been made. The Cabinet Member for Property and Business Services explained that first a business case had to go to the Investment Board which would then consider on a site by site basis.
Q6: Mr Essex asked if the high level report on housing unit figures could be provided and when. The Cabinet Member for Property and Business Services stated that it was dependent on Cabinet agreeing a partner but that a considerable amount of work was being undertaken to move development along and that more would be known in a few weeks’ time.
Mr Colin Kemp declared a non pecuniary interest in question 4 as he was an Executive Member of Woking Borough Council. |
|
|
Public Questions
Additional documents: Minutes: There were none.
|
|
|
Petitions
Additional documents: Minutes: There were none.
|
|
|
Representations received on reports to be considered in private
Additional documents: Minutes: There were none.
|
|
|
Reports from Scrutiny Boards, Task Groups, Local Committees and other Committees of the Council
Additional documents: Minutes: There were none.
|
|
|
Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships
Additional documents: Decision:
RESOLVED:
1. The progress that has been made in implementing the Surrey Heartlands health and care devolution agreement, and progress in both Frimley Health and Care, and Sussex and East Surrey Partnership areas was noted, and 2. the approach being taken with Surrey Heartlands partners towards establishing a devolved health and care system was approved.
Reason for Decisions
Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships will play a pivotal role in shaping the future health and care priorities and landscape. In the seven months since the last Surrey Heartlands update to the Cabinet, significant progress has been made in the development of the devolution arrangements for Surrey Heartlands. Devolution is a key mechanism for enabling the Surrey Heartlands Partnership to achieve its aims and ambitions, and the integration of health and social care.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Adults and Health Select Committee] Minutes: Mrs Helyn Clack, Cabinet Member for Health introduced the report that explained how Surrey County Council was playing an important role in the three Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships across Surrey.
On 28 March 2017 the Cabinet considered a report regarding the Surrey Heartlands Partnership and the emerging health and care devolution proposals. The Cabinet endorsed a set of associated ‘devolution governance principles’ and asked the Chief Executive to take the necessary steps to finalise and implement the new devolution arrangements – this report focussed on the implementation of this work and provided a brief update on the progress in the Frimley Health and Care, and Sussex and East Surrey Partnerships. Since March a Memorandum of Understanding had been signed and Surrey Heartlands had been chosen as one of ten areas nominated to be involved with the Accountable Care Systems development programme. A joint committee had been set up and would be the primary decision making committee for Surrey Heartlands. The Cabinet Member explained further the governance and funding arrangements.
The Cabinet Member for Adults spoke about the number of Clinical Commissioning Groups working across services of health and social care and spoke of the problems with delayed transfer of care, the penalties of bed blocking and finding appropriate accommodation.
The Cabinet Member for Property and Business Services stated that now was a good opportunity to look at closer integration of services and co-location of services.
The Leader of the Council thanked NHS staff involved for their work on this. He stated that the Government should be bolder in their ambition for devolution and explained that the council’s new Chief Executive, when in place, would drive forward ambitions of devolution.
RESOLVED:
1. That the progress made in implementing the Surrey Heartlands health and care devolution agreement, and progress in both Frimley Health and Care, and Sussex and East Surrey Partnership areas was noted. 2. That the approach being taken with Surrey Heartlands partners towards establishing a devolved health and care system was approved.
Reason for Decisions
Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships will play a pivotal role in shaping the future health and care priorities and landscape. In the seven months since the last Surrey Heartlands update to the Cabinet, significant progress has been made in the development of the devolution arrangements for Surrey Heartlands. Devolution is a key mechanism for enabling the Surrey Heartlands Partnership to achieve its aims and ambitions, and the integration of health and social care.
|
|
|
Independent Travel Training for Children and Young People with SEND
Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
Following consideration of the results of the procurement process, in Part 2 of the meeting, a five year contract supported by a Social Impact Bond be awarded to CT Plus Community to deliver independent travel training.
Reason for decision
A full tender process, in compliance with the requirement of Public Contract Regulations and Procurement Standing Orders has been completed, and the recommendation provides best value for money for the Council, and aims to deliver better outcomes for children and young people with SEND.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Children and Education Select Committee] Minutes: Mrs Mary Lewis, Cabinet Member for Education explained how Surrey County Council (SCC) was introducing a new travel assistance offer for children and young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND), designed to better meet the diverse needs of the county’s pupils through a broader, more flexible range of assistance options. The first in a wide-ranging package of improvements, independent travel training would equip children and young people with the skills and confidence to travel independently to school, college or placement, where appropriate, building their resilience and preparing them for adulthood. This was a positive move that had been welcomed by parents and young people.
The Council’s existing travel assistance offer is limited to mainly taxi and minibus transport, resulting in an annual cost of nearly £27m that is no longer sustainable. There is a need for the Council to work together with families, young people, schools, colleges and transport providers to develop a change in culture and approach to home to school travel assistance. Independent travel training is the first step in this direction, and provides an invaluable opportunity to provide more lasting support to children and young people with SEND, whilst delivering savings to the public purse in the longer term. Therefore, this is the first in a series of reports due to come to Cabinet concerning SEND transport.
RESOLVED:
That following consideration of the results of the procurement process, in Part 2 of the meeting, a five year contract supported by a Social Impact Bond be awarded to CT Plus Community to deliver independent travel training.
Reason for decision
A full tender process, in compliance with the requirement of Public Contract Regulations and Procurement Standing Orders has been completed, and the recommendation provides best value for money for the Council, and aims to deliver better outcomes for children and young people with SEND. |
|
|
Children Schools and Families Commissioning Plan 2017-22
Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
1. The Commissioning Intentions set out in Child First 2017-2022 was agreed.
2. To delegate authority to Cabinet Member for Children, Cabinet Member for Education, and Director for Children’s Services, to make changes to the commissioning intentions, including those necessary to meet requirements of the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) 2018-22.
Reason for decision
The commissioning intentions are the response to the Surrey Children & Young People’s Partnership Strategy 2017-22 and provide a clear framework of strategic action for children, schools and families in Surrey, which addresses MTFP challenges for 2017-21 and provides a basis for the approach for 2018-22.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Children and Education Select Committee] Minutes: This report was introduced by Mrs Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Children and it was reported that the Child First Commissioning Intentions had been developed at a time when unprecedented financial pressures were being faced by Surrey County Council, stemming from decreasing funding from central government and increasing demand for Council services. The Council had already saved over £450m with a further saving required of £103m for 2017/18 and £75m for the next two years. This was being felt especially in children, schools and families.
The statement set out 10 commissioning intentions that provided an overall strategic framework for Children, Schools and Families for 2017-2022, with an emphasis on the importance of Early Help. The commissioning intentions will drive the Council’s commissioning to achieve value for money and, as part of the overall service, to ensure children get the right help, care and protection at the right time so they are safe and can thrive. She also explained that this was the first time a plan like this had been formulated and thanked staff for their work in producing it.
Additionally, further work was underway alongside planning for 2018-23; this focused on more rigorous modelling of future demand on services and developing a robust approach to local decision making and market development. This will mean more needs met locally and delivery managed sustainably within planned budgets.
The Cabinet Member for Education explained how the Select Committee had scrutinised the plan and were happy with the data-informed approach. They also wanted to ensure that this plan merged with others and made suggestions that had been incorporated into the plan.
The Cabinet Member for Health stated that it was a good plan and emphasised the tagline that children should be seen, be heard and kept safe.
RESOLVED:
1. The Commissioning Intentions set out in Child First 2017-2022 was agreed.
2. To delegate authority to Cabinet Member for Children, Cabinet Member for Education, and Director for Children’s Services, to make changes to the commissioning intentions, including those necessary to meet requirements of the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) 2018-22.
Reason for decision
The commissioning intentions are the response to the Surrey Children & Young People’s Partnership Strategy 2017-22 and provide a clear framework of strategic action for children, schools and families in Surrey, which addresses MTFP challenges for 2017-21 and provides a basis for the approach for 2018-22.
|
|
|
Funding Options for Future Flood Alleviation Work in Surrey
Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
That the Leader of the council writes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary of State for Department of Communities & Local Government and Secretary of State for Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, stating that:
a) Because of the scale of the River Thames Scheme and the potential economic impacts at risk if it does not proceed, this is a nationally significant scheme and it is not appropriate to apply Defra’s FDGiA Partnership Funding model to it. b) Surrey County Council has no capital reserves to meet Surrey’s local contribution for the River Thames Scheme as requested by the Environment Agency, and requests that Central Government provide the capital required for the scheme. c) Should Central Government not provide the capital required for the scheme up-front, then Surrey County Council would be willing to take out a loan to pay Surrey’s local contribution for the River Thames Scheme (at a cost of approximately £4.5m per year for 40 years) subject to Central Government funding the annual costs of borrowing.
Reason for decision:
Surrey County Council’s current budget for flood alleviation work is very limited. There is not enough funding to develop schemes for all of the areas at significant risk of flooding in the county. The 2013/14 floods highlighted a number of risks across Surrey and if a flood event of a similar magnitude were to take place again in the coming years, the council’s inability to carry out work in the relevant areas owing to resource and budget constraints means that many locations would continue to suffer the same or worse economic and social damage to their communities.
It is also essential that greater protection from River Thames flooding in particular is provided for the many Surrey residents and businesses currently affected. The funding arrangements of the proposed RTS scheme present a high risk that it is unaffordable and will not be delivered.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Environment and Infrastructure Select Committee] Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Highways introduced this report that explained how in April 2017 when Cabinet approved Surrey’s Local Flood Risk Management Strategy it recommended that officers identify additional sources of funding to increase the current level of flood alleviation work across the county. This was because limited council budgets were struggling to resource the amount of schemes required to protect the 30,000 properties that were at risk of flooding in Surrey. The Met Office was predicting more frequent severe rainfall in coming years and if this was the case, it was likely that more areas beyond those already identified would become at risk of flooding in the future. Therefore if a funding solution to this issue was not found then future flood events were likely to cause significant social and economic harm to residents in Surrey.
A further contributing factor to this situation is that the Government’s funding formula for capital flood alleviation schemes was such that “local contributions” were required to pay a significant proportion of the costs. This was sometimes possible in the case of smaller scale schemes and the council had a programme with some capital support for such schemes across Surrey. It was not practical however to raise sufficient local contributions with very large scale projects such as the River Thames Scheme (RTS), a project of national significance, which, under the current formula, presents a funding gap of at least £257 million.
The RTS is a “main river” scheme which means that the Environment Agency (EA) is responsible for the project’s management. However the Agency has asked whether the county council and the other local authorities affected can together make up the funding gap that remains after all other possible and likely local contributions have been accounted for. Although yet to be confirmed, it is estimated that the county council’s share of this would be in the order £100m. This is not a reasonable request to make, particularly in the context of the council’s financial position.
If there is no prospect of the funding gap for the RTS and the demand for flood alleviation schemes elsewhere in the county being met, unless Government provides additional funding, alternative options must be considered. These could include raising finance locally through a levy or a council tax precept. These options have inherent risks and impacts as set out in the report.
The council could not ignore the increasing risk of flooding to its residents. Given the lack of funding available from Government at the current time for both the nationally significant RTS and smaller local schemes, Cabinet was asked to consider how best to respond.
He emphasised that flooding was a risk to all residents whether they lived near a river or not explaining that flash floods could happen anywhere and drew attention to the maps provided with the submitted report.
The Deputy Leader explained how this was a national issue and the funding gap had been broken down proportionately between the five councils involved but even so, ... view the full minutes text for item 174/17 |
|
|
Farnham Road Rail Bridge - Funding For Bridge Strengthening
Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
1. That support for the delivery of the Farnham Road Bridge Project was confirmed.
2. That an agreement with Network Rail for payment towards improvements to Farnham Road Bridge would be entered into.
3. That officers will work with Network Rail to confirm the Surrey CC contribution to the scheme.
4. That the Cabinet Member for Highways and Deputy Director will engage with stakeholders to identify alternate funding sources in order to limit or remove the need to reduce the existing capital programme or borrow to fund this scheme.
Reason for decision:
To enable the Farnham Road Bridge scheme to take place to ensure the ongoing safety of the travelling public and economic prosperity of Guildford Town Centre.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Environment and Infrastructure Select Committee]
Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Highways introduced this report that explained how the Farnham Road Bridge owned by Network Rail has B4 liability, which meant that Network Rail were responsible for providing a load capacity of 24T.
As the bridge is on a principal road network, Surrey CC requires the bridge to have a load bearing capacity of 40/44T in line with EU Directive EU/2015/71. As agreed in works agreements with the railway undertaker where the County is required to provide for load-bearing capacity higher than the railway undertaker is required by law to provide, the County will meet the cost.
The structure has been identified as critically deficient for unrestricted traffic loading meaning that if work is not carried out to strengthen the bridge the weight limit will have to be reduced to 7.5T. This would result in a scenario where heavy goods vehicles and buses will not be able to use the bridge which would have a devastating impact on residents and businesses.
Surrey Highways officers and Network Rail had identified a preferred scheme option which would restore the bridge to 40/44T capacity and therefore enable the bridge to remain open to traffic into the future. The preferred scheme would provide a 60 year design life for the bridge. The cost of the preferred scheme option has been estimated at £4,461,000.
Past experience of these type of schemes both within Surrey and in other local authority areas has identified that the cost of increasing the load bearing capacity to 24T (Network Rail’s responsibility) generally equates to approximately 20% of the total scheme cost and the additional work to increase capacity to 40/44T (Surrey CC’s responsibility) generally equates to approximately 80% of the scheme costs.
Surrey CC and Network Rail officers were reviewing the costings and funding allocations with a view to ensure equitable apportionment of funding which accounts for the fact that a lower cost scheme could increase the capacity to 40/44T, but that the chosen scheme has additional benefits for Network Rail.
Funding for this scheme was not accounted for within the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). Surreys CC’s contribution could be up to £3.5m. Approximately £650,000 had been identified within existing Highways budgets and therefore up to £2.9m still needed to be identified.
The Deputy Leader explained how important this bridge was for Guildford and if it was reduced to 7.5T this would mean a 4km diversion for buses, cars and lorries. Boroughs and districts, and partners, had been asked if they could help with costs but financial cuts were affecting everyone.
RESOLVED:
1. That support for the delivery of the Farnham Road Bridge Project was confirmed.
2. That an agreement with Network Rail for payment towards improvements to Farnham Road Bridge would be entered into.
3. That officers will work with Network Rail to confirm the Surrey CC contribution to the scheme.
4. That the Cabinet Member for Highways and Deputy Director will engage with stakeholders to identify alternate funding sources in order to limit ... view the full minutes text for item 175/17 |
|
|
Monthly Budget Monitoring Report
Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
That the following be noted.
1.
Forecast revenue budget outturn for 2017/18, is £17m
overspend (paragraphs 1 and 8 to 39 of the submitted report). This
includes: 2. Significant risks to the revenue budget (paragraphs 40 to 44 of the submitted report) could add £13m to the forecast overspend, including: £8m in Children, Schools & Families and £3m in Adult Social Care. 3. Forecast planned savings for 2017/18 total £79m against £95m agreed savings and £104m target (paragraph 46). 4. All services continue to take all reasonable action to keep costs down and maximise income (e.g. minimising spending, managing vacancies wherever possible etc). 5. The Section 151 Officer’s commentary and the Monitoring Officer’s Legal Implications commentary in paragraphs 15 to 18 of the main budget monitoring report to Cabinet state that the council has a duty to ensure its expenditure does not exceed resources available and move towards a sustainable budget for future years. 6. The council and all eleven district and borough councils in Surrey have submitted an application to form a business rates retention pilot in 2018/19 (paragraph 45 of the submitted report). That the followed be approved.
7. Transfer £8m from the Budget Equalisation Reserve to Central Income & Expenditure to negate the deferral of the increase in Waste PFI credits (paragraph 36 of the submitted report). Reason for decision:
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 Overview and Budget Scrutiny Committee] Minutes: The Leader of the Council presented the budget monitoring report for the sixth month of the 2017/18 financial year, covering the period up to 30 September 2017.
He explained that in February this council set its budget for 2017/18 in the face of: significant rising demand pressures (particularly in social care); falling Government funding and continuing restraint on our ability to raise funds locally. To balance 2017/18’s budget the council had to make plans to deliver an unprecedented £104m of savings. This significant challenge for the council comes on top of already making over £450m savings since 2010.
He explained that within the £104m savings target, the council has agreed plans for £95m savings, with £9m savings to be identified. After six months of the financial year, services had already achieved £47m of savings with another £26m on track for delivery, and £6m facing potential barriers. £16m savings were now thought to be unachievable in this year.
He also explained that the council’s 2017/18 budget included significant demand and cost pressures, mostly in social care. In the first six months of the year, demand had increased above that forecast even a short time ago. For example, in Children’s Services, demand continued to increase and was expected to add a £9m pressure by the end of the financial year. Partially offsetting these pressures, there were forecast underspends elsewhere, including in Children Schools & Families and Adult Social Care, Orbis, Highways & Transport and Waste.
He went on to explain that services had already taken action as part of the recovery plan to reduce costs by £4m. There was a need to continue to take all reasonable action to manage our spending within available resources by keeping costs down, managing vacancies and maximising income wherever possible. The combined impact of delivering lower savings than planned and demand rising faster than anticipated was a forecast overspend of £17m for 2017/18. Whilst this was a £4m improvement on last month’s forecast position, considerable risks remain in some key budgets that were outside the council’s control and the forecast year end position could potentially worsen.
He explained that, this month, he and the leaders of the eleven district and borough councils in Surrey gave full agreement to a bid to form a Surrey business rates pilot in 2018/19. He was pleased to report that the bid was submitted to the Department for Communities and Local Government and that it had the support of both of Surrey’s Local Enterprise Partnerships.’
The Cabinet Member for Adults spoke of the overspend in Adult Social Care and shortfall in budget due to increased demand and increasing costs. He paid compliments to the Finance and Benefits Team that had done an outstanding job looking at all service user costs. He also stated that staff were aware costs needing to be reduced.
The Cabinet Member for Children spoke of the overspend for Children’s Services which had deteriorated since the last report which was due to staffing budget and the extra social workers ... view the full minutes text for item 176/17 |
|
|
Leadership Risk Register
Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
The content of the Surrey County Council Leadership risk register (Annex 1) was noted and the control actions put in place by the Statutory Responsibilities Network endorsed.
Reason for decision:
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.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Overview and Budget Scrutiny Committee]
Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Property and Business Services introduced the Leadership risk register stating that both L2 and L3 of the register had been reviewed and updated. The Surrey County Council Leadership risk register is presented to Cabinet each quarter and this report presents the Leadership risk register as at 19 October 2017.
RESOLVED:
That the content of the Surrey County Council Leadership risk register (Annex 1) was noted and the control actions put in place by the Statutory Responsibilities Network endorsed.
Reason for decision:
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.
|
|
|
Approval to Award a Framework Agreement for Professional Highway Services
Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
1. That the background information set out in this report was noted; and
2. following consideration of the results of the procurement process in Part 2 of the meeting, the award of the Framework Agreement be approved.
Reason for decision:
Surrey County Council’s Highway Service is responsible for the delivery of a Highway Works Programme which is anticipated to be £120,000,000 over the next 3 years and for the delivery of works which are funded from revenue budget estimated to be at £44,000,000 per annum.
In order to deliver these works the Highways Service requires additional capacity to support the in-house teams. This capacity was previously provided by Professional Highways Services Framework which has now expired.
The award of this Framework will enable Surrey County Council to ensure that highways for which it is responsible remain safe for public use.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Environment and Infrastructure Select Committee]
Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Highways presented this report which described how Surrey County Council had a statutory duty under the Highways Act 1980 to ensure that highways for which it was responsible remain safe for public use.
The Highway Service was responsible for the delivery of an ambitious multimillion Works Programme over the next 3 years. In order to deliver the Programme within required time scales, the Service needed access to specialist services and expertise to supplement the in-house capacity as and when required. The current Professional Highways Services Framework has recently expired, therefore, the decision was made that a new arrangement needed to be put in place to ensure continuous successful delivery of the Programme.
Following an open tender exercise, Procurement and Highways Services Cabinet approval was sought to appoint Atkins Ltd to a Professional Highway Services Framework Agreement.
The report provided details of the procurement process, including the results of the tender evaluation of the only bid received. In conjunction with the confidential Part 2 report, it demonstrated why the recommended contract award delivered best value for money.
RESOLVED:
1. That the background information set out in this report be noted; and
2. following consideration of the results of the procurement process in Part 2 of the meeting, the award of the Framework Agreement to Atkins Ltd, be approved.
Reason for decision:
The award of this Framework will enable Surrey County Council to ensure that highways for which it is responsible remain safe for public use.
|
|
|
Pilot for Camera Enforcement of Bus Lane, High Street Woking
Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
Reason for decision:
The main reason for this is to provide enforcement for High Street, Woking town centre, which has been subject to vehicle restrictions which have been difficult to enforce. The aspiration is to remove much of the traffic passing along High Street to provide a safer, more pleasant environment for pedestrians between the busy railway station and the town centre, assisting in delivery of the Woking town centre extensive public realm works. The High Street will then become a bus priority route allowing bus journey times through the town centre to be as reliable as possible.
To date there has been no camera enforcement of bus lanes within Surrey. By developing a comprehensive policy, enforcement can be introduced where there is a recognised need.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Environment and Infrastructure Select Committee]
Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Highways explained that powers designated to Surrey County Council (SCC) in the Road Traffic Order 2005 that would enable it to enforce against moving traffic offences in bus lanes were proposed to be enacted. This report proposed that these powers be enacted for a pilot of bus lane enforcement by means of an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system at the High Street in Woking, and that these powers be delegated to Woking Borough Council to carry out camera enforcement.
An Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) had been made that prohibits the use of the Woking High Street between 7am and 9pm, 7 days a week for all vehicular traffic apart from local buses and specified classes of vehicles, which were registered with Woking Borough Council (WBC), and takes the form of a bus lane. The intent was to remove much of the traffic passing along High Street to provide a safer, more pleasant environment for pedestrians between the busy railway station and the town centre.
The High Street would become a bus priority route allowing bus journey times through the town centre to be as reliable as possible. A Bus Lane Enforcement Agency Agreement is being prepared between SCC and WBC which would delegate these powers.
Officers would prepare and consult on a county-wide policy for the enforcement of moving traffic offences which would be presented to Cabinet in 2018. Findings from this pilot site and experience elsewhere would be considered as part of policy formation.
RESOLVED:
Reason for decision:
The main reason for this is to provide enforcement for High Street, Woking town centre, which has been subject to vehicle restrictions which have been difficult to enforce. The aspiration is to remove much of the traffic passing along High Street to provide a safer, more pleasant environment for pedestrians between the busy railway station and the town centre, assisting in delivery of the Woking town centre extensive public realm works. The High Street will then become a bus priority route allowing bus journey times through the town centre to be as reliable as possible.
To date there has been no camera enforcement of bus lanes within Surrey. By developing a comprehensive policy, enforcement can be introduced where there is a recognised need.
Mr Colin Kemp declared a non pecuniary interest as he was an Executive Member of Woking Borough Council.
Mr Colin Kemp left the meeting at 3.40pm at the end of this item. |
|
|
Revision of Procurement Standing Orders
Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
1. That the proposed changes to Procurement Standing Orders (PSOs) were noted and RECOMMENDED to full Council for final approval on 5 December 2017.
Reason for decision:
To provide support for the adoption of the revised Procurement Standing Orders (PSOs) by full Council. The updated PSOs will help drive the following developments within procurement: · Delivery of broader value through procurement, particularly regarding social value and local suppliers · An increased focus on supporting contract management activities · Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the procurement process.
Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Property and Business Services introduced this report and explained that as part of the transformation programme for Orbis, the Procurement Service has been through significant change over the past year in order to deliver a broader commercial role for the Council.
Revising the Procurement Standing Orders (PSOs), which set out how the Council governs spending by Officers on goods, works and services, will help to support these changes.
RESOLVED:
That the proposed changes to Procurement Standing Orders (PSOs) were noted and RECOMMENDED to full Council for final approval on 5 December 2017.
Reason for decision:
To provide support for the adoption of the revised Procurement Standing Orders (PSOs) by full Council. The updated PSOs will help drive the following developments within procurement: · Delivery of broader value through procurement, particularly regarding social value and local suppliers · An increased focus on supporting contract management activities Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the procurement process |
|
|
Local Government Ombudsman Report of an Investigation Into a Complaint
Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
That following consideration of the Ombudsman’s report and the response from Children’s Services, Cabinet:
1. Was satisfied that that steps have been taken to address the findings and consider whether any other action should be taken, and
2. noted that the Monitoring Officer will be bringing her report to the attention of all councillors.
Reason for decision:
There is a statutory requirement for the Monitoring Office to bring to Members’ attention any Ombudsman report on the Council that identifies it is at fault and has caused injustice as a result.
Minutes: This report was introduced by the Legal Services Manager and concerned the Local Government Ombudsman’s findings in response to a complaint concerning the service provided to a Surrey family.
The production of this Monitoring Officer report was a statutory requirement under Section 5A of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. The Council’s Monitoring Officer has to report to the Council’s executive body (Cabinet) when the Local Government Ombudsman has conducted an investigation into a complaint against the Council and has found that maladministration causing injustice has occurred.
Children’s Services have apologised unreservedly to the family, who experienced drift and delay in receiving the right help and support for their son. Systems and processes were reviewed and improved to ensure children with special educational needs are identified better and earlier and supported well for as long as is needed. This has been overseen by the Improvement Board with a focus to improve outcomes for children in Surrey.
Mrs Watson stated that there were multiple failures in this case and sought assurance that processes had been improved and that this would not happen again.
The Leader made a statement that as Leader of the Council he accepted responsibility on behalf of the Council and wholeheartedly apologised to the child and the family. He hoped that it would never happen again but Members were not personally responsible for operational matters but would drive improvements needed.
Acknowledgement was also given to the work of the Improvement Board for their concerted effort in driving through the improvements necessary for Children’s and SEND services.
RESOLVED:
1. Following consideration of the Ombudsman’s report and the response from Children’s Services, Cabinet: · Was satisfied that that steps have been taken to address the findings and consider whether any other action should be taken, and · noted that the Monitoring Officer will be bringing her report to the attention of all councillors.
Reason for decision:
There is a statutory requirement for the Monitoring Office to bring to Members’ attention any Ombudsman report on the Council that identifies it is at fault and has caused injustice as a result.
|
|
Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
That the decisions taken by Cabinet Members / Investment Board since the last meeting as set out in Annex 1, was noted.
Reason for decision:
To inform the Cabinet of decisions taken by Cabinet Members / Investment Board under delegated authority. Minutes: RESOLVED:
That the decisions taken by Cabinet Members / Investment Board since the last meeting as set out in Annex 1 to the submitted report, was noted.
Reason for decision:
To inform the Cabinet of decisions taken by Cabinet Members / Investment Board 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 the relevant paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.
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.
|
|
|
Independent Travel Training for Children and Young People with SEND
Decision: RESOLVED: Reason for decision: A full tender process, in compliance with the requirement of Public Contract Regulations and Procurement Standing Orders has been completed, and the recommendations provide best value for money for the Council following a thorough evaluation process, and support the successful delivery of outcomes for children and young people with SEND.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Children and Education Select Committee] Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Education explained that this report contained the commercial and financial details relating to item 7.
RESOLVED: 1. That following consideration of the results of the procurement process, a contract be awarded to deliver independent travel training for children and young people with SEND, supported through a Social Impact Bond; 2. That the contract would start on 1 December 2017 for a duration of five years with an estimated contract value as set out in the report, based on the successful training of 70 children was noted. Reason for decision: A full tender process, in compliance with the requirement of Public Contract Regulations and Procurement Standing Orders has been completed, and the recommendations provide best value for money for the Council following a thorough evaluation process, and support the successful delivery of outcomes for children and young people with SEND.
|
|
|
Approval to Award a Framework Agreement for Professional Highway Services Decision: RESOLVED:
That following consideration of the results of the procurement process the award of the framework agreement, as set out in the submitted report, be approved.
Reason for decisions:
The recommendations provide the best value for money for the Council.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Environment and Infrastructure Select Committee]
Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Highways explained that this report contained details of the evaluation process and tender results pertaining to item 13.
RESOLVED:
That following consideration of the results of the procurement process the award of the framework agreement as set out in the report, be approved.
Reason for decisions:
The recommendations provide the best value for money for the Council. |
|
|
Town Centre Regeneration – October 2017 Update
Decision: RESOLVED:
Reasons for Decisions
The proposed acquisition of the leasehold supports economic prosperity, one of Surrey County Council’s corporate priorities.
[The decisions on this item may be called in by the Overview and Budget Scrutiny Committee] Minutes: The Leader explained that unless the right financial information arrangements were forthcoming this acquisition would not go ahead.
RESOLVED:
Reasons for Decisions
The proposed acquisition of the leasehold supports economic prosperity, one of Surrey County Council’s corporate priorities. |
|
|
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. |