Agenda and draft minutes
- Attendance details
- Agenda frontsheet
PDF 186 KB
- Agenda reports pack
- REISSUED Supplementary Agenda - Extraordinary Council - 7 May 2025 PDF 21 MB
- Supplementary Agenda: Annex 2, Appendix 7 - Surrey Heartlands ICS Letter of Support - Extraordinary Council - 7 May 2025 PDF 227 KB
- Printed draft minutes
PDF 137 KB
Venue: Woodhatch Place, 11 Cockshot Hill, Reigate, Surrey, RH2 8EF
Contact: Amelia Christopher Email: amelia.christopher@surreycc.gov.uk
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
The Chair to report apologies for absence. Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from John Beckett, Nick Darby (remote), Paul Deach, Chris Farr (remote), Paul Follows, Will Forster, Matt Furniss, Frank Kelly (remote), Robert King, David Lewis (Camberley West), Michaela Martin, Cameron McIntosh, Julia McShane, Penny Rivers, John Robini, Becky Rush, Joanne Sexton, Lance Spencer, Mark Sugden (remote).
Jeffrey Gray arrived at 10.03 am.
|
|
|
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: The Chair confirmed that the Audit and Governance Committee have approved a general dispensation for all Members on an ongoing basis to enable Members to participate and vote in the matters relating to Local Government Reorganisation irrespective of them otherwise having a Statutory Disclosable Pecuniary Interest.
Chris Townsend made a statement apologising for a comment he made at the Budget meeting of the Council on 4 February 2025.
|
|
|
DEVOLUTION AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION
Council is asked to note that on 7 May the Cabinet will make a decision on whether the Leader of the County Council should submit the Final Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) Plan to government ahead of the deadline on 9 May.
(Note: report TO FOLLOW)
Additional documents: Minutes: The Leader introduced the report and noted that the most extensive powers and funding would be granted to Mayoral Strategic Authorities. Reorganisation was required, consolidating the twelve councils in Surrey into unitary councils. Whilst one unitary authority was the most financially sustainable, devolution could not be unlocked solely on a Surrey footprint. The evidence showed that a West/East two unitary councils option was best for residents, the three unitary councils option offered less financial resilience when managing key areas of demand such as social care, less agility to redeploy resources and higher costs for disaggregating services. The two unitary councils option was supported by the Chief Constable, the Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey, Surrey Heartlands Integrated Care System, Mole Valley District Council, Elmbridge Borough Council and other key partners. The community boards would provide real local engagement led by councillors, bringing together residents and partners; and would drive forward the early intervention and prevention agenda, key to delivering the 2030 Community Vision for Surrey, and the Health and Wellbeing Strategy.
The Leader noted that either of the West/East options would deliver a strong correlation between Adult Social Care and Children’s Social Services budgets and key funding sources, and comparable levels across a range of areas. The Council would continue to lobby the Government to write off Woking Borough Council’s unserviceable debt. The final plan is evidence-led and sets out a transformative vision for the future, streamlined operations, enhanced service delivery and unlocks financial efficiencies; setting out a modern, more sustainable and resilient future at a cost that is affordable and fair.
Members made the following comments:
· Noted the Cabinet’s preferred two unitary councils option which was option 2.1 West/East with Spelthorne in the west, yet the appendices showed that option 2.2 West/East was more balanced with Spelthorne in the east. · Noted that the Equality Impact Assessment was half based on West/East options 2.1 and 2.2. · Noted the omission of vital information such as the split in Council Tax bands across the new unitary councils, option 3 regarding three unitary councils was the most balanced regarding Council Tax, option 2.1 West/East was the least. · Noted that Spelthorne has the highest percentage of children in need, with social workers, and with Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs), followed by Runnymede and Woking, option 2.1 West/East puts all three boroughs together; those three councils had the highest debt levels. · Referred to a Member’s incorrect and flawed analysis of the final plan, noting that the number of Council Tax bands was set by the Government, councils could not introduce a Band I for example. · Explained that using the number of Band D equivalent properties or the Council Tax Base, the process equals out the differential in the tax base and future increases use that; calculating increases based on individual bands was wrong. · Noted that for option 2.1 West/East the tax base difference - the data was publicly available - was marginally more equal than option 2.2 West/East. · Noted that regarding the Fair Funding ... view the full minutes text for item 39/25 |