Agenda, decisions and minutes

Reigate and Banstead Local Committee
Monday, 6 June 2016 2.00 pm

Venue: Albert Rooms, 92 Albert Road, Horley, Surrey RH6 7HZ (PLEASE NOTE VENUE)

Contact: Sarah Quinn, Community Partnership and Committee Officer  Reigate Town Hall, Castlefield Road, Reigate, Surrey RH2 0SH

Items
No. Item

70/16

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (AGENDA ITEM ONLY)

71/16

MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING (AGENDA ITEM ONLY) pdf icon PDF 206 KB

72/16

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (AGENDA ITEM ONLY)

    To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.

     

    Notes:

    ·         Each Member must declare any interest that is disclosable under the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, unless it is already listed for that Member in the Council’s Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests.

     

    ·         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).

     

    ·         If the interest has not yet been disclosed in that Register, the Member must, as well as disclosing it at the meeting, notify the Monitoring Officer of it within 28 days.

     

    ·         If a Member has a disclosable interest, the Member must not vote or speak on the agenda item in which it arises, or do anything to influence other Members in regard to that item.

    Minutes:

    None received.

73/16

PETITIONS (AGENDA ITEM ONLY) pdf icon PDF 112 KB

    To receive any petitions in accordance with Standing Order 68. Notice should be given in writing or by email to the Community Partnership and Committee Officer at least 14 days before the meeting. Alternatively, the petition can be submitted on-line through Surrey County Council’s e-petitions website as long as the minimum number of signatures (30) has been reached 14 days before the meeting.

     

    One petition received:

     

    “Provide a year round safe and usable path on Alma Road at the exit to Holmesdale School and up to Beverley Heights” (Mrs Lara Sheard)

     

    Response attached

     

    Minutes:

    A petition with 195 signatures entitled ‘We the undersigned petition Surrey County Council to provide a year round safe and usable path on Alma Road at the exit to Holmesdale School and up to Beverley Heights’ was received from Mrs Lara Sheard. Mrs Sheard sent apologies for being unable to attend the meeting, but sent a query via email:

     

    “The Surrey County Council website states that pavement maintenance programmes are prioritised using a number of criteria and that priorities are based upon a number of further factors. With respect to this criteria, the petition response provided to us refers solely to the reported personal injury collisions. Are you able to provide us with a breakdown of the report which details the other factors considered when determining the priority of maintaining the stretch of pathway in question?”

     

    The Area Highway Manager responded that the petition was requesting a new footway, rather than maintenance. There were more requests than available budget to deliver, and the requests have to be prioritised, but Members could choose to add the request to the list of possible future schemes awaiting funding priority. There was a possibility of using local funds under delegated powers to maintain the verge; Safe Routes to School could also consider funding the scheme.

     

    During discussion with the Committee, the following key points were raised:

     

    ·         The Divisional Member for Reigate noted that building works on Alma Road had added to the deterioration of the grass verge. In addition, Holmesdale School had recently expanded its pupil numbers which meant the use of the verge had become heavier. Members asked whether developer funding could be secured. The Area Highway Manager confirmed that this would require a separate bid for Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding.

     

    ·         It was suggested that school funds could be used to reconfigure the front of the school, as happened at Walton on the Hill Primary School. The Divisional Member for Reigate noted that this had been discussed with the headteacher but no school funds were available as they had chosen to prioritise provision within the school grounds.

     

    ·         Members sympathised with the petitioner and the problems caused by the deterioration of the verge; it was noted that there were similar problems elsewhere in the borough. The Chairman hoped that some funding may be found but was not very optimistic in the short term.

     

74/16

FORMAL PUBLIC QUESTIONS (AGENDA ITEM ONLY)

    To answer any questions from residents or businesses within the Reigate and Banstead Borough area in accordance with Standing Order 69. Notice should be given in writing or by email to the Community Partnership and Committee Officer by 12 noon 4 working days before the meeting.

    Minutes:

    None received.

75/16

FORMAL MEMBER QUESTIONS (AGENDA ITEM ONLY)

76/16

LOCAL COMMITTEE DECISION TRACKER (FOR INFORMATION) pdf icon PDF 224 KB

    To note progress against decisions taken at previous meetings.

     

    Report attached

    Minutes:

    The Decision Tracker was noted.

     

    [A request was made for an update on the current position regarding the Parking Review. It was noted that this was due to come to the 12 September 2016 Local Committee meeting.

     

    Members wished to know if the replacement lighting poles for the Croydon Road Zebra Crossing would be funded centrally or by the Local Committee. The Area Highway Manager noted that she was seeking prices for new illuminated posts and halo lights, and once received, the decision would be taken under delegated authority. Due to the priority level of the scheme, it was not likely to meet the criteria for central funding, and would therefore be funded from the Local Committee’s budget.]

77/16

SURREY FIRE & RESCUE AUTHORITY - DRAFT PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN 2016-2025 (FOR INFORMATION) pdf icon PDF 139 KB

    Surrey Fire and Rescue Authority is required by the Government to produce an Integrated Risk Management Plan (IRMP) which considers all the fire and rescue related risks that could affect our communities. This planning process helps us to identify longer term priorities, to make sure we have an up to date assessment of risk, and how to mitigate it effectively.

     

    We set out our IRMP in our Public Safety Plan (PSP), which is currently valid until 2020. However within a constantly changing environment, new threats and opportunities have emerged. This new document outlines how we will respond and adapt to these changes and continue to deliver a high performing, valued, sustainable and cost-effective service.

     

    The draft PSP refresh document covers the period 2016-2025. Surrey Fire and Rescue Authority is currently consulting with the public and stakeholders on the direction it is intending to pursue, and is doing this in collaboration with the Surrey Fire Brigades Union, Resident Experience Board, Cabinet Member and Cabinet Associate Member. The consultation dates are 27 April to 7 June 2016.

     

    Report attached

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Sally Wilson, Service Improvement Manager and Bob Weldon-Gamble, Group Commander, Surrey Fire and Rescue Service

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None

     

    Member Discussion – key points:

     

    ·         Members were extremely supportive of the proposals in the draft Public Safety Plan (PSP), and particularly welcomed the proposals for greater collaborative work with other emergency services.

    ·         Members wished to know if the proposals would mean a change in response times. The Service Improvement Manager stated that the current PSP referred to how quickly a fire engine could attend an incident, but in future this could mean a co-responder or a fire officer in a car, depending on the type of incident. The priority would be getting the right people and equipment to the incident; however, there were no proposals to change response times.

    ·         Discussion took place regarding the issue of false alarms, particularly from automatic systems. The Group Commander informed Members that the number of automatic alarm calls had halved in the last 5-10 years following a review of how such calls were handled. He hoped that the service could go even further on this reduction, and noted that Surrey was at the forefront of this issue nationally.

    ·         The Chairman asked whether the service looked at how fire and rescue services outside the UK operated, noting that co-responding with other emergency services was well-established in France. The Group Commander noted that the FBU linked to other unions in Europe, and that professional bodies looked at other international examples of best practice.

    ·         A question was asked regarding the possibility of a centralised base for all emergency services to work together. The Service Improvement Manager informed the Committee that the service was looking at how they could work with Surrey Policy and South East Coast Ambulance Service (SECAmb) to respond together from their current estates (this is already happening in the case of SECAmb). Opportunities regarding vehicle servicing and fuel purchase were also being considered.

    ·         It was noted that SECAmb can forecast where they are likely to be required, and Members wished to know if Surrey Fire and Rescue Service were also able to do so. The Service Improvement Manager informed Members that the Dynamic Cover tool enables them to do this; this informed the response standard.

    ·         Members wished to know if the options appraisal on collaboration was a paper exercise. The Service Improvement Manager reported that it was a mixture of a practical pilot and a paper based options appraisal looking at all options. There were also practical examples of work with Surrey Police, e.g. responding to heart attack and drug overdose victims; minor Road Traffic Collisions (RTCs) and animal rescues.

    ·         The Service Improvement Manager reported that the PSP would be coming for approval at Cabinet on 20 September 2016 (rather than July as stated in the report). She encouraged the Committee to complete the questionnaire in response to the consultation.

     

    The Local Committee (Reigate & Banstead) NOTED the report.

     

     

     

78/16

TRAVEL SMART - END OF PROGRAMME REPORT (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION FOR INFORMATION) pdf icon PDF 308 KB

    This report provides an overview of all the work delivered in Redhill and Reigate, as part of the Travel SMART programme that started in April 2011. It summarises the range of achievements, outcomes and challenges recognised across the programme, but with a specific focus on Redhill and Reigate. It should be used by the members of Local Committee initially to assess the success of the programme and to have sight of the open schemes that continue to be progressed.

     

    Report and Annex A attached

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    The Committee:

     

    (i)    NOTED the content of the report and the outcomes of the project.

     

    (ii)   AGREED that the remaining schemes in Redhill and Reigate programme will now be delivered through the most appropriate department, as set out in paragraph 4.4.

     

    REASONS:

    To facilitate the closure of the programme and to ensure that there is a mechanism to deliver the remaining schemes in the programme.

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Marc Woodall, Sustainable Transport Manager

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None

     

    Member Discussion – key points:

     

    ·         Members were generally pleased with the outcomes of the project and felt that overall, it had been a success.

    ·         A question was asked regarding the proposed Visible Message Signs (VMS) and when they were likely to be installed. The Sustainable Transport Manager reported that they would be installed by the end of summer 2016. There had been a delay owing to a water resistance failure during factory testing. He agreed to check on the latest position regarding the electrical works with Skanska.

    ·         Concerns were raised regarding the Travel SMART Hub, the opening of which was delayed by 14 months and which closed very abruptly having been rarely open. The Sustainable Transport Manager reported that this experience had been covered in two “lessons learned” exercises.

    ·         A question was asked regarding the evaluation of the impact of the project, particularly in light of the fact that the schemes in Guildford and Woking were larger initiatives. The officer explained that there were two main areas of evaluation; outputs – what was delivered, and impact – the Department for Transport (DfT) was collating reports from all Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) programmes and would be reporting back at the end of 2016. Data regarding public transport use, cycling and pedestrians would be collected locally. It was possible to demonstrate that sustainable transport schemes have resulted in an increase in cycling, and noted that the Travel and Transport Team were working with the University of Surrey to improve the marketing of bus services.

    ·         Members wished to know how any increase in bus usage, following the improvements, was being measured. The Sustainable Transport Manager explained that data from the bus operators was being collected and analysed annually.

    ·         Members wished to know if all the proposed electric vehicle charging points had been delivered. The officer reported that two charging points had already been installed at East Surrey College and Reigate Hill, and that bidding for two more was taking place in conjunction with Reigate & Banstead Borough Council.

    ·         Members wished to see a disaggregation of the results so that the local benefits could be demonstrated. The officer reported that the Redhill and Reigate element of the programme had been selected by the DfT for a “deep dive” evaluation study in comparison with Telford, which had a similar programme.

    ·         Concerns were raised regarding the funding of the remaining schemes, and whether there were budgetary implications. The Area Highway Manager assured the Committee that the Design Team would be working on these schemes; anything additional would need to be prioritised alongside other schemes. The Sustainable Transport Manager reported that the design and construction costs would be covered by Section 106 funding; as there was no longer a LSTF project management team, these would be taken forward with Highways.

    ·         Members welcomed the fact that the programme had enabled more young people to access work opportunities, and that Redhill  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78/16

79/16

HIGHWAYS SCHEMES UPDATE (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION FOR INFORMATION) pdf icon PDF 118 KB

    At the 14 December 2015 Local Committee, Members agreed a programme of revenue and capital highway works in Reigate and Banstead. An amended programme of works was agreed on 7 March 2016 to take account of the reduced revenue budget. Delegated authority was given to enable the forward programme to be progressed without the need to bring further reports to the Local Committee for decision. This report sets out recent progress. The report also updates Members on the progress of the Greater Redhill Sustainable Transport Package, the Epsom-Banstead Sustainable Transport Package, the Langshott Bus Scheme and the number of enquiries received from customers.

     

    Report and Annexes 1 and 2 attached

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None

     

    Member Discussion – key points:

     

    ·         Members wished to know if the new Greater Redhill package would look at HGV movements. The Area Highway Manager noted that this was an issue, and that she was working with the Central Team to look into it. A site visit was being organised with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Divisional Members. An update would be brought to the September 2016 Local Committee meeting.

    ·         Members asked whether the role of Local Highways Officers was being considered as part of improvements to customer service following complaints. The Area Highway Manager agreed to check with the Maintenance Engineer and report back. A process of continual improvement when dealing with customers was in place.

    ·         Members were asked to email the Area Highway Manager with individual requests for their divisions, copying in the Community Partnerships and Committee Officers.

    ·         Discussion took place regarding the Carriageway Horizon programme. Members expressed concerns that the list of roads was inaccurate, and wished to know how often it was checked. The Area Highway Manager explained that the original Horizon programme list was based on inspections made in 2011, prior to the adverse weather during winter 2013-14 which had caused many roads to deteriorate rapidly. She reported that surveys would be repeated, but urged Members to send her their priority roads in the meantime; she emphasised that this did not necessarily mean that they would be included in the next tranche of works, but would ensure they were on the list for future consideration.

    ·         The Area Highway Manager reported that the timetable for the Langshott bus route was accurate and that she would keep the committee updated.

    ·         Members felt that Reigate & Banstead received a disproportionate amount of road maintenance compared with its status as the second highest net contributor to Surrey County Council. The Chairman agreed to put these points forward in a letter to the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding, and the Leader of the Council.

    ·         Discussion took place regarding the A217 Resilience Scheme. The Area Highway Manager confirmed that Transport for London (TfL) had assisted with the scheme, and that the London Borough of Sutton had provided some support with funding and diversions.

     

    The Local Committee (Reigate & Banstead) NOTED the content of the report.

     

     

     

     

     

80/16

PAVEMENT HORIZON - 5 YEAR PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PROGRAMME (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION FOR INFORMATION) pdf icon PDF 141 KB

    This report describes the potential Pavement Horizon 5 year programme, generated from the Footway Network Survey (FNS), for Reigate and Banstead. These schemes include lower cost preventative treatment, in an asset management approach, to extend the life of the pavement. This programme also includes need based schemes that are higher cost reconstruction of the pavement, and the potential list of these is included in Annex 1.

     

    This report is the start of the consultation process to engage and to better inform the prioritised list of the needs based schemes.

     

    The Local Committee are invited to identify schemes that are high priority (should be part of the 5 year programme), on the list which are low priority (work not required in the 5 year programme), or not on the list which are high priority and should be considered for the 5 year programme.

     

    Report and Annex 1 attached

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None

     

    Member Discussion – key points:

     

    ·         Members were reminded that the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding had written to them requesting suggestions from their divisions. She emphasised that sealing and waterproofing of pavements would continue as normal; works under the Horizon programme involved full reconstruction of pavements.

    ·         Clarification was sought as to what constituted a ‘pavement’. The Area Highway Manager clarified that a pavement was a surfaced footway - either a footway at the side of a road or a town path. Footpaths (rights of way) were not covered. Requests for new pavements would not be considered as part of this programme.

    ·         Concerns were raised regarding the footway alongside the A217 in the northern part of the borough, which was overgrown with grass and the surface of which had eroded in places.

    ·         It was reported that the pavement at Washington Close, Reigate, had already been resurfaced. The Area Highway Manager explained that this had been a preventative waterproofing overlay to extend the life of the pavement.

    ·         Members wished to know if a separated process was in place for footways requiring functional improvements. The Area Highway Manager reported that extensive inspection of pavements, including footfall, was taking place, and there was a full scheduled programme of preventative schemes going ahead. She undertook to check whether this had been sent out to Members.

    ·         Concerns were raised that certain pavements, such as Bonser Drive, Tadworth, only experienced heavy footfall at school times, but had still deteriorated.

    ·         Members wished to know what would happen to paving slabs where these were in place. The Area Highway Manager noted that over time, paving slabs rattle and cause trip hazards. Disabled groups prefer tarmac as it is a smoother surface. Although the cost of reconstructing the lower layers of the pavement is the same with slabs as for tarmac, the cost of relaying slabs is considerably greater. However, in some heritage areas, communities have requested this instead of tarmac.

    ·         Members felt that Community Payback would be an effective way of getting overgrown pavements cleared. The Area Highways Manager noted this, but advised that it can be time consuming as close supervision is required.

     

    The Local Committee (Reigate & Banstead) NOTED:

     

    (i)    The list of potential Pavement Horizon needs based schemes, for the 5 year programme, generated from the Footway Network Survey for Reigate & Banstead, as set out in Annex 1.

     

    (ii)   The request to identify schemes that are: 1. High priority and should remain on the 5 year programme; 2. Lower priority and could be deferred to a future programme; 3. Currently not on the high priority list and should be considered for addition to the list.

     

    (iii)  The process outlined in part 1 to verify that the schemes in Annex 1 meet local and community needs.

     

     

     

     

     

81/16

MASONS BRIDGE ROAD, REDHILL - SPEED LIMIT ASSESSMENT (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION FOR DECISION) pdf icon PDF 103 KB

    A speed limit assessment has been carried out in Masons Bridge Road following the process set out in Surrey’s policy Setting Local Speed Limits. As a result of this assessment it is proposed that the existing 40mph speed limit in a section of Masons Bridge Road and also in a short section of Kings Mill Lane be reduced to 30mph. This report seeks approval for the changes to the speed limit in accordance with Surrey’s policy.

     

    Report and Annexes 1 and 2 attached

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    The Committee:

     

    (i)    NOTED the results of the speed limit assessment undertaken.

     

    (ii)   AGREED that, based upon the evidence, the speed limit be reduced from 40mph to 30mph in the section of Masons Bridge Road between the existing 30mph speed limit terminal signs 13m south of the southern boundary of 74 Masons Bridge Road and a point 25m south east of the eastern kerb line of Kings Mill Lane; and in the section of Kings Mill Lane between the junction with Masons Bridge Road and a point 40m north of that junction, in accordance with the current policy.

     

    (iii)  AUTHORISED the advertisement of a notice in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the effect of which will be to implement the proposed speed limit change, and, subject to no objections being upheld, that the order be made.

     

    (iv)AUTHORISED delegation of authority to the Area Highway Manager in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Local Committee and the local divisional Member to resolve any objections received in connection with the proposal.

     

    REASONS:

    To enable changes to the speed limit on Masons Bridge Road and Kings Mill Lane in accordance with Surrey’s speed limit policy.

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None

     

    Member Discussion – key points:

     

    ·         Members noted their support for the proposal. The Chairman reported thanks on behalf of Salfords and Sidlow Parish Council.

     

    The Local Committee (Reigate & Banstead):

     

    (i)    NOTED the results of the speed limit assessment undertaken.

     

    (ii)   AGREED that, based upon the evidence, the speed limit be reduced from 40mph to 30mph in the section of Masons Bridge Road between the existing 30mph speed limit terminal signs 13m south of the southern boundary of 74 Masons Bridge Road and a point 25m south east of the eastern kerb line of Kings Mill Lane; and in the section of Kings Mill Lane between the junction with Masons Bridge Road and a point 40m north of that junction, in accordance with the current policy.

     

    (iii)  AUTHORISED the advertisement of a notice in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the effect of which will be to implement the proposed speed limit change, and, subject to no objections being upheld, that the order be made.

     

    (iv)AUTHORISED delegation of authority to the Area Highway Manager in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Local Committee and the local divisional Member to resolve any objections received in connection with the proposal.

82/16

A240 REIGATE ROAD, BURGH HEATH - SHARED PEDESTRIAN CYCLE PATH (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION FOR DECISION) pdf icon PDF 83 KB

    A scheme is currently being designed to provide a shared pedestrian cycle path along the A240 Reigate Road, Burgh Heath between the path across Burgh Heath to Chetwode Road and Church Lane. This report seeks authority to change the existing footway on this section of the A240 Reigate Road to a shared pedestrian cycle path.

     

    Report and Annexes 1 and 2 attached

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    The Committee APPROVED the change from a footway to a shared pedestrian cycle path on that section of the A240 Reigate Road, Burgh Heath between the path across Burgh Heath to Chetwode Road and Church Lane, as shown in Annex 1 to the report submitted, subject to the necessary funding being available.

     

    REASONS:

    To enable the existing A240 Reigate Road footway to be changed to a shared pedestrian cycle path. Funding for the scheme cannot be guaranteed due to the bidding process for Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funds.

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Zena Curry, Area Highway Manager

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None

     

    Member Discussion – key points:

     

    ·         The Area Highway Manager reported that the funding for this scheme was no longer guaranteed due to the bidding process for CIL funds; therefore the proposal was recommended for approval subject to the necessary funding being available.

    ·         Members raised concerns regarding the location of the shared paths in paragraph 3.1; it was suggested that this should read “west side” then “east side”. The Area Highways Manager agreed to check this.

     

    The Local Committee (Reigate & Banstead) APPROVED the change from a footway to a shared pedestrian cycle path on that section of the A240 Reigate Road, Burgh Heath between the path across Burgh Heath to Chetwode Road and Church Lane, as shown in Annex 1 to the report submitted, subject to the necessary funding being available.

83/16

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT - SERVICES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE 2015/16 (EXECUTIVE FUNCTION FOR INFORMATION) pdf icon PDF 134 KB

    The purpose of this report is to update the Local Committee on how Services for Young People has supported young people to develop their employability during 2015/16, which has been the overall goal of Services for Young People since 2014.

     

    In particular, this Local Committee report focuses on the contribution of our different commissions to this goal and how they have performed during the year. Please note that the majority of performance information is provided in the appendix to this report.

     

    Next steps have also been included to set out how we will keep the Local Committee

    informed about developments and our progress during the year ahead.

     

    Report and Annex 1 attached

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Matthew Raleigh, Youth Support Service (YSS) Team Manager (Reigate & Banstead)

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None

     

    Member Discussion – key points:

     

    ·         Members thanked the YSS Team Manager for an excellent and informative report.

    ·         Concerns were expressed that the number of young people unknown to the service had shown an increase in the past year. The YSS Team Manager explained that efforts had been made to bring this number down, but that due to budget reductions and new areas of work, the amount of resources required may not have been sufficient. He emphasised that the service’s tracking team made calls to young people and their parents.

    ·         Members wished to know if the contract performance target referred to on page 83 of the agenda pack was likely to be met. The YSS Manager noted that this referred to the hours provided by Learning Space as part of the 1-to-1 Local Prevention contract, and that the figures were going up. The Early Help Offer meant that a recommissioning of services would be taking place, and that this was likely to result in a 25% increase in hours.

    ·         It was noted that the report did not mention the Youth Engagement Scheme (YES) operated by Surrey Fire and Rescue Service. Members wished to know how many young people from Reigate & Banstead had participated in the scheme. The YSS Manager explained that the YES was not included in the report as it was not part of the YSS offer, but agreed that it was clearly an excellent scheme, and that it would be useful to have a co-ordinated network of all local services.

    ·         Discussion took place around the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) offer for local young people. Members were concerned about an increase in self-harm and suicide amongst young people, and that young people were not being assessed by CAMHS in a timely manner. The YSS Manager noted that there were difficulties in getting the correct mental health support for young people, and that these services needed to be accessible, e.g. appointments at youth centres rather than in a clinical setting. It was noted that CAMHS was currently undergoing a recommissioning process, and the YSS Manager noted that he was happy to take Members’ concerns to CAMHS colleagues and to ensure that Members fully understood the new offer. The Chairman asked the YSS Manager to set up a meeting with CAMHS to put forward these issues.

    ·         Concerns were raised regarding usage of the new Phoenix Centre in Preston. The YSS Manager agreed that facilities needed to be used, but noted that new responsibilities for the Early Help offer presented challenges. He reported that other services, such as Children’s Services and CAMHS operated from Banstead Youth Centre, and hoped that this could also happen at the Phoenix Centre.

    ·         Members noted the 70% decrease in the number of first time entrants into the youth justice system since 2011-12, raising concerns that this may be due to cutbacks in neighbourhood  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83/16

84/16

LOCAL COMMITTEE TASK GROUPS 2016-17 (FOR DECISION) pdf icon PDF 115 KB

    The Local Committee is asked to review and agree the terms of reference and membership of the Youth Task Group, the Greater Redhill Sustainable Transport Package Task Group, the Epsom-Banstead Sustainable Transport Package Task Group and the Parking Task Group for 2016-17 and to nominate a representative to the East Surrey Community Safety Partnership.

     

    Report and Annex 1 attached

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    The Committee AGREED:

     

    (i)    The terms of reference of the Youth Task Group, the Greater Redhill Sustainable Transport Package Task Group, the Epsom-Banstead Sustainable Transport Package Task Group and the Parking Task Group as set out in Annex 1 to the report submitted and amended as follows – Parking Task Group – remove Chairman and Vice-Chairman from membership and increase County Councillor membership to 4.

     

    (ii)   The membership of these task groups for 2016-17 as set out below:

     

    Youth Task Group: Mrs Dorothy Ross-Tomlin; Ms Barbara Thomson; Mr Ken Gulati; Mrs Natalie Bramhall; Cllr Mrs Rachel Turner; Cllr Michael Blacker; Cllr Mrs Anna Tarrant; Cllr David Jackson

     

    Greater Redhill Sustainable Transport Task Group: Ms Barbara Thomson; Mrs Natalie Bramhall; Mr Jonathan Essex; Mrs Dorothy Ross-Tomlin; Cllr Tony Schofield; Cllr Michael Blacker; Cllr Frank Kelly

     

    Epsom-Banstead Task Group: Mrs Dorothy Ross-Tomlin; Mr Bob Gardner (Mr Nick Harrison and Ms Barbara Thomson – substitutes)

     

    Parking Task Group: Mrs Natalie Bramhall; Ms Barbara Thomson; Mr Nick Harrison; Dr Zully Grant-Duff; Cllr Dr Lynne Hack; Cllr Tony Schofield; Cllr Roger Newstead

     

    (iii)  To nominate Mrs Kay Hammond to represent the Reigate & Banstead Local Committee on the East Surrey Community Safety Partnership in 2016-17 and for Mrs Barbara Thomson to act as substitute.

     

    REASONS:

    The Local Committee’s Task Groups enable the Local Committee to carry out its work in an efficient and expedient manner. Surrey County Council is a Responsible Authority on Community Safety Partnerships and has a responsibility to be represented at their meetings.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Sarah Quinn, Community Partnership and Committee Officer

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None

     

    Member discussion – key points:

     

    ·         It was proposed that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman be removed from the membership of the Parking Task Group, and for the membership to consist of 4 County Councillors rather than 3.

     

    The Local Committee (Reigate & Banstead) AGREED:

     

    (i)    The terms of reference of the Youth Task Group, the Greater Redhill Sustainable Transport Package Task Group, the Epsom-Banstead Sustainable Transport Package Task Group and the Parking Task Group as set out in Annex 1 to the report submitted and amended as above.

     

    (ii)   The membership of these task groups for 2016-17 as set out below:

     

    Youth Task Group: Mrs Dorothy Ross-Tomlin, Ms Barbara Thomson, Mr Ken Gulati, Mrs Natalie Bramhall; Cllr Mrs Rachel Turner; Cllr Michael Blacker; Cllr Mrs Anna Tarrant; Cllr David Jackson.

     

    Greater Redhill Sustainable Transport Task Group: Ms Barbara Thomson; Mrs Natalie Bramhall; Mr Jonathan Essex; Mrs Dorothy Ross-Tomlin; Cllr Tony Schofield; Cllr Michael Blacker; Cllr Frank Kelly.

     

    Epsom-Banstead Task Group: Mrs Dorothy Ross-Tomlin; Mr Bob Gardner (Substitutes: Mr Nick Harrison; Ms Barbara Thomson).

     

    Parking Task Group: Mrs Natalie Bramhall; Ms Barbara Thomson; Mr Nick Harrison; Dr Zully Grant-Duff; Cllr Dr Lynne Hack; Cllr Tony Schofield; Cllr Roger Newstead.

     

    (iii)  To nominate Mrs Kay Hammond to represent the Reigate & Banstead Local Committee on the East Surrey Community Safety Partnership in 2016-17 and for Mrs Barbara Thomson to act as substitute.

     

    [A secret ballot took place to determine the membership of the Parking Task Group.]