Agenda, decisions and minutes

Tandridge Local Committee
Friday, 26 September 2014 10.15 am

Venue: Soper Hall, Harestone Valley Road, Caterham, CR3 6HY

Contact: Michelle Starr, Community Partnership and Committee Officer  Tandridge District Council Offices, Station Road East, Oxted, Surrey, RH8 0BT

Items
No. Item

69/13

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

70/13

MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING pdf icon PDF 67 KB

71/13

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

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

     

    Notes:

    ·        In line with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, declarations may relate to the interest of the member, or the member’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom the member is living as husband or wife, or a person with whom the member is living as if they were civil partners and the member is aware they have the interest.

     

    ·        Members need only disclose interests not currently listed on the Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests.

     

    ·        Members must notify the Monitoring Officer of any interests disclosed at the meeting so they may be added to the Register.

     

    ·        Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest.

     

    Minutes:

    None received.

     

72/13

PETITIONS RELATING TO HIGHWAYS MATTERS pdf icon PDF 69 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. Response attached.

    Minutes:

    One received. The petitioner was in attendance at the meeting and received the response which is attached to the minutes as Appendix A.

     

    Mrs Angie Ketcher and Mrs Gill Pearson submitted a petition with 150 signatures from local residents requesting that a ‘No Lorry Zone’ be put in place along the busy road outside of the school. The petition outlines concerns regarding HGVs outside of the school and the safety of the children attending.

     

    Mrs Angie Ketcher was in attendance and presented the petition.

     

    Member Discussion – key points:

     

    ·         Mr David Hodge informed the Local Committee that work has been put in place in conjunction with Croydon (including yellow line restrictions). He continued that double parking was also causing some problems in this area.

    ·         Members agreed that the key issue was the safety of the children and that the large lorries using the road are those that are serving large corporations (such as supermarkets) and not local businesses.

    ·         Mr David Hodge asked John Lawlor, Highways Local Area Manager to contact the companies and ask them not to use the road during school times and explained he would also bring up the matter with Kevin Hurley. If the supermarkets do not agree then other measures will have to be agreed and implemented however members agreed they would try to engage with them first.

    ·         Members also enquired whether Peter Hitchings, Highways Engineer could speak to SatNav companies regarding this inappropriate route.

    ·         The Highways Local Area Manager explained that he will undertake a review which will look at safety issues and will report back to the divisional member (Mr David Hodge).

    ·         Members discussed whether the parking restrictions had been agreed and implemented; they have been.

    ·         The petitioner continued that one of the major problems on this route was also the speed. The Highways Local Area manager responded that all aspects of safety on that road would be looked at, including the speed.

    ·         Members asked the petitioner if they would be able to provide a list of the HGV companies which use the road and then for the Highways Local Area manager to draft a letter to them.

     

73/13

FORMAL PUBLIC QUESTIONS RELATING TO HIGHWAYS MATTERS pdf icon PDF 63 KB

    To answer any questions from residents or businesses within the Tandridge District 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 four working days before the meeting.

     

    One received to date. Response attached.

    Minutes:

    Two formal public questions were received. The written responses are attached to the minutes as Appendix B.

     

    Mrs Angie Ketcher and Mrs Gill Pearson requested the committee review traffic management and signage outside Hamsey Green School; they received the response prior to the meeting.

     

    Mrs Ketcher asked a supplementary question; she asked whether the committee could inform her on criteria used to prioritise funding.

    The Highways Area manager responded that a point scoring system is used for schemes (scoring elements such as safety, environmental and maintenance factors) and that there are a very large amount of schemes that they have to prioritise and following this members have to make the very difficult decisions on choosing them.

     

    Member Discussion – key points:

     

    ·         Mr David Hodge informed the committee that there has been a 40% reduction in funding which puts pressure on members and the highways team as the statutory duties takes 2/3 of the County Council budget. An increase in council tax would be one avenue for increasing funding however they are restricted to how much it can be raised. Across the (circa) 380 schools across Surrey it can often be hard to find the funding.

     

    The second question received was from Mr Bristow who asked whether the committee could do something to improve the situation of the 410, 400 and 509 bus timing’s which have recently changed and he received the response at the meeting (stating that unfortunately changes to commercial operations are not approved by the County Council).

     

74/13

MEMBER QUESTIONS RELATING TO HIGHWAY MATTERS pdf icon PDF 128 KB

    To receive any written questions from Members under Standing Order 47.  Notice should be given in writing to the Community Partnership and Committee Officer of formal questions by 12.00 noon four working days before the meeting.

     

    Five received to date. Responses to questions 2, 4 and 5 attached.

    Minutes:

    There were five member questions submitted and no member questions were asked informally at the meeting.

     

    The written responses are attached to the minutes as Appendix C.

     

    The Highways Area Manager provided an update to some of the responses provided in the agenda papers:

    ·         Question 1 (submitted by Mr Nick Skellett): Within the next few weeks repairs will be carried out and surface dressing will be next year.

    ·         Question 2(submitted by Mr Nick Skellett): The team will look at banning a right turn and exit of A25 and will look into making it one way (in consultation with the police and other officers).
    With regards to the section of road outside of Limpsfield School, officers are preparing a map base where tubes need to be put to get speed records for seven days and this needs to be agreed with the divisional member (Mr Nick Skellett).
    Mr Skellett responded that he would like officers to approach him with a suggestion of where the tubes should be placed.

     

    Member Discussion – key points:

    ·         With reference to question 3 (submitted by Mr Nick Skellett); Mr Hodge asked for officers to be careful when looking into whether warning signs and other such measures are needed outside schools as it may lead onto requests from all schools so the measures need to be implemented only when proven necessary. Mr Skellett agreed that money needs to be spent appropriately and reasons set out clearly.

    ·         With reference to question 4 (submitted by Mr Nick Skellett); members discussed the speed limit on this road and agreed it is too fast and should be reduced to 40mph (not 50mph as suggested by the police). Members enquired what steps need to be taken to establish a 40mph speed limit along this section of the road.
    The Highways Area Manager informed members that currently there are signs in place and that they are in the process of getting quotes and laying down tubes. They have also asked the asset management team to look at the surfacing of the road along the full length of the Titsey Road.
    He has also passed on comments made in the previous Local Committee meeting for the team to assess whether crash barriers would be appropriate along a section of the road and he will keep the committee update on progress. Members asked for the tubes to be out as soon as possible which was agreed by the highways officers.

     

    ·         Members again raised concerns about the speed limit and the recommendation to reduce to 50mph as they would like the speed limit reduced to 40mph.
    The Highways Area Officer informed them that there was still a caveat that if members do not agree with officers report they can ask cabinet to reduce the speed limit further. Members agreed that now funding had been established that the team should move on this. This was agreed by all members.

75/13

HIGHWAYS SCHEMES UPDATES 2014-15 pdf icon PDF 107 KB

    At the 13th December 2013 Local Committee, Members agreed a programme of revenue and capital highway works in Tandridge.  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 other maintenance programmes in Tandridge and on customer enquiries.

     

    Report and Annex 1 attached.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: John Lawlor, Highways Area Team Manager

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None

     

    The Highways Area Team Manager presented the report and confirmed that an additional £23 million in funding had been agreed for flood damage.

     

    He continued also that a winter service update will be received shortly.

     

    The Highways Area Team Manager explained the customer services section of the report and clarified the complaints section and that the majority of complaints received were due to poor weather.

     

    Member Discussion – key points:

     

    ·         Members asked on the position of Harrow road, to which the Highways Area team manager explain that it was still in the design phase for the soakaway.

    ·         Mr Hodge responded that it was always agreed that this road would be done as part of project horizon this year outside number 247 who had flooding in their garden and that Farleigh road would be after Harrow road. The area team manager agreed he would check on the status of this with the Horizon team.

    ·         Members also generally requested that in the wake of the flooding problems, they can have different pots of funding (some local and some centrally etc) as it is increasingly difficult to know who is controlling which pots and what their priorities were. More guidance and explanation is required (for example the flooding task group will shortly be coming up with a new list also) and members feel there is often much duplication as a result.

    ·         Mr Hodge updated the committee on the county perspective on flooding. Surrey was the worst hit with regards to roads and services (although it had previously been reported that it was Taunton). Funding received has not matched the requirements and other counties have received more funding despite incurring less flooding. The director and assistant director of highways are putting together a comprehensive list and Croydon are putting together a bid for the A22 where Mr Hodge will be meeting with them to discuss which will probably be a £1 million scheme.

    ·         Mr Hodge continued that many residents of Surrey did not realise the extent of problems caused by the floods, such as the problems which the county would have faced if the electric stations flooded which could have affected over 1 million people. Mr Hodge stated that he believes we need to go to the source of the problem (the lower Thames is a major issue for much of Surrey). He continued that he has written to the Prime Minister however they have not received any further money and the biggest concern is the lack of funding support.

    ·         Members raised concerns that often they are not sure where to go, for what with the highways team when there is flooding for example and that this is something that needs clarification. The Chairman emphasised that the flooding in the South of the district was quite serious and that David Harmer should be aware of this.
    Mr Hodge stated that Mr Harmer had done a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75/13

76/13

MEMBERS' ALLOCATION FUNDING - UPDATE pdf icon PDF 244 KB

    Surrey County Council Councillors receive funding to spend on local projects that help to promote social, economic or environmental well-being in the neighbourhoods and communities of Surrey. This funding is known as Members’ Allocation.

     

    For the financial year 2014/15 the County Council has allocated £10,300revenue funding to each County Councillor and £35,000 capital funding to each Local Committee. This report provides an update on the projects that have been funded since April 2014 to date.

     

    Report and Annex A attached.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Sandra Brown, Community Partnerships Team Leader (East)

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None

     

    Member Discussion – key points:

     

    ·         Members were given their remaining balance at time of printing the agenda for noting.

    ·         Members discussed the anticipated projects to be funded from the remaining 2014/15 Member’s Allocation budget, such as the Farm Buddies scheme which was jointly supported and funded previously.

    ·         Mr Skellett requested that the Community Partnership Team let him know whether the project has any elements that can be funded using his capital instead of revenue as he has already committed this to other projects. The community Partnership and Committee officer also agreed to get a breakdown of the project costs and get back to him.

    ·         All members agreed to support the project and Mr Hodge agreed to make up any shortfall if required as he believes the project is worth investing in.

    ·         A reminder was given that all monies need to be spent by end of February and members praised the system in place and thanked the officers involved.

    Resolution:

     

    The Local Committee (Tandridge) is asked to note:

    (i) The amounts that have been spent from the Members’ Allocation and Local Committee capital budgets, as set out in Annex 1 of this report.

     

77/13

CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE - EARLY HELP pdf icon PDF 152 KB

    Services for Young People is re-commissioning services for 2015-2020 and the new service model will be presented to Cabinet on 23 September 2014. The current Local Prevention commission ends on 31 August 2015 and new funding agreements will be awarded for provision to start on 1 September 2015, subject to Cabinet approval of the new service model.

     

    The Youth Task Group (YTG) has developed a set of priorities for Local Prevention in Tandridge, which is based on local needs. Providers who bid for Local Prevention will be asked to respond to the local needs and priorities identified. 

     

    The Local Committee is asked to approve the Tandridge priorities so that the procurement exercise can start in October.

     

    Report and Annexes 1 and 1a attached.

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    The Committee:

     

    (i)    APPROVED the local priorities (Annex 1), to be considered by providers, focusing on the identified needs of Tandridge and the geographical neighbourhoods prioritised by the Youth Task Group.

    (ii)   NOTED that approval is subject to approval of the Services for Young People model by Cabinet on 23 September 2014.

    (iii)  NOTED the changes to the council scheme of delegation which provides increased decision making to local commissioning in relation to youth work and Surrey Outdoor Learning (SOLD).

     

    REASONS:

     

    Local Prevention has been in place across Tandridge since 1 April 2012. It has contributed significantly to the reduction in young people becoming Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET).  

     

    It is therefore recommended that this early help commission is re-commissioned for 2015-20.

     

    These recommendations will:

    a)    Support the Council’s policy of Creating Opportunities for Young People

     

    b)    Support the Council’s priority to provide early help for children, young people and their families

     

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Jeremy Crouch, Lead Youth Officer (East Surrey)

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None

     

     

    ·         The Lead Youth Officer presented the report and sought the approval of local priorities and increased decision making as wet out in the cabinet report. When the report was submitted (and published with the agenda papers) it was awaiting cabinet approval. However the report has now been approved by the Cabinet.

    ·         He continued that the report sets out in the annex, the priorities through the Youth Task Group. If approved it will go out to tender and to set priorities for the centre based youth work (following cabinet approval) and the team will directly manage the Youth Centres.

    1.     

    Member Discussion – key points:

    ·         Members asked for an explanation as to how they would run. The Lead Youth officer explained that there would be different providers and they would be able to take on a lead professional role. Also I we need to add to the priorities we are able to.

    2.     

    Resolution:

     

    The Committee:

    (i) APPROVED the local priorities (Annex 1), to be considered by providers, focusing on the identified needs of Tandridge and the geographical neighbourhoods prioritised by the Youth Task Group.

     

    (ii) NOTED that approval is subject to approval of the Services for Young People model by Cabinet on 23 September 2014.

     

    (iii) NOTED the changes to the council scheme of delegation which provides increased decision making to local commissioning in relation to youth work and Surrey Outdoor Learning (SOLD).

     

78/13

EARLY EDUCATION AND CHILDCARE SERVICES AND CHILDREN'S CENTRE SERVICES pdf icon PDF 184 KB

    This report provides an overview of early education and childcare services and children’s centre services in the district of Tandridge.

     

    Report and Appendix 1 attached.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    Declarations of Interest: None

     

    Officers attending: Anne James, Early Intervention and Improvement Manager

     

    Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: None

     

    ·         The Early Intervention and Improvement Manager presented the report and gave an overview of the early education and childcare services and children’s centres services in Tandridge.

    ·         She continued that the private, voluntary and independent sectors provide the childcare; Surrey County Council does not.

    ·         The Early Intervention and Improvement Manager explained the take up and range of services in the district as set out in the report and continued that in the district of Tandridge, there is sufficient take places however take up is just below that of the Surrey average (Table 5 in the report).

    ·         Children in Tandridge do better than the Surrey average and the results from the last year show that the Surrey average is 63.4% and for Tandridge it is now 67%, which is also 7.5% above the national average. Table 5 also shows that the vulnerable groups in Tandridge are doing well and also better than the Surrey average.

    ·         OFSTED results in Tandridge are in line with the Surrey average and 80% are good or outstanding and way above the national average.

     

    Member Discussion – key points:

     

    ·         Members enquired why the district provided five Sure Start centres when there was a large abundance of suppliers (and sufficient suppliers) in the district. The Early Intervention and Improvement Manager responded that not all of the centres provide childcare and some run health services and other support services. Members enquired whether they should reduce the number of centres in the district which the Early Intervention and Improvement Manager said she would look into it, however these centres do provide other services and providers are quite different in the services they provide.

    ·         The manager continued to explain that there are 58 children’s centres in Surrey and 550 Private, voluntary and independent centres. Members inquired whether many of these were schools and whether they were all offering nurseries. The Early Intervention and Improvement Manager responded that around 67 have nurseries in their settings (within Surrey) on a school site.

    ·         Ms Helena Windsor agreed that the Sure Start centres often provided more parental support than childcare services which the Early Intervention and Improvement Manager confirmed; such as parenting courses, healthcare etc.

    ·         Members referred to merging of services in some areas. In more deprived areas the centres helped families and ensured children had a good start.

    ·         Members asked if there were any concerns they should be aware of however the Early Intervention and Improvement Manager confirmed that all are doing well and even in the lowest 20% they were still above the Surrey average however they would still require further support to narrow the gap further. In general however there are no concerns with this district.

    ·         The Local Committee Chairman raised the issue of Young Epilepsy whereby the new OFSTED rules may mean they are downgraded only because they do not have the accurate data to provide them with as the data is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78/13

Appendix A pdf icon PDF 69 KB

Appendix B pdf icon PDF 70 KB

Appendix C pdf icon PDF 122 KB