Agenda, decisions and draft minutes
PDF 191 KBVenue: Council Chamber, Surrey County Council, Woodhatch Place, 11 Cockshot Hill, Reigate, Surrey ,RH2 8EF
Contact: Huma Younis or Sarah Quinn
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Apologies for Absence
To receive any apologies for absence. Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies were received from Cllr Matt Furniss, Cllr Paul Deach and Cllr Jonathan Hulley. |
|
|
Declarations of Interest
All Members present are required to declare, at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter:
(i) Any disclosable pecuniary interests and / or (ii) Other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this meeting NOTES:
· Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest · As well as an interest of the Member, this includes any interest, of which the Member is aware, that relates to the Member’s spouse or civil partner (or any person with whom the Member is living as a spouse or civil partner) · Members with a significant personal interest may participate in the discussion and vote on that matter unless that interest could be reasonably regarded as prejudicial. Additional documents: Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
REPORT OF THE COUNCIL’S SELECT COMMITTEE CHAIRS AND VICE CHAIRS GROUP
For Cabinet to consider a report regarding Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation (D&LGR). Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
That Cabinet notes the report on Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation. Minutes: The Leader agreed to consider the Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation report from the Select Committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs Group before the main substantive item on Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation. The Chairman of the group, Cllr Hazel Watson introduced the recommendations from the report explaining that the group had met several times to be briefed on the development of the Council's proposal for devolution and local government reorganisation.
The Cabinet welcomed the recommendations of the group and acknowledged the groups focus on Community Boards. The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning stated that one of the recommendations from the group related to SEND. There seemed to be criticism at the Full Council meeting earlier in the day that not enough work and research had been carried out in relation to SEND but initial analysis had been undertaken to inform the evidence being presented to government. It would be a priority for the directorate to ensure there was detailed profiling and understanding of SEND sufficiency, levels of demands, gaps and pressures- including school places and home to school transport. Work had already started around looked after children including those in residential homes and those with statutory safeguarding arrangements in place to ensure that these services could operate safely and legally from day one of the shadow authority.
The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources supported the recommendation regarding lessons learned from Surrey’s implementation of the ERP replacement project. The Cabinet Member stated that the projected had moved from stabilisation to optimisation phase. The council was now in a better place as a result of the work undertaken over the last 12 months. The Leader thanked the Select Committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs Group for their report and recommendations. A response to each recommendation was published in a supplementary agenda. A number of workstreams would be set up to manage the implementation of Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) and the Select Committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs Group were invited to discuss how best to provide scrutiny to these workstreams.
RESOLVED:
That Cabinet notes the report on Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation. |
|
|
DEVOLUTION AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION
Cabinet is asked to approve the Council’s Final Plan for Local Government Reorganisation in Surrey and agree for the Leader of Surrey County Council to submit the Final Plan to government for the 9 May deadline.
The following reports are included:
· Cabinet Report - Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation · Annex 1 – Surrey County Council’s Final Plan for LGR, May 2025 · Annex 2 – Surrey County Council’s Final Plan for LGR – Appendix · Annex 3 – Equality Impact Assessment
(Note: Annexes 1 and 2 have been updated).
Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
1. That Cabinet approves the Council’s Final Plan for Local Government Reorganisation in Surrey.
2. That Cabinet agrees that the Leader of Surrey County Council submits the Final Plan to government for the 9 May deadline.
3. That Cabinet delegates authority to make any final amendments to the Final Plan (and other associated information) for Local Government Reorganisation in Surrey to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, before submission within the deadline given by the Secretary of State.
Reasons for Decisions:
On 18 March 2025 Surrey County Council submitted an Interim Plan for LGR, which set out the council’s preferred option to reorganise the existing 12 councils into two new unitary authorities. A shortlist of four potential geographical configurations was included.
Following submission of the Interim Plan, extensive work has taken place to develop a robust evidence base and clear vision for strengthened, simpler and more cost-effective local government in Surrey. This Final Plan (Annex 1), due to be submitted to government on 9 May 2025, proposes an East and a West unitary council, working in conjunction with a Surrey Mayoral Strategic Authority.
Reorganising to East and West Surrey will unlock devolution on a Surrey footprint whilst creating two new unitaries that are large enough to deliver effectively the full range of services currently offered by councils. Two councils will also deliver higher ongoing net annual benefits when compared to three unitaries.
Our analysis shows this geography creates councils with equitable starting points across population, land area, flooding risk, educational responsibility, total miles of public highways and number of birth and death registrations. It also shows a strong correlation between the Adult Social Care and Children’s Social Services budgets and key funding sources, better enabling both East and West Surrey to continue to deliver high quality social care.
This is an historic moment for Surrey. Our vision is a future where East and West Surrey unitary authorities deliver quality, cost effective public services to residents. The Mayoral Strategic Authority will work closely with local and regional partners to deliver strategic priorities, and communities will thrive with an engagement model that strengthens preventative activity. Local neighbourhoods will remain at the core of public services, empowered and informed within this new, enhanced structure.
Minutes: The report was introduced by the Leader who explained that earlier in the day there had been a lengthy debate on the final plan for LGR at Full Council. The Council’s final plan for LGR in Surrey would need to be submitted to government by 9 May. At the Full Council meeting there was a significant majority in favour of the County Councils proposal for the county to be divided into east and west unitaries. The recommendation was put to the vote at the Full Council meeting with 36 Members voting For, 20 voting Against and 2 Abstentions. The Leader explained that an alternative submission for three unitaries had been submitted by some of the district and boroughs. Based on the evidence, the County Council supported a two unitary proposal.
The Leader spoke about key issues that had been raised at the Full Council meeting held earlier in the day. The first was debt. There had been mention of significant debt held by some of the district and boroughs. Conversations would be taking place with the government as to how it intends to deal with that debt. There was general recognition and acceptance that the debt was so large that it simply could not be dealt with or accommodated locally. The conversation around writing off that debt would continue. The position for Spelthorne and Runnymede was more difficult than Woking’s as they could not crystalise their debt and their respective Chief Executives and Leaders did not believe that they were in the same position as Woking. There had been an argument that Spelthorne should be positioned in the unitary to the east but this ultimately would be a decision for government to take. Option 2.1 had been evidenced as being fair and had support from Elmbridge and Mole Valley. The Leader reiterated the importance of members reviewing the proposals as what works best for residents rather than what works best for political purposes. A key focus for the council would be around the disaggregation of key services.
The Leader thanked officers for the pace at which this work had been undertaken stating that the report was outstanding. It was important that the council involved key partners with the work being undertaken. A number of letters of support had been received on the county councils proposals. The Leader stated that there had been some misleading comments around the role of Community Boards. Town and parish councils would be valued members of these boards and would play a significant role in how they operated. The plan would be for Unitary Councillors to chair these boards which would bring together a number of key agencies. These would be piloted in the north, east, south and west of the county. The Leader welcomed views on how these should operate going forwards.
The executive summary to the final LGR proposals, appendices and letters of support would be shared on social media and the councils website. The final plan would be submitted to government by 9 ... view the full minutes text for item 69/25 |
|
|
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information under the relevant paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act. Additional documents: Minutes: RESOLVED: That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information under the relevant paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.
|
|
|
PUBLICITY FOR PART 2 ITEMS
To consider whether the item considered under Part 2 of the agenda should be made available to the Press and public. Additional documents: Minutes: It was agreed that non-exempt information may be made available to the press and public, where appropriate. |