Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 405 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN
Contact: Vicky Hibbert 020 8541 9229 Email: vicky.hibbert@surreycc.gov.uk
Media
| No. | Item | |
|---|---|---|
|
Apologies for Absence
Additional documents: Minutes: No apologies were received. |
||
|
Minutes of Previous Meeting: 18 July 2017
The minutes will be available in the meeting room half an hour before the start of the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 18 July were agreed and signed by the Chairman. |
||
|
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: None received. |
||
|
Procedural Matters
Additional documents: |
||
(i) The deadline for Member’s questions is 12pm four working days before the meeting (20 September 2017).
Additional documents: Decision: Questions were received from Mrs Hazel Watson and Mr Jonathan Essex. Responses to these can be found at Appendix 1. Minutes: Questions were received from Mrs Hazel Watson and Mr Jonathan Essex. Responses to these can be found at Appendix 1.
Supplementary questions
Q1. Mrs Watson sought further clarity on the reasons why the sites owned by Council which had been identified for development were deemed to be commercially sensitive as detailed in the response to the question. The Leader of the Council stated that he was not prepared to discuss the details of the 36 sites identified by Surrey County Council (SCC) in a public forum for fear as this could jeopardise any future deals for these sites.
Q2. Mrs Watson indicated that there was nothing commercially sensitive about the annual costs of running the sites listed within the question and suggested that the real reason for not releasing this information was because it would be embarrassing to the Cabinet. The Cabinet Member for Property and Business Services advised Mrs Watson that some of the sites contained within her list were currently in use. He further stated that the Council had an Asset Management Plan which it was implementing more detail about which would be provided at the next meeting of the Corporate Services Select Committee. Regarding Mrs Watson’s query about commercial sensitivity, the Cabinet Member stated that releasing details about SCC’s Asset Management Plan could have a knock on impact on surrounding property sites hence the reason it was agreed that this information should not be made public.
Q3. Mr Essex sought assurance that the Surrey County Council's property company does not operate in the same way as any other property company and put securing 20 per cent profit before provision of affordable housing on land owned by the council. He asked whether the Council would prioritise building affordable housing on land that it owns which has been earmarked for development. Mr Essex also sought confirmation from Cabinet Members that SCC would not put land that it owns in the greenbelt forward for housing development. The Leader of the Council reiterated SCC’s policy in regard to building on the greenbelt as outlined in the response to Mr Essex’s original question. He further highlighted that district and borough councils, as the local planning authorities in Surrey were ultimately responsible for what SCC would be able to develop.
|
||
The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (19 September 2017).
Additional documents: Decision: A question was received from the Waverley Tenants Panel and a response is attached at Appendix 2. Minutes: A question was received from the Waverley Tenants Panel and a response is attached at Appendix 2.
As a supplementary question, Mrs Greenslade asked the Cabinet how it would expedite residents’ assessments to ensure that those who required housing related support were not left without it. The Cabinet Member for Adults stated that SCC would continue to meet its legal obligations in regard to supporting vulnerable adults as enshrined in the Care Act. The Cabinet Member further emphasised that work was ongoing to ensure that those who required housing related support were not left without assistance prior to any assessment should the recommendations in item 6 of the agenda be agreed by the Cabinet. |
||
The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and two petitions have been received. Responses to these will be presented at the meeting.
Additional documents: Decision: Three petitions had been received on the following matters:
· ‘Shaping Surrey’s Community Recycling Centres 2017’ (526 signatures received) · ‘Save Surrey’s Tips’ (3245 signatures received) · ‘Stop their plans to cut fire and rescue cover in Spelthorne by 50% (1355 signatures received)
Responses to these can be found at Appendix 3. Minutes: Three petitions had been received on the following matters:
· ‘Shaping Surrey’s Community Recycling Centres 2017’ (526 signatures received) · ‘Save Surrey’s Tips’ (3245 signatures received) · ‘Stop their plans to cut fire and rescue cover in Spelthorne by 50% (1355 signatures received)
Responses to these can be found at Appendix 3.
Ms Lesley Bushnell presented the petition entitled ‘Save Surrey’s Tips’, she was informed by the Leader of the Council that the Cabinet Member would provide a response to the petition during his introduction to item 7 ‘Consultation on Proposed Changes to Surrey’s Community Recycling Centres’. While presenting petition to Cabinet, Ms Bushnell made the following points:
· Ms Bushnell highlighted the large number of signatures that the petition had attracted which she stated was demonstrative of the strength of feeling there is in Surrey about community recycling centres (CRCS). · The petitioner expressed support for the proposal in the report’s recommendations to retain all CRCs currently operating in Surrey but suggested that reducing the opening hours of CRCs would be self-defeating. In particular, Ms Bushnell stated that making it harder for residents to dispose of their waste responsibly would lead to an increase in instances of flytipping generating additional clean up costs for the Council. Ms Bushnell also highlighted that longer car journeys and larger queues at CRCs would have an adverse impact on the environment through increased vehicle emissions. · In reference to the recommendation contained within the report to stop the free daily allowance of chargeable waste at CRCs, the petitioner indicated that this would jeopardise SCC’s ability to achieve the Government’s 70% waste recycling rate target by 2030. · Ms Bushnell invited Cabinet Members to revisit the recommendations to reduce CRC opening hours and to stop the free daily allowance of chargeable waste in light of the concerns that she raised during her statement.
Mr Andy Pattinson presented the petition entitled ‘Stop their plans to cut fire and rescue cover in Spelthorne by 50% ’. While presenting petition to Cabinet, Mr Pattinson made the following points:
· He made reference to the large number of signatures that the petition had attracted as well as drawing attention to the actions and demonstrations which had taken place locally as evidence of the concerns that local residents had about the proposed reductions to the fire and rescue cover in the area. Mr Pattinson further called on Cabinet to release the results of the public consultation which SCC had undertaken regarding fire and rescue in Spelthorne and suggested that these had not been made public due to the unpopularity of the changes that were being proposed. · The petitioner highlighted that Surrey has fewest number of fire officers per head of population in the country and that within the county Spelthorne already has the fewest number of fire officers. Mr Pattison expressed concern that further reductions to fire and rescue provision in Spelthorne would put the safety of residents at risk particularly give the large number of high rise tower blocks in the borough. The petitioner stated that ... view the full minutes text for item 145/17 |
||
|
Representations received on reports to be considered in private
To consider any representations received in relation why part of the meeting relating to a report circulated in Part 2 of the agenda should be open to the public. Additional documents: Minutes: None received. |
||
A reports has been receieved from the Environment and Infrastructure Select Committee regarding Proposed Changes to Surrey’s Community Recycling Centres.
Additional documents: Decision: Reports were received from the Environment and Infrastructure Select Committee in relation to Community Recycling Centres and the Overview and Budget Scrutiny Committee in relation to the Surrey Business Rates Retention Pilot. Responses to the these can be found at Appendix 4. Minutes: Reports were received from the Environment and Infrastructure Select Committee in relation to Community Recycling Centres and the Overview and Budget Scrutiny Committee in relation to the Surrey Business Rates Retention Pilot. Responses to the these can be found at Appendix 4.
Mr Bob Gardner, Chairman of the Environment & Infrastructure Select Committee presented the Cabinet with a summary of the recommendations made by member of the Committee in regard to Item 7 entitled ‘Consultation on Proposed Changes to Surrey’s Community Recycling Centres (Cost Reductions)’. These recommendations can be found in the report submitted by the Select Committee at Item 5. Mr Gardner articulated particular concerns that Committee Members had about potential increases in flytipping on account of the reduced opening hours of CRCs and the removal of the free daily allowance on chargeable waste suggesting that the additional costs incurred by the Council from flytipping would outweigh the savings made by implementing the recommendations contained within the report.
The Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport thanked Members of the Environment & Infrastructure Select Committee for their input on the proposals and advised Mr Gardner that he would respond to the specific points raised during his introduction to Item 7. |
||
|
Proposal for the future funding of Adult Social Care Housing Related Support services
‘Supporting People’ as it was originally branded, was launched on 1 April 2003 as the government’s national programme for housing related support. It was a partnership programme of joint working relationships with service providers and partner agencies such as boroughs, districts, probation and health. The programme was initially managed by a discrete team of commissioners and a national monitoring system.
The funding was originally ring-fenced by government but this has since been removed. In 2012 a decision was made to bring housing related support and the associated budget into Adult Social Care.
The County Council provides Housing Related Support funding to providers who then deliver services to their residents. The current Housing Related Support budget is £9m on rolling contracts.
Providers are voluntary and community organisations, housing associations, borough and district councils who deliver services to residents via a scheme manager/warden - the Council’s funding is a contribution towards the cost of employing the scheme manager/warden. Services are delivered in purpose-built schemes or by visiting support in the community.
Housing Related Support services include help with obtaining benefits and managing money; support to improve safety, health and wellbeing; help to avoid social isolation; to access mainstream services, manage everyday tasks, to develop new skills and move into employment. Housing Related Support services do not provide personal care. There are two streams to which funds flow:
Continued cuts to funding, rising costs and increasing demand for key services means the need for Surrey County Council to find savings has reached unprecedented levels. Adult Social Care has delivered £246m of savings over the last seven years, in order to manage huge pressures on the service including demand in excess of £20m per annum, and has a further allocated saving of £26m for 2017/18. This has resulted in a continuous focus on efficiencies and changes to delivery to provide the services our residents need within available resources.
Housing Related Support funding is no longer ring fenced and future practice will be guided by our duties under the Care Act 2014 and the wellbeing principle. Individuals with an on-going need for support will be able to ask for an assessment and those meeting the Care Act eligibility criteria will receive funding through a personal budget. This will ensure everyone is treated consistently under the Care Act and is assessed based on their current need.
By implementing these changes to the future funding of Housing Related Support savings of £3.7m will be achieved. These changes will mean a shift from the current universal offer, to target the limited funding the Council has available on those adults with eligible needs and the socially excluded. Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
The Cabinet agreed that:
1. Surrey County Council will no longer provide funding for Housing Related Support for people with learning, physical and sensory disabilities and services for older people; and 2. That Surrey County Council will continue to fund Housing Related Support for the socially excluded - those with mental health issues, those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, ex-offenders and the gypsy and traveller community. Reasons for decisions
The recommendation to cease Housing Related Support funding for older people and people with disabilities is made for the following reasons:
1. It will deliver an estimated saving of £2.8m (70% of the budget) based on the planning assumption that 30% of the budget will be needed in locality teams to meet an increase in demand from eligible needs of residents. 2. It will cease any dual funding, where Surrey County Council is funding a care package and Housing Related Support for an individual, and will mean we assess people based on their current need. 3. Local information and support is available to residents in their communities and online should they need to find out about care, community and health information and support available. 4. Evidence obtained from all other local authorities that were able to provide benchmarking information demonstrates they have already ceased and/or remodelled provision. 5. Residents will be able to ask for an assessment; if they have eligible needs they will receive a personal budget. 6. It is aligned with the Council’s Family, Friends and Communities approach to maintaining wellbeing and independence. The recommendation to continue funding Housing Related Support servicesfor socially excluded and disadvantaged people is made for the following reasons:
1. In November 2016, Cabinet agreed housing related support services for socially excluded groups should be protected. 2. A co-designed, transparent approach has been taken with district and borough colleagues, providers and wider stakeholders. 3. The recommendation will deliver a saving of £0.9m (20% of budget) to be delivered with the minimum impact on people who use services and carers.
[The decisions on this item are subject to call in by the Adults and Health Select Committee] Minutes: Mr Chris Botten, Local Member for Caterham Hill, opened discussions on this item, highlighting that he understood the serious financial challenges facing SCC but that reductions to Housing Related Support could have a significant impact on vulnerable residents in Surrey. Mr Botten read out a statement from the Chair of Tandridge District Council’s Housing Association which drew attention to the implications that agreeing the recommendations within the report would have on those in sheltered accommodation. The Member further suggested that it would be more productive for SCC to work in collaboration with district and borough councils on the delivery of Housing Related Support. Mr Botten also stressed that blanket cuts to Housing Related Support would ultimately have a detrimental impact on SCC’s adult social care budget in the medium to long term and suggested that Cabinet defer any decision on the recommendations until financial modelling had taken place to understand the future impact of cutting this service on the adult social care budget.
Mr Mel Few, Cabinet Member for Adults, introduced the report on Proposals for the Future Funding of Housing Related Support and began by acknowledging a number of representations from residents and housing associations which did not meet the criteria to be treated as petition but highlighted that the comments made within the representations mirrored those received during the consultation process. The Cabinet Member advised that requests have been made by some districts and boroughs to delay implementation of the proposed changes and indicated that the service was in discussion with these authorities to understand the impact, if any, on the proposed savings outlined in the report if implementation was delayed. Mr Few provided some background to the proposed changes to Housing Related Support informing Members that the scheme was introduced in 2003 by the Labour government and, at that time, was funded through a ring fenced grant. This grant was removed leaving the funding entirely to the County Council, thereby making this service non statutory. In light of the allocated savings target given to the Adult Social Care Directorate of £26m this year it had been necessary for the service to once again revisit all non-statutory services. The Cabinet Member stated that the Council spent approximately £9 million on the provision of Housing Related Support, £4 million on older people and people with disabilities and £4.5 million on socially excluded and disadvantage groups. He advised that elderly and disabled people who received this benefit and required additional support would be met by the service subject to the normal assessment process Attention was drawn to a detailed consultation which had taken place with older people and those with learning disabilities who were in receipt of the grants. The results of this can be found in paragraph 17 of the report. Specific mention was made to the response to question 2, annex 3, where 50% of respondents stated that they used the service less than once per week or did not respond whereas 25% used the service weekly and ... view the full minutes text for item 148/17 |
||
Surrey County Council (SCC) needs to make cost reductions of £104 million in 2017/18 and further cost reductions of £137 million in 2018/19 and 2019/20. The Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) identifies that the waste service has the potential to save £12.4 million including £3.3 million from the operation of the Community Recycling Centre (CRC) service in the period 2016/17 to 2018/19.
Changes to the CRC service that were implemented during 2016/17 will achieve an estimated £1.4million of cost reductions in a full year. This means further cost reductions need to be found to meet the MTFP target. The waste service has identified a plan where further efficiency could be achieved at CRCs. A public consultation was carried out between 23 June 2017 and 7 August 2017 seeking the views of residents and stakeholders on a set of potential options, as set out in paragraphs 12 to 16. A number of key stakeholders have been consulted including, Surrey MP’s, County Councillors, district & borough councils and parish & town councils.
CRCs are one of the most highly rated services provided by SCC with 77 % of users stating that they are satisfied or very satisfied with the service. The proposals are the latest in a series of measures designed to make CRCs more efficient and better value for money by focussing on their key purpose: to handle household waste that the Council has to take free of charge and that cannot be collected from the kerbside. If implemented the proposals would still maintain a comprehensive service that is highly valued by residents, which supports the strategic aims of increasing recycling and reducing landfill and meets legal requirements as a Waste Disposal Authority.
The Council would like to thank over 13,500 residents, who gave their opinion on the proposals in the consultation including their concerns with permanent CRC closures. Having listened to these views and taken into consideration the factors above, this report recommends implementing changes that will:
In a full year these efficiency measures could deliver estimated savings of £1.08 - £1.56 million. The earliest any measures could be implemented is from December 2017, apart from weekday closures which would be implemented from January 2018 due to operational reasons. This would mean an expected shortfall against the MTFP of £0.92m to £1.06m (part year impact) in 2017/18 and £0.34m to £0.82m in 2018/19 (full year impact). The service will need to continue to find further efficiencies to meet this shortfall.
Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
The Cabinet agreed that:
Reasons for decisions
At present there is spare capacity at the CRC network because of a reduction in throughput due to the previous changes. An adequate service can be retained if the above additional efficiency measures are implemented that will achieve an estimated cost reduction in a full year of £1.08 - £1.56 million. Table 3 in paragraph 43 gives a breakdown by efficiency measure. These recommendations take note of the views expressed in the public consultation and, the impact to the public (including those with protected characteristics) and the environment. If these recommendations are introduced it will reduce costs and provide better value for money for the Surrey taxpayer, whilst still maintaining a comprehensive service that supports the strategic aims of increasing recycling and reducing landfill, and meets its legal requirements as a Waste Disposal Authority.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Environment and Infrastructure Select Committee] Minutes: The Cabinet received a statement from Mr Jonathan Essex, Local Member for Redhill East. In his statement, Mr Essex made the following observations:
· The Member welcomed that the recommendations contained within the report did not propose closure of any of Surrey’s CRCS stating that this demonstrated the Cabinet had listened to some of the concerns of residents as expressed during the public consultation. Mr Essex did, however, articulate his concerns about the potential implications of reducing the opening hours of CRCs suggesting that it could increase instances of flytipping in the county and could discourage residents from recycling. · 'He stressed that in line with supporting the amended motion at the council meeting that SCC had committed to investigate further options to improve the recycling service and that increasing recycling to meet our recycling target instead would save 5-6 million pounds, as confirmed by officers at the recent Environment and Infrastructure Select Committee. SCC should look to accelerate improvement of recycling rates across Surrey to exceed our 70 per cent target through 'invest to save' measures as an alternative to the current proposals. Also investing in new recycling (as opposed to energy from waste) infrastructure would give SCC an added incentive to raise recycling rates.
The Cabinet received a statement from Mr Stephen Cooksey, Local Member for Dorking South and the Holmwoods. Mr Cooksey made the following points in his statement:
· The Member stated that CRCs had been one of SCC’s few success stories over recent years by deterring flytipping and enhancing recycling rates. The package of extended closure times and removal of the free daily allowance of chargeable waste proposed within the report would make it more difficult for people to recycle and, as a result, could lead to more flytipping and less recycling. · Attention was drawn to the 13,000 responses submitted during the public consultation which Mr Cooksey used to highlight the strength of feeling that existed among Surrey residents about the importance of CRCs. · Particular concerns were expressed about Dorking CRC which, if the recommendations were agreed, would be closed four days a week. The Member suggested that Cabinet Members from the Mole Valley area should oppose the recommendations based on that fact alone. · Mr Cooksey criticised the lack of clarity in the report stressing that projections had not been provided on flytipping, recycling rates or the potential revenue arising from the sale of recycled goods. · Finally, the Member suggested that removal of the free daily allowance could be open to legal challenge and that this should be investigated in more detail by the Council.
The Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, Mr Mike Goodman, introduced the report and highlighting that the public consultation was fundamental in shaping the future of CRCs and that no decision had be taken on them prior to the consultation taking place. Mr Goodman thanked all of the residents and stakeholders who had taken part in the consultation. The Cabinet Member stated that the consultation process had also encompassed discussions with ... view the full minutes text for item 149/17 |
||
|
Thomas Knyvett College, Ashford - Schools Basic Need Expansion Project
To approve the Business Case for the expansion of Thomas Knyvett College, an academy in The Howard Learning Partnership Multi-Academy Trust. The school currently operates as a five form entry (5 FE) co-educational 11-16 school. Its Published Admission Number (PAN) is 150 although its current Number on Roll (NOR) is only 635. It was rated as ‘Good’ by OFSTED at its last inspection (December 2013).
The proposal is to expand the school by 2 FE to 7 FE per year. (A form of entry is normally 30 students). The school was previously larger but reduced its PAN some years ago when fewer places in Spelthorne Borough were required; however it has some latent capacity which we intend to recommission as part of the expansion project.
The school would admit an additional form of entry in 2018 as a ‘bulge’ class (offering up to 180 places in Year 7) within existing accommodation. It would then formally increase its PAN to 210 at the earliest opportunity, which would be September 2019. Thomas Knyvett College would then expand incrementally over a five year period to a maximum Number on Roll of 1050. These additional classes would add another 300 places (across all year groups 7-11) into the area.
The expansion will contribute to Surrey County Council’s (SCC) place planning strategy to enable the Local Authority to meet the forecast demand for secondary school places in Spelthorne borough. .
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Corporate Services Select Committee or the Children and Education Select Committee]
Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
That, subject to the agreement of the detailed financial information for the expansion, as set out in submitted Part 2 report, the business case for the provision of accommodation sufficient to enable two additional forms of entry (300 places) at Thomas Knyvett College be approved.
Reasons for decisions
The proposal supports the Authority’s statutory obligation to provide necessary school places to meet the needs of the population in Spelthorne Borough by providing Year 7 places when and where they are needed.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Children and Education Select Committee and/or the Corporate Services Select Committee] Minutes: The item was introduced by the Cabinet Member for Education who stated that Schools Basic Need Funding was a success story for the Council which had received a good settlement from Central Government, funding which had been fought for by the Leader of the Council. The settlement had enabled SCC to provide a considerable number of school places over the previous four years keeping pace with demographic demand in the County.
In regard to Thomas Knyvett College, Mrs Lewis gave details of the project and stated that it would provide 300 additional places by utilising latent capacity within the school which would cope with population increases in the area over the next few years. The Cabinet Member further highlighted that Thomas Knyvett was rated ‘Good’ and stated that she was confident that the school would retain this rating while it was being adapted to provide these additional places.
The Cabinet Member for Adults asked Mrs Lewis to explain how the Council secures expansion to a school that sits within a Multi-Academy Trust. He was informed that expansion in academies is secured in the same way that it is at a Community School, through cooperation and partnership building. SCC can theoretically force a Community School to expand but in reality it doesn’t constitute a practicable solution in most circumstances.
RESOLVED:
That, subject to the agreement of the detailed financial information for the expansion, as set out in submitted Part 2 report, the business case for the provision of accommodation sufficient to enable two additional forms of entry (300 places) at Thomas Knyvett College be approved.
Reasons for decisions
The proposal supports the Authority’s statutory obligation to provide necessary school places to meet the needs of the population in Spelthorne Borough by providing Year 7 places when and where they are needed.
|
||
|
De Stafford School, Caterham - Schools Basic Need Expansion Project
To approve the Business Case for the expansion of de Stafford School, an academy in The Glyn Learning Foundation Multi-Academy Trust. The school currently operates as a five Form of Entry (5FE) secondary (750 places) co-educational 11 – 16 school with a published admission number (PAN) of 150.
The proposal is to expand the school by 1FE to a 5FE secondary (900 places), thereby creating 150 additional places to support delivery against the basic need requirements in the Tandridge area from September 2018. (A form of entry is normally 30 students). The school was previously larger but reduced its PAN some years ago when fewer places in the Tandridge Borough area were required; however it has some latent capacity which can be recommissioned as part of the expansion project.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Corporate Services Select Committee or the Children and Education Select Committee] Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
That, subject to the agreement of the detailed financial information for the expansion set out in the submitted Part 2 report, the business case for the provision of an additional 1 Form of Entry (30 places per year) providing, in total, 150 secondary places at De Stafford School from September 2018, be approved.
Reasons for decisions
The proposal supports the Authority’s statutory obligation to provide necessary school places, relative to demand.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Children and Education Select Committee and/or the Corporate Services Select Committee]
Minutes: Mr Chris Botten, Local Member for Caterham Hill, provided a statement stressing his support for increasing the number of places at de Stafford School. Mr Botten emphasised the quality of the education provision in Caterham and thanked the Cabinet for the steps it had taken to improve schools in this area. The Local Member drew attention to the significant improvements which had been made to de Stafford School over recent years which now had excellent leadership and governance.
The Cabinet Member for Education thanked Mr Botten for his comments and added that de Stafford was also a highly inclusive school with a higher percentage of SEND pupils than is the average across the County. Mrs Lewis indicated that de Stafford School was rated ‘Good’ by Ofsted and informed Cabinet that the Headteacher is confident of maintaining the standard of education provision while construction work takes place to expand the school.
The Leader of the Council mentioned that SCC had worked closely with Tandridge District Council to provide better facilities and resources for schools in Caterham which had substantially improved education provision in the area.
RESOLVED:
That, subject to the agreement of the detailed financial information for the expansion set out in the submitted Part 2 report, the business case for the provision of an additional 1 Form of Entry (30 places per year) providing, in total, 150 secondary places at De Stafford School from September 2018, be approved.
Reasons for decisions
The proposal supports the Authority’s statutory obligation to provide necessary school places, relative to demand.
|
||
|
St Mary's Oxted Church of England Junior School - Schools Basic Need Expansion Project
To approve the Business Case for the expansion of St, Mary’s Junior School from three Forms of Entry (360 places) to four Forms of Entry (480 places), thereby creating 120 additional places, to support delivery against the basic need requirements in the Oxted & Limpsfield area from September 2018.
The school’s most recent Ofsted (January 2016) rated the school as ‘Outstanding’.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Corporate Services Select Committee or the Children and Education Select Committee] Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
That, subject to the agreement of the detailed financial information for the expansion set out in the submitted Part 2 report, the business case for the provision of an additional one Form of Entry worth of junior places in Oxted & Limpsfield be approved.
Reasons for decisions
The proposal supports the Authority’s statutory obligation to provide necessary school places, relative to demand.
[The decisions on this item are subject to call in by the Children and Education Select Committee and/or the Corporate Services Select Committee] Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Education introduced the report and advised Cabinet that St Mary’s was an outstanding school. Not content to rest on its laurels, St Mary’s was currently in the process of Down’s Way Infant School to create an all through Primary School in Oxted. The additional 480 places that the building project provided would ensure that there were enough school places in the area despite demographic pressures created by an increasing population. Mrs Lewis stated that she was confident St Mary’s was capable of retaining its ‘Outstanding’ Ofsted rating while construction work was taking place to provide the additional school places.
RESOLVED:
That, subject to the agreement of the detailed financial information for the expansion set out in the submitted Part 2 report, the business case for the provision of an additional one Form of Entry worth of junior places in Oxted & Limpsfield be approved.
Reasons for decisions
The proposal supports the Authority’s statutory obligation to provide necessary school places, relative to demand.
|
||
|
Surrey Business Rates Retention Pilot 2018/19
On 1 September 2017 the government issued a prospectus inviting local authorities, particularly in two tier areas, to submit applications to be pilots for the 2018/19 Business Rates Retention Scheme. This application is reqired by 27 October 2017. This report asks for authority to be delegated to the Leader, in consultation with the Chief Executive and Director of Finance, to submit an application for a Surrey wide pilot involving the county council and eleven borough and districts councils.
Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
That the Cabinet agreed the following: i. To develop a joint application with the eleven boroughs and districts for Surrey to be a pilot for the 2018/19 100% Business Rates retention Scheme ii. That the council understand and agree that the pilot may not include a ‘no detriment’ clause iii. To note that the Leader, in consultation with the Chief Executive and Director of Finance, will take the final decision to submit an application for a Surrey wide pilot involving the county council and eleven borough and districts councils iv. That Surrey County Council is the lead authority for this pilot. Reasons for decisions
The opportunity to become a pilot authority for the 100% Business Rates Retention Scheme aligns with the council’s strategy of seeking to influence the development of the local government finance system and to nurture partnership working. In addition, if successful, being a pilot will enable local retention of all business rate growth within the county for use to assist in ensuring financial stability and sustainability as well as to invest in economic prosperity. [The decisions on this item are subject to call in by the Overview and Budget Scrutiny Committee] Minutes: Mrs Kay Hammond, Chair of the Overview and Budget Scrutiny Committee (OBSC) provided a statement to Cabinet regarding the Business Rates Retention Pilot Scheme. She advised that the OBSC had received a presentation from officers on the Pilot and that the proposal for Surrey to put itself forward for inclusion in the scheme had attracted unanimous, cross-party support from Members of the Committee. Mrs Hammond reiterated that recommendation from OBSC that the Council pursues the scheme and wished Cabinet Members support in their negotiations with district and borough councils.
The Leader of the Council stated that he was meeting with the Leaders of the district and borough councils on Wednesday 27 September to discuss submitting a bid to enter into the Business Rates Retention Pilot. He highlighted that collectively the County can make a strong bid to the Secretary of State for inclusion in the Pilot. Mr Hodge did, however, stress that inclusion in the scheme would not solve the financial difficulties being faced by SCC and its district and borough partners.
RESOLVED:
That the Cabinet agreed the following: i. To develop a joint application with the eleven boroughs and districts for Surrey to be a pilot for the 2018/19 100% Business Rates retention Scheme ii. That the council understand and agree that the pilot may not include a ‘no detriment’ clause iii. To note that the Leader, in consultation with the Chief Executive and Director of Finance, will take the final decision to submit an application for a Surrey wide pilot involving the county council and eleven borough and districts councils iv. That Surrey County Council is the lead authority for this pilot. Reasons for decisions
The opportunity to become a pilot authority for the 100% Business Rates Retention Scheme aligns with the council’s strategy of seeking to influence the development of the local government finance system and to nurture partnership working. In addition, if successful, being a pilot will enable local retention of all business rate growth within the county for use to assist in ensuring financial stability and sustainability as well as to invest in economic prosperity.
|
||
|
Monthly Budget Monitoring Report
Surrey County Council takes a multiyear approach to its budget planning and monitoring, recognising the two are inextricably linked. This report presents the Council’s financial position as at 31 August 2017 (month five). The Section 151 Officer stated in her report of February 2017 to Full Council on the 2017/18 to 2019/20 budget and Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) that the financial challenges facing the council have become even more serious in the last year. During 2017/18, the council must deliver already stretching service reduction plans of £104m to balance the 2017/18 budget and move towards a sustainable budget for future years. This total includes £9m savings it has yet to identify. The annex to this report gives details of the council’s financial position. [The decisions on this item are subject to call in by the Overview and Budget Scrutiny Board] Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
That the following be noted: 1. Forecast revenue budget outturn for 2017/18, is £21m overspend (paragraph 1 of the submitted report). This includes: £9m savings to be identified, £12m savings considered unachievable in 2017/18, £11m service demand pressures £11m underspends and additional income. 2. Significant risks to the revenue budget (paragraphs 38 to 42) could add £13m to the forecast overspend: £4m in Adult Social Care £8m in Children, Schools & Families and £1m in Place Development & Waste 3. Forecast planned savings for 2017/18 total £83m against £95m agreed savings and £104m target (paragraph 43 of the submitted report). 4. 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 that the council has a duty to ensure its expenditure does not exceed resources available and move towards a sustainable budget for future years. 5. Cabinet will receive a recovery plan for consideration in October 2017. The the following be approved: 6. £18,000 draw down of Highways & Transport’s capital carry forward from 2016/17 (paragraphs 60 to 62 of the submitted report). 7. £2.9m amendments to schools’ devolved capital budgets (paragraphs 63 to 66 of the submitted report).
Reasons for decisions
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 are subject to call in by the Overview and Budget Scrutiny Committee]
Minutes: The Leader of the Council read out the statement below regarding Cabinet’s monthly budget monitoring report following which each Cabinet Member was asked to provide a brief outline of the budget position for the services within their portfolio. ‘Today I present the budget monitoring report for period five of 2017/18, up to 31 August 2017. 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. This challenge comes on top of making over £450m savings since 2010. Within the £104m savings target, the council has agreed plans for £95m savings, with £9m savings to be identified. After five months of the financial year, services have already achieved over £46m of savings and another £28m on track for delivery, with £8m facing potential barriers. £12m savings are now thought to be unachievable in this year (including £6m in Adult Social Care, £3m in Early Help and £3m in Waste Disposal). The council’s 2017/18 budget includes significant demand and cost pressures, mostly in social care. In some services a small change in volume can lead to significantly increased costs. In the first five months of the year, demand has increased above what was expected even a short time ago. In Children’s Services, demand, and the complexity of the demand, continues to increase and is expected to add a £9m pressure by the end of the financial year. In Public Health, retendering a major contract is forecast to delay planned changes and add a pressure of up to £2m. Partially offsetting these pressures, there are forecast underspends elsewhere, including in Schools & SEND, Highways & Transport. The combined impact of delivering lower savings than planned and demand rising faster than anticipated is a forecast overspend of £21m for 2017/18. This is a £3m improvement on the overspend forecast as at 30 June 2017, reported to Cabinet in July 2017. However, considerable risks of volatility remain in some key budgets that are outside the council’s control and the forecast year end position could worsen by up to £13m. This could put the forecast overspend over £30m. The Local Government Finance Act requires the council to ensure its expenditure (including spending already incurred in year and anticipated to be incurred) does not exceed its available resources. In response, Cabinet as advised by the Section 151 Officer, is developing a recovery plan to ensure a balanced in-year budget. Cabinet will consider the recovery plan in its next budget monitoring report in October. Given the gravity of this forecast position, it is vital members and officers continue their actions to identify and implement ways to mitigate the impact of savings shortfalls and service pressures. The council needs to identify and implement alternative savings and cost reductions quickly to address the ongoing issues affecting the 2017/18 budget and the council’s future ... view the full minutes text for item 154/17 |
||
|
Transfer of Employment of Coroner's Office Staff from Surrey Police to SCC
Surrey County Council (SCC) is responsible for appointing coroners and for meeting all the costs of the Surrey Coroner Service. Coroner’s Officers are in many respects, the mainstay of the administration of the coronial system and a primary link between the ‘system’ and the bereaved. These roles have historically been provided and funded by Surrey Police (SyPol), but are not core policing roles and the current division of accountability does not sit well with a modern Coroner’s Service.
Since September 2016 discussions have been ongoing with SyPol with a view to creating a single unified support service to the Surrey Coroner Service. This includes investment in a new case management system and transferring the employment of 15 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) coroner’s office staff to SCC with a target date for implementation of the 1 April 2018. The arrangements will be underpinned by formally setting out each party’s expectations of, and obligation to the others in a mutual Service Level Agreement (SLA) or SLAs.
As part of these discussions a five year phased withdrawal of funding has been proposed whereby SyPol continues to meet the full costs of the staff transferring in Year 1 (2018-19) then reducing by 20% a year to the point where SCC meets the full cost in Year 6 (2023-24). The cumulative MTFP pressure over the five years is £1.26m.
[The decisions on this item are subject to call in by the Communities Select Committee] Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
That the Cabinet agreed:
1. to the proposed transfer of staff and noted the associated MTFP pressures that will commence in 2019-20; and 2. that Surrey County Council would agree and document future service levels and mutual obligations in a Service Level Agreement or mutual Agreements with Surrey Police and the Senior Coroner. Reasons for decisions
This transfer will provide a single source of support to the Surrey Coroner recognising SCC’s role in supporting the Coroner Service and the nature of the role of Coroner’s Officer.
Defining the services that each of the three parties can expect of each other will provide the Coroner with clarity about future support arrangements and ensures transparency of the use of public funds
There is clear evidence from those areas where a transfer has been undertaken that the service runs more efficiently where just one agency has overall responsibility for providing the Coroner with a comprehensive support package and ultimately can lead to improvements to the experience of bereaved residents in line with SCC’s corporate Resident Experience priority.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Communities Select Committee] Minutes: The report was introduced by Ms Denise Turner-Stewart who asked Cabinet to agree proposals to transfer staff working for the Coroner’s Office but employed by Surrey Police over to the employment of SCC to agree funding for a case management system. Funding responsibilities would be phased over the of five years in order to mitigate the immediate impact on SCC’s budget. The Cabinet Member stated that SCC was responsible for funding the Coroner’s Service in the County but highlighted that for some years Surrey Police had accepted responsibility for financing some Coroner’s Office staff. They were, however, under no statutory obligation to do so and, given that it was not a core policing role, negotiations had taken place about bringing these staff into the Council’s employment. Ms Turner-Stewart emphasised that bringing all staff under a single employer would help to create a more transparent cohesive and efficient Coroner’s Service.
The Cabinet Member for Property and Business Services expressed his support for the proposal. He suggested that the change could provide an opportunity to reflect on how the Coroner’s Service operates in order to embed improvements and drive out efficiencies.
RESOLVED:
That the Cabinet agreed:
1. to the proposed transfer of staff and noted the associated MTFP pressures that will commence in 2019-20; and 2. that Surrey County Council would agree and document future service levels and mutual obligations in a Service Level Agreement or mutual Agreements with Surrey Police and the Senior Coroner. Reasons for decisions
This transfer will provide a single source of support to the Surrey Coroner recognising SCC’s role in supporting the Coroner Service and the nature of the role of Coroner’s Officer.
Defining the services that each of the three parties can expect of each other will provide the Coroner with clarity about future support arrangements and ensures transparency of the use of public funds
There is clear evidence from those areas where a transfer has been undertaken that the service runs more efficiently where just one agency has overall responsibility for providing the Coroner with a comprehensive support package and ultimately can lead to improvements to the experience of bereaved residents in line with SCC’s corporate Resident Experience priority.
|
||
To note any delegated decisions taken by the Leader, Deputy Leader, Cabinet Members and Investment Board since the last meeting of the Cabinet.
Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED:
That the decisions taken by Cabinet Members / Investment Board since the last meeting as set out in Annex 1 be noted.
Reasons for decisions
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 be noted.
Reasons for decisions
To inform the Cabinet of decisions taken by Cabinet Members / Investment Board under delegated authority. |
||
|
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.
|
||
|
Thomas Knyvett College, Ashford - Schools Basic Need Expansion Project
This is a Part 2 annex relating to item 8.
Exempt: Not for publication under Paragraph 3
Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Corporate Services Select Committee or the Children and Education Select Committee] Decision: RESOLVED:
1. That the business case for the project to expand Thomas Knyvett College secondary school) by 300 places, at a total cost, as set out in the submitted report be approved; 2. That the arrangements by which a variation of up to 10% of the total value may be agreed by the Deputy Chief Executive and Strategic Director for Children, Schools and Families in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Education, the Cabinet Member for Property and Business Services and the Leader of the Council be approved; and 3. That the authority to approve the award of contracts for works be delegated to the Chief Property Officer in consultation with the Leader of the Council, Cabinet Member for Education, Head of Procurement and Section 151 Officer when a competitive tender is procured through the new Orbis Construction Framework. Reasons for decisions
The proposal delivers and supports the Authority’s statutory obligation to provide necessary school places to meet the needs of the population in Spelthorne Borough.
[The decisions on this item are subject to call in by the Children and Education Select Committee and/or the Corporate Services Select Committee] Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Education said that this report contained the confidential financial and value for money information relating to item 8.
RESOLVED:
1. That the business case for the project to expand Thomas Knyvett College secondary school) by 300 places, at a total cost, as set out in the submitted report be approved; 2. That the arrangements by which a variation of up to 10% of the total value may be agreed by the Deputy Chief Executive and Strategic Director for Children, Schools and Families in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Education, the Cabinet Member for Property and Business Services and the Leader of the Council be approved; and 3. That the authority to approve the award of contracts for works be delegated to the Chief Property Officer in consultation with the Leader of the Council, Cabinet Member for Education, Head of Procurement and Section 151 Officer when a competitive tender is procured through the new Orbis Construction Framework. Reasons for decisions
The proposal delivers and supports the Authority’s statutory obligation to provide necessary school places to meet the needs of the population in Spelthorne Borough.
|
||
|
De Stafford School, Caterham- Schools Basic Need Expansion Project
This is a Part 2 annex relating to item 9.
Exempt: Not for publication under Paragraph 3
Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Corporate Services Select Committee or the Children and Education Select Committee]
Decision: RESOLVED:
1. That the business case for the project to expand De Stafford Secondary School by 150 additional places, at a total cost as set out in the submitted report, be approved. 2. That the arrangements by which a variation of up to 10% of the total value may be agreed by the Deputy Chief Executive and Strategic Director for Children, Schools and Families in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Property and Business Services, the Cabinet Member for Education and the Leader of the Council. Reasons for decisions
The proposal delivers and supports the Authority’s statutory obligation to provide necessary school places to meet the needs of the population in Tandridge Borough.
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Children and Education Select Committee and/or the Corporate Services Select Committee]
Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Education said that this report contained the confidential financial and value for money information relating to item 9.
RESOLVED:
1. That the business case for the project to expand De Stafford Secondary School by 150 additional places, at a total cost as set out in the submitted report, be approved. 2. That the arrangements by which a variation of up to 10% of the total value may be agreed by the Deputy Chief Executive and Strategic Director for Children, Schools and Families in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Property and Business Services, the Cabinet Member for Education and the Leader of the Council. Reasons for decisions
The proposal delivers and supports the Authority’s statutory obligation to provide necessary school places to meet the needs of the population in Tandridge Borough.
|
||
|
St Mary's Oxted Church of England Junior School - Schools Basic Need Expansion Project
This is a Part 2 annex relating to item 10.
Exempt: Not for publication under Paragraph 3
Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)
[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Corporate Services Select Committee or the Children and Education Select Committee]
Decision: RESOLVED:
1. That the Business Case for the project to expand St Mary’s C of E Junior School, Oxted, by 120 places at a total cost as set out in the submitted report, be approved; 2. That the arrangements by which a variation of up to 10% of the total value may be agreed by the Deputy Chief Executive and Strategic Director for Children, Schools and Families in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Education, the Cabinet Member for Property and Business Services and the Leader of the Council be approved 3. That authority to approve the award of contracts for works be delegated to the Chief Property Officer in consultation with the Leader of the Council, Cabinet Member for Education, Head of Procurement and Section 151 Officer when a competitive tender is procured through the Southern Modular Building Framework. Reasons for decisions
The proposal delivers and supports the Authority’s statutory obligation to provide necessary school places to meet the needs of the population in Tandridge.
[The decisions on this item may be called in by the Children and Education Select Committee and/or the Corporate Services Select Committee] Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Education said that this report contained the confidential financial and value for money information relating to item 10.
RESOLVED:
1. That the Business Case for the project to expand St Mary’s C of E Junior School, Oxted, by 120 places at a total cost as set out in the submitted report, be approved; 2. That the arrangements by which a variation of up to 10% of the total value may be agreed by the Deputy Chief Executive and Strategic Director for Children, Schools and Families in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Education, the Cabinet Member for Property and Business Services and the Leader of the Council be approved 3. That authority to approve the award of contracts for works be delegated to the Chief Property Officer in consultation with the Leader of the Council, Cabinet Member for Education, Head of Procurement and Section 151 Officer when a competitive tender is procured through the Southern Modular Building Framework. Reasons for decisions
The proposal delivers and supports the Authority’s statutory obligation to provide necessary school places to meet the needs of the population in Tandridge. |
||
|
Property Transactions
Exempt: Not for publication under Paragraph 3
Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)
[The decisions on this item are subject to call in by the Corporate Services Select Committee] Decision: RESOLVED:
The Cabinet is asked to authorise the sale of land, as set out in the submitted report, following a marketing exercise and negotiations with adjoining owners and developers.
Reasons for decisions
The land is no longer required to support service delivery or capable of generating a significant income. The capital receipt will contribute to the funding sources available to the Council in support of its delivery of services to its residents.
[The decisions on this item are subject to call in by the Corporate Services Select Committee]
Minutes: The report was introduced by Mr Tim Oliver who informed Cabinet that they were asked to approve a property disposal. He advised that a late bid had been received for the property but on balance it was felt that the original offer as contained within the recommendation within the report was the preferable option.
RESOLVED:
The Cabinet is asked to authorise the sale of land, as set out in the submitted report, following a marketing exercise and negotiations with adjoining owners and developers.
Reasons for decisions
The land is no longer required to support service delivery or capable of generating a significant income. The capital receipt will contribute to the funding sources available to the Council in support of its delivery of services to its residents.
|
||
|
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. |