Agenda item

ITEM 10(i)

 

Mrs Hazel Watson (Dorking Hills) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

 

Council recognises:

 

i)        the important role that the County Council’s youth centres have to play in providing positive activities and support for young people to help overcome their problems, as well as a safe space for them to meet and socialise

 

ii)       the role that youth centres play in providing early help and preventative support for children and young people that Ofsted has identified as lacking in Surrey, following its report into Surrey’s Childrens’ Services published in June 2015

 

Council regrets:

 

i)        the poor use of County Council resources in maintaining youth centres that are closed for many hours a week and the reduction in budget that the Youth Service has suffered in recent years

 

Council calls for:

 

The Cabinet Member for Children and Families Wellbeing to urgently review Youth Service provision in the county with a view to extending youth centre opening hours where appropriate, and consideration being given to either voluntary providers or other community organisations sharing buildings so that greater and more efficient use is made of County Council resources.

 

 

ITEM 10(ii)

 

Mr Jonathan Essex (Redhill East) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:

 

Restoration-led Minerals Planning

 

This Council notes that Surrey County Council is now recognised by the minerals industry, the nature conservation organisations and other councils as being a lead in best practice achieved through restoration-led planning and enhancement of mineral sites.

 

This Council believes that it is vital that such full restoration following mineral operation, as a temporary use of sites, is an important part of the way we plan to protect and enhance our Green Belt and countryside going into the future.

 

This Council agrees to ensuring such proactive approaches and high standards are supported and sustained on all sites across Surrey County Council in the future.

 

 

Item 10(i)

 

Under Standing Order 12.3 the Council agreed to debate this motion.

 

Under Standing Order 12.1, Mrs Hazel Watson moved the motion, which was:

 

‘Council recognises:

 

i)        the important role that the County Council’s youth centres have to play in providing positive activities and support for young people to help overcome their problems, as well as a safe space for them to meet and socialise;

 

ii)       the role that youth centres play in providing early help and preventative support for children and young people that Ofsted has identified as lacking in Surrey, following its report into Surrey’s Childrens’ Services published in June 2015.

 

Council regrets:

 

i)        the poor use of County Council resources in maintaining youth centres that are closed for many hours a week and the reduction in budget that the Youth Service has suffered in recent years.

 

Council calls for:

 

The Cabinet Member for Children and Families Wellbeing to urgently review Youth Service provision in the county with a view to extending youth centre opening hours where appropriate, and consideration being given to either voluntary providers or other community organisations sharing buildings so that greater and more efficient use is made of County Council resources.’

 

Mrs Watson made the following points:

 

·         The important role of youth centres because they provided a safe place for young people.

·         The Ofsted report into Surrey’s Children Services in June 2015 and its comments relating to youth provision.

·         The reduction in the youth service budget and the £200k underspend.

·         That the Council’s youth centres were only open for a limited number of hours, which could result in difficulties in meeting young people’s needs - she considered that the centres should be open for longer.

·         Vacancies within the service were also an issue.

·         Missing IT equipment and the need to ensure that resources were not misused.

·         Finally, she urged the Cabinet Member for Children and Families Wellbeing to review the current arrangements and extend the opening hours of its youth centres.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Forster, who reserved his right to speak.

 

The Cabinet Member for Children and Families Wellbeing made the following points:

 

·         That she was disappointed that this motion was on the agenda because the County Council had moved away from a ‘place based’ youth provision – she highlighted the positive outcomes achieved and gave reasons for rejecting the motion.

·         The county had a low rate of both NEETs and first time entries into the criminal justice system.

·         There had been an increase in the  number of apprenticeships.

·         Surrey’s youth service had received both national and international recognition and the service had received visitors from other authorities wishing to learn from the Surrey model.

·         During the re-commissioning of services, officers had ensured that the views of the young people had been included and had shaped the service provision.

 

Nine Members spoke on the motion and made the following comments:

 

·         Agreement with the views of the Cabinet Member.

• The importance of celebrating the success of the youth services
• Consideration of the proposed budget reductions had been undertaken by a cross party review, which had included Members and young people
• It was ‘community’ youth work because the County Council worked closely, and in partnership, with Boroughs, Districts and faith groups
• The operational changes to the service had caused some problems
• The youth service budget should have been fully used
• The importance of working with voluntary providers
• Staffing issues and whether there was a specific staff recruitment programme in place
• That there was much positive work being undertaken – it was the staff rather than youth centres who did youth work
• In debating this issue, the County Council could re-assure its residents that it had a modern approach to youth service provision
• The under-utilised buildings could be earmarked for Early Help Hubs, as part of a joined up family support service
• The importance of continuing to provide a Value for Money youth service provision, despite budget pressures
• Reference to the Internal Audit report on Surrey Youth Centres, which highlighted areas of concern within the service
• That the motion was not about requesting additional funding for the service, it was about using resources effectively to provide early help and preventative support for young people.

 

The motion was put to the vote with 7 Members voting for and 50 Members voting against it. There were 10 absentions.

 

Therefore, the motion was lost.

 

Item 10(ii)

 

Under Standing Order 12.3 the Council agreed to debate this motion.

 

Under Standing Order 12.1, Mr Jonathan Essex moved the motion, which was:

 

‘This Council notes that Surrey County Council is now recognised by the minerals industry, the nature conservation organisations and other councils as being a lead in best practice achieved through restoration-led planning and enhancement of mineral sites.

 

This Council believes that it is vital that such full restoration following mineral operation, as a temporary use of sites, is an important part of the way we plan to protect and enhance our Green Belt and countryside going into the future.

 

This Council agrees to ensuring such proactive approaches and high standards are supported and sustained on all sites across Surrey County Council in the future.’

 

Mr Essex made the following points:

 

• This motion was about what happened after the mineral operation had ended because there should be a pro-active enforcement approach to the restoration of these sites
• Acknowledgement that the processes did not always go according to plan and he illustrated this point with two examples in his area
• That Surrey County Council was recognised as being a lead in best practice for restoration led minerals planning and county officers had been recognised for their work.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Mr Beardsmore, who reserved his right to speak.

 

Six Members spoke on the motion and made the following comments:

 

• The motion was supported
• That restoration and enhancement of mineral sites should always be part of these planning applications and their consent
• The Surrey style / approach had been recognised and the restoration programme had been underpinned by four key principles
• The need to work closely with local committees / Members to achieve the best results
• Although the processes generally worked well, there were still problems with some landowners, a particular issue in the Molesey area was highlighted by the local Member and drawn to the attention of the Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning
• The motion was about going forward and the adoption of good practice for restoration led minerals planning.

 

The motion was put to the vote and unanimously supported.

 

Therefore, it was:

 

RESOLVED:

 

This Council notes that Surrey County Council is now recognised by the minerals industry, the nature conservation organisations and other councils as being a lead in best practice achieved through restoration-led planning and enhancement of mineral sites.

 

This Council believes that it is vital that such full restoration following mineral operation, as a temporary use of sites, is an important part of the way we plan to protect and enhance our Green Belt and countryside going into the future.

 

This Council agrees to ensuring such proactive approaches and high standards are supported and sustained on all sites across Surrey County Council in the future.