Item 8(i)
Dr Andrew Povey (Cranleigh & Ewhurst) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:
That the wording of the Financial Framework for Members’ Allocations contained in Part 5 of the Council’s Constitution, be modified in the section “What we cannot consider”, point 7, to replace the word “core” with the word “statutory”.
Item 8 (ii)
Mr Chris Botten (Caterham Hill) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:
This Council notes that:
(i) significant numbers of children who are either in
the care of the County Council or children with special educational
needs are being placed in residential care or special schools
outside Surrey. This means that children are either living a long
way from family and friends or have to travel long distances to get
to and from school which is detrimental to children and their
families and;
(ii) the County Council is projecting to overspend its special
needs transport Budget by £1.2 million in 2017/18.
This Council supports plans to develop travel training for young
people with special educational needs and to encourage the take up
of the parental travel allowance.
This Council agrees that there is a lack of County Council provided
residential places and special needs places for children within
Surrey and the County Council must urgently invest in providing
more of such places for children in Surrey.
Item 8 (iii)
Mrs Hazel Watson (Dorking Hills) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:
This Council notes that the
County Council does not currently have a road sign inspection
policy and that it relies upon members of the public to notify the
County Council of missing and damaged road signs.
This Council calls upon the Cabinet:
(i) to develop a sign inspection policy
with regular inspections to be carried out by Council officers to
identify missing and damaged road signs and to implement such a
policy; or
(ii) alternatively if the County Council is expecting members of
the public to notify it of missing or damaged road signs, to
provide an interactive map showing which road signs should be
in place to enable them to more effectively perform their
role.
Item 8 (iv)
Mr Robert Evans (Stanwell and Stanwell Moor) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:
Surrey Council recognises the
huge contribution made to the County by all its employees.
Council notes that:
· local government pay is amongst the lowest in the public sector;
· in real terms, basic pay across local government has fallen by around 21% since 2010;
· Surrey CC workers have now had eight years of below-inflation pay increases;
·
there are growing equal and fair pay risks resulting from this
situation.
This council recognises that
local government pay should not be allowed to fall further behind
other parts of the public sector, so therefore supports the aim of
restoring fair pay on behalf of council and school workers and
calls for an immediate end to public sector pay restraint.
Additionally, this council notes the drastic ongoing cuts to local
government funding and calls on central government to provide the
additional funding needed to fund a decent pay rise for its
employees.
Surrey County Council therefore calls on the Leader of the Council,
as Chairman of the People, Performance and Development Committee
to:
a. write to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor supporting the National Joint Council (NJC) and other locally determined local government pay claims and to seek additional finance to fund a decent pay rise.
b. call immediately on the Local Government Association (LGA) to make urgent representations to central Government to fund the NJC and other locally determined local government pay claims and then to report back on their action in this regard.
c. meet with local Surrey County Council union representatives to convey support for their claim for a fair pay increase.
Item 8 (v)
Mr Jonathan Essex (Redhill East) to move under Standing Order 11 as follows:
Council notes:
That on the 16 November 2017 the Council Overview & Budget Scrutiny committee agreed that our property investments should be guided by a environmental and social governance (ESG) policy, agreed and confirmed in writing, as does our pension fund investments. ?
Council resolves:
That ESG policy be agreed with a commitment that this should be applied to all of the property-related investment decisions made by Surrey County Council, both through its local authority property company Halsey Garton and by itself, including for its developments on publically owned sites in Surrey, and that this policy includes specific commitments to:
· genuinely affordable housing;
· investments to reach BREEAM rating of Excellent or higher;
· reaffirm our existing commitment to protect the green belt; and
· for these commitments to be scrutinised in public.
Minutes:
Rachael I Lake declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 8(iv) as her son worked for Surrey County Council
Item 8(i)
The Leader of the Council proposed that this motion be referred to the Audit and Governance Committee due to there not being sufficient information for debate.
Dr Povey agreed to the referral of the motion.
Therefore it was:
RESOLVED
To refer the motion to the Audit and Governance Committee meeting on 22 January 2018.
Item 8(ii)
Under Standing Order 12.3 the Council agreed to debate this motion.
Mr Botten proposed a revised motion which was agreed and therefore, it became the substantive motion.
Under Standing Order 12.1 Mr Botten moved the revised motion (with additional words underlined and deletions crossed through): which was:
‘The Council notes that:
(i) Significant numbers of children who are either in the care of the County Council or children with special educational needs are being placed in residential care or special schools outside Surrey. This means that children are either living a long way from family and friends or have to travel long distances to get to and from school which is detrimental to children and their families and;
(ii) The County Council is projecting to overspend its special needs transport Budget by £1.2 million in 2017/18.
(iii) This Council supports plans to develop travel training for young people with special educational needs and to encourage the take up of the parental travel allowance.
This Council agrees that there
is a lack of County Council provided residential place and special
needs places for children within Surrey and the County Council
must urgently will invest in providing more
of such places for children in Surrey as soon as
practicable.’
Mr Botten made the following points:
· That the Council had not provided sufficient care for children in need.
· The current efforts had resulted in a lot of stress for children.
· Cabinet had previously agreed to support children to travel more independently.
· There was growing demand for special needs services in the County.
· That the motion was asking for it to be actioned ‘as soon as practicable’.
· The Council needs to be more demanding with service providers and not accept inadequate service.
· Members have the responsibility to be game changers.
Members should endorse good practice and not tolerate long waiting times.
The motion was formally seconded by Mrs Goodwin who made the following points:
· Many families experience an uphill struggle when dealing with various services.
· Each stage resulted in less support from the Council.
· The Local Authority should be more proactive and invest in quality services for children.
· There should be more provision for carers so they can have their own lives outside of caring.
· Investment in special needs education needs to be holistic.
Eight Members spoke on the motion and made the following comments:
· As corporate parents Members should not accept the current situation for children.
· Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) should be receiving the right support at the right time.
· The Council is committed to working with all partners to ensure children receive the services they need in their local communities.
· Over the last four years the Council has provided £24 million of capital funding to increase special educational needs school places.
· Partnerships with services require very strong leadership.
· There had been some progress from the previous year.
· The Council was faced with very high travel costs for children.
· That the Council should strengthen its relationships with partners.
· All special educational needs schools in the county were rated either good or exceptional.
· Finally, it was stressed that many families do not receive sufficient support.
The Chairman asked Mr Botten, as proposer of the original motion, to conclude the debate.
· He stated that it was clear that Members had a passion to get things right.
· As game changers Members should work differently and promote good practice.
The motion was put to the vote and received unanimous support.
Therefore, it was:
RESOLVED:
The Council notes that:
(i) Significant numbers of children who are either in the care of the County Council or children with special educational needs are being placed in residential care or special schools outside Surrey. This means that children are either living a long way from family and friends or have to travel long distances to get to and from school which is detrimental to children and their families and;
(ii) The County Council is projecting to overspend its special needs transport Budget by £1.2 million in 2017/18.
(iii) This Council supports plans to develop travel training for young people with special educational needs and to encourage the take up of the parental travel allowance.
This Council agrees that there is a lack of County Council provided residential place and special needs places for children within Surrey and the County Council will invest in providing more of such places for children in Surrey as soon as practicable.
Item 8(iii)
Under Standing Order 12.3 the Council agreed to debate this motion.
Under Standing Order 12.1 Mrs Watson moved the motion, which was:
‘This Council notes that
the County Council does not currently have a road sign inspection
policy and that it relies upon members of the public to notify the
County Council of missing and damaged road signs.
This Council agrees:
(i) to develop a sign inspection policy
with regular inspections to be carried out by Council officers to
identify missing and damaged road signs and to implement such a
policy; or
(ii) alternatively if the County Council is expecting members of
the public to notify it of missing or damaged road signs, to
provide an interactive map showing which road signs should be
in place to enable them to more effectively perform their
role.
Mrs Watson made the following points:
· Many Surrey roads were missing road signs.
· Road signs were needed to make Surrey roads safer.
· Surrey relied on residents to inform the County Council of missing road signs.
· The County Council needs to develop a road sign inspection policy as the current system is not working.
The motion was formally seconded by Mr Cooksey, who reserved the right to speak.
Four Members spoke on the motion and made the following comments:
· There was over 3,000 miles of road in Surrey with close to 120,000 signs.
· A map of road signs would be out of date before it was published and would require a large financial commitment.
· Members should use their local knowledge and report missing road signs.
· Many councils were decluttering roads by removing signs.
· Finally, the Council should improve the response time for the maintenance of road signs.
Mr Cooksey, as seconder to the motion, made the following comments:
· That the system was not working properly
· Many neighbouring counties had systems in place similar to that proposed.
The Chairman asked Mrs Watson, as proposer of the original motion, to conclude the debate
· She stated that this was an important issue and that the Council should not reply on residents to report missing road signs.
The motion was put to a vote with 10 Members voting for and 52 Members voting against. There were 5 Abstentions.
Therefore it was:
Resolved:
That the motion was lost.
Item 8(iv)
Under Standing Order 12.3 the Council agreed to debate this motion.
Under Standing Order 12.1 Mr Evans moved the motion, which was:
‘Surrey Council
recognises the huge contribution made to the County by all its
employees.
Council notes that:
· local government pay is amongst the lowest in the public sector;
· in real terms, basic pay across local government has fallen by around 21% since 2010;
· Surrey CC workers have now had eight years of below-inflation pay increases;
· there are growing equal and fair pay risks resulting from this situation.
This council recognises that
local government pay should not be allowed to fall further behind
other parts of the public sector, so therefore supports the aim of
restoring fair pay on behalf of council and school workers and
calls for an immediate end to public sector pay restraint.
Additionally, this council notes the drastic ongoing cuts to local
government funding and calls on central government to provide the
additional funding needed to fund a decent pay rise for its
employees.
Surrey County Council therefore calls on the Leader of the Council,
as Chairman of the People, Performance and Development Committee
to:
a. write to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor supporting the National Joint Council (NJC) and other locally determined local government pay claims and to seek additional finance to fund a decent pay rise.
b. call immediately on the Local Government Association (LGA) to make urgent representations to central Government to fund the NJC and other locally determined local government pay claims and then to report back on their action in this regard.
c. meet with local Surrey County Council union representatives to convey support for their claim for a fair pay increase.’
Mr Evans made the following points:
· Many Surrey staff find it hard to live on their current wage.
· Surrey had some of the best employees of any Local Authority.
· Many Surrey staff were very involved with their local communities.
· The motion asks for a decent pay rise by calling on central government to provide the additional funding.
· Research shows the treasury would save half the total cost of the proposed pay rise.
· That this was a sensible proposal.
· Asked the Leader of the Council to write to central government to seek additional finance to fund a decent pay rise.
· Asked the Leader to meet with local union representatives to support their claim.
The motion was formally seconded by Mr Essex, who reserved the right to speak.
Four Members spoke on the motion and made the following points:
· The Pay Policy Statement, item 11 of the meeting’s agenda, lays out the Council’s policy.
· Surrey County Council was not a member of the National Joint Council.
· The motion was not a valid reason to change the current framework.
· Surrey County Council would not retain good staff if they do not provide a good pay offer.
· Finally, that the People, Performance and Development Committee would be a more suitable forum for this discussion.
Mr Essex, as seconder to the motion, made the following comments:
· It was important to recruit and retain good staff.
· Housing costs have risen faster than wages in Surrey.
· This motion would be a game changer.
The Chairman asked Mr Evans, as proposer of the original motion, to conclude the debate.
· He stated he was disappointed with some of the reactions from Members.
· Trade unions support the discussed motion.
· There needs to be improvement with the current policy.
The motion was put to a vote with 11 Members voting for and 52 Members voting against. There were 4 Abstentions.
Therefore it was:
Resolved:
That the motion was lost.
Item 8(v)
Under Standing Order 12.3 the Council agreed to debate this motion.
Under Standing Order 12.1 Mr Essex moved the motion, which was:
‘Council notes:
That on the 16 November 2017 the Council Overview & Budget Scrutiny committee agreed that our property investments should be guided by an environmental and social governance (ESG) policy, agreed and confirmed in writing, as does our pension fund investments. ?
Council resolves:
That an ESG policy be agreed with a commitment that this should be applied to all of the property-related investment decisions made by Surrey County Council, both through its local authority property company Halsey Garton and by itself, including for its developments on publically owned sites in Surrey, and that this policy includes specific commitments to:
· genuinely affordable housing;
· investments to reach BREEAM rating of Excellent or higher;
· reaffirm our existing commitment to protect the green belt; and
· for these commitments to be scrutinised in public.’
Mr Essex made the following points:
· Surrey has a £1billion property investment strategy.
· Property investments should be governed by clear guidelines on environmental, social and ethical issues.
· He stated the motion was proposing what the content of an environment, social and ethical policy should be..
· This policy would send a signal to the property market about the environmental standards that the Council expects.
· The policy should be reflected in a plan to improve the environmental standards of the Council’s property portfolio.
· Such a policy would recognise that Surrey is an unaffordable place to live for many and new homes should be genuinely affordable.
· A policy would ensure that the County leads on environmental standards.
The motion was formally seconded by Mr MacLeod who made the following points:
· It should not be controversial that the Council’s property investments should be guided by an ethical standards policy.
Mr Oliver moved an amendment which was tabled at the meeting. This was formerly seconded by Mr Hawkins.
The amendment was as follows (with additional words underlined and deletions crossed through):
‘Council notes:
That on the 16 November 2017 the Council Overview & Budget Scrutiny committee agreed that our property investments should be guided by an environmental and social governance (ESG) policy, agreed and confirmed in writing, as does our pension fund investments.
Council resolves:
That an ESG policy be agreed with a commitment
an aspiration that this should be applied to all of
the property-related investment decisions made by Surrey County
Council, both through its local authority property company Halsey
Garton and by itself, including for its
developments on publicly owned sites in Surrey. and that this policy includes specific
commitments to: In addition, this Council:
· reaffirms its commitment to provide genuinely affordable housing on suitable sites and in compliance with the requirements of the local planning authority;
·
agrees
that investments
reach BREEAM standards rating
of Excellent or higher as appropriate for each
application determined by the Local Planning
Authority;
· reaffirms our existing commitment to protect the green belt in accordance with both national and local policy; and
· agrees that these commitments continue to be scrutinised in public.’
Both Mr Essex and Mr MacLeod agreed to accept the amendment to this motion and therefore, it became the substantive motion.
Three Members spoke on the substantive motion and made the following comments:
· BREEAM is a method brought about to assess, rate and certify the sustainability of buildings which is now beginning to be seen as a blunt tool.
· We cannot have a one size fits all policy.
· Council needs a balanced approach when providing affordable housing.
· It is important to work in partnership to ensure that the district/boroughs housing needs are met.
· Finally, that both national and local policies on protecting the green belt are changing.
The Chairman asked Mr Essex, as proposer of the original motion, to conclude the debate.
· He was heartened that Surrey County Council is committing to providing genuinely affordable housing.
· He was concerned that the amended motion did not committee to any specific environmental standards.
· He stated he looked forward to Surrey’s property investment delivering social value for the county.
The motion was put to the vote and received unanimous support.
Therefore, it was:
RESOLVED:
Council notes:
That on the 16 November 2017 the Council Overview & Budget Scrutiny committee agreed that our property investments should be guided by an environmental and social governance (ESG) policy, agreed and confirmed in writing, as does our pension fund investments.
Council resolves:
That an ESG policy be agreed with an aspiration that this should be applied to all of the property-related investment decisions made by Surrey County Council, both through its local authority property company Halsey Garton and by itself, including for its developments on publicly owned sites in Surrey. In addition, this Council:
· reaffirms its commitment to provide genuinely affordable housing on suitable sites and in compliance with the requirements of the local planning authority;
· agrees that investments reach BREEAM standards as appropriate for each application determined by the Local Planning Authority;
· reaffirms our existing commitment to protect the green belt in accordance with both national and local policy; and
· agrees that these commitments continue to be scrutinised in public.’