Agenda item

Item 9 (i)

 

Bernie Muir (Epsom West) to move under standing order 11 as follows:

This Council notes: 

• This Government’s long-term vision for transforming social care through reforms which include a cap on care costs of £86,000, a more generous means-test, a shift towards a ‘fair’ cost of care, and the ability for residents who arrange and fund their own care to ask their local authority to do it on their behalf.
• The consensus amongst local authorities and commentators, including the work undertaken by Newton Europe on behalf of the County Councils Network (CCN), that the £3.6bn allocated for Charging Reforms & Fair Cost of Care is substantially below the true likely cost of implementing such reforms.

 

• With uncertainty on whether the three-year Spending Review will proceed, financial planning in Surrey, as well as other councils up and down the country is taking place in the dark.

• The scale of additional cost impact represents a very real threat to the sustainability of the Council’s finances if sufficient new funding is not provided by the Government to cover the cost of the new burdens on Surrey County Council.

 

This Council further notes:

• That 60% of Older People receiving Adult Social Care (ASC) services in Surrey currently privately fund their own care and will often purchase additional or enhanced services that are above meeting a person’s Care Act eligible needs.
• That the Council will need to fund care for more people due to the increases to the capital threshold limits and as people reach the care cap. The changes apply to all people but will primarily impact older people.

This Council resolves to:

1. Re-affirm its continued commitment to working with central government to seek sufficient resources and a fair distribution for Surrey, in order to meet current system pressures and fully fund reforms across the decade.
2. Continue to push for the delay and phased implementation of charging reforms beyond 2023 to provide Surrey County Council with sufficient time to transform its operating models and prepare for effective implementation.
3. Help ensure the development of Integrated Care Systems leads to a meaningful integration of health and social care.
4. Support the continued investment in public health to maximise the role councils can play in reducing health inequalities.
5. Reinforce our commitment of tackling health inequalities across Surrey, ensuring no one is left behind.

 

 

 

Item 9 (ii)

 

John O’Reilly (Hersham) to move under standing order 11 as follows:

This Council notes: 

 

• That the Local Government Boundary Commission for England is currently undertaking a boundary review of Surrey, the recommendations of which will be implemented for the 2025 election.

 

This Council further notes:

 

• This Council’s strong support for the retention of single member electoral divisions, as a way of maintaining clear democratic accountability and community connectiveness, in a county where many divisions already cover large geographical areas.

 

This Council resolves to:

 

1. Write to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to state its request to retain single member divisions in the forthcoming boundary review.

 

 

Item 9 (iii)

 

Nick Darby (The Dittons) to move under standing order 11 as follows:

 

This Council notes that: 

 

• Surrey’s current Draft Capital Programme is oversubscribed against the affordability criteria.

 

• When Your Fund Surrey (YFS) was set up, the financial landscape of the United Kingdom was very different.

 

• YFS does not rely on funds that the Council already has, but instead, the council borrows the money at rapidly increasing interest rates which will impact on Revenue going forward.

 

• The value of the applications received for YFS already exceeds £100million.

 

• Residents have said in the budget survey that they support shifting investment to early intervention and prevention. This is in line with the current leadership motto of "no one left behind".

 

• There have been very few applications from the most deprived areas of Surrey, and none have yet been successful. In contrast there have been a significant number of applications from the most affluent areas (the top 20% in terms of affluence).

 

• As of the end of June successful bids have all come from the top 30% of areas in Surrey.

 

This Council resolves to call upon the Cabinet:

 

I.       Once the total amount of YFS grants approved reaches £20m, or such lower figure as Cabinet may decide by no later than 31 December 2022, to pause further YFS approvals.

 

II.      During that period of pause to refocus YFS to better align with the Council's priorities, the current financial challenges and the feedback from the residents in the budget survey.

 

Item 9 (iv)

 

Jonathan Essex (Redhill East) to move under standing order 11 as follows:

 

This Council notes that:

 

• Advertising is successful in encouraging demand for the products advertised. For example, research by Purpose Disruptors showed that the UK advertising sector, through increased product sales had the impact of increasing UK carbon emissions by 28% (186 MtCO2) in 2019. Similarly, research by the New Weather Institute indicates that the carbon emissions resulting from the increased demand, for cars in the EU, generated by advertising, are more than Belgium’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

 

• The 2022 Climate Mitigation Report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighted the potential for behaviour change to support carbon emission reductions. It lists regulation of advertising as an example of a policy measure that can have a “major influence on mitigative capacity”.

 

• In an Attitudes to Advertising poll in the UK by Opinium Research in 2022 of 2000 people, 68% of UK adults said they would support restrictions on advertising of environmentally harmful products.

 

• Advertising prohibitions and restrictions already exist; these include prohibition on advertising all tobacco products and e-cigarettes, guns and offensive weapons, ‘obscene material’. Rules also affect marketing aimed at children; high fat sugar and salt products; medical and health claims.

 

This Council believes that:

 

• Banning advertising does not ban the products themselves; people are still free to buy the products.

 

• Surrey County Council has committed to work in partnership to reduce carbon emissions across Surrey. A baseline report by Surrey University on behalf of the Surrey Climate Commission showed the extent of scope 3 emissions (in what we buy and import from outside of Surrey). One area where these can be reduced in Surrey is through the impact of advertising in public spaces.

 

• Some advertising content undermines the Council's objectives. For example, petrol and diesel car adverts, especially for Sports Utility Vehicles, undermine air quality objectives. Airline advertising undermines carbon emission targets.

 

 

This Council resolves to call upon the Cabinet:

 

I.      To amend its Advertising and Sponsorship Policy to ban advertisements specifically for fossil fuel companies, flights, petrol and diesel vehicles, and wording the amendment to ban other as yet unidentified high carbon products.

 

II.    To implement this revised Advertising and Sponsorship Policy internally and wherever possible promote its adoption by other partners committed to Surrey’s Climate Change Strategy. This should include restricting advertising of high carbon products on bus stops, billboards and advertising spaces, plus all publications by Surrey County Council.

 

Item 9 (v)

 

Liz Townsend (Cranleigh & Ewhurst) to move under standing order 11 as follows:

 

This Council acknowledges that:

 

The Cabinet is scheduled to agree 'A County Wide Strategic Approach To Accommodation, Homes And Housing Needs In Surrey'.

 

This Council notes that:

 

Housing is not a core responsibility of the County Council.

 

This Council requests that:

The Cabinet's forthcoming strategy prioritises bringing forward key worker and affordable housing on its own land as a matter of priority and to suspend activities that are already under the statutory control of district and borough councils.

Under Standing Order 11.5 using her discretion the Chair took motion 9 (ii) first.

 

Item 9 (ii)

 

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

 

Under Standing Order 12.1 John O’Reilly moved:

This Council notes: 

·         That the Local Government Boundary Commission for England is currently undertaking a boundary review of Surrey, the recommendations of which will be implemented for the 2025 election.

This Council further notes:

·         This Council’s strong support for the retention of single member electoral divisions, as a way of maintaining clear democratic accountability and community connectiveness, in a county where many divisions already cover large geographical areas.

This Council resolves to:

                 I.       Write to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to state its request to retain single member divisions in the forthcoming boundary review.

 

John O’Reilly made the following points:

 

·         Noted that the Council had begun the boundary review process which was being steered by a cross-party working group, the Council was considering whether to retain single Member divisions or to adopt multi-Member divisions.

·         Noted that the working group did not favour the introduction of multi-Member divisions. The first option of keeping the current divisions and adding a Member would double the total Members which would be preposterous, and the second option of keeping the number of Members to eighty-one but to widen the divisions to contain two or three Members would detract from the communities that Members individually represent.

·         Noted that on the basis that the above multi-Member options would not work, the Council was back to the system of single Member divisions that the Council had adopted for many years. It had its flaws but worked well and provided accountability and respected Members’ communities.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Nick Harrison, who made the following comments:

 

·         Noted that currently some of the Council’s divisions were quite large, and making them even broader with multiple Members would create additional issues and conflicts between individual councillors.

·         He was unaware of any other upper tier authorities that had adopted the multi-Member arrangement and noted that the Council should not change the current single Member divisions.

 

No comments were made by Members.

 

The proposer of the motion, John O’Reilly, made no further comments to conclude the debate.

 

The motion was put to the vote and received unanimous support.

 

Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:

This Council notes: 

·         That the Local Government Boundary Commission for England is currently undertaking a boundary review of Surrey, the recommendations of which will be implemented for the 2025 election.

This Council further notes:

·         This Council’s strong support for the retention of single member electoral divisions, as a way of maintaining clear democratic accountability and community connectiveness, in a county where many divisions already cover large geographical areas.

This Council resolves to:

               II.       Write to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to state its request to retain single member divisions in the forthcoming boundary review.

 

Item 9 (i)

 

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

 

Under Standing Order 12.1 Bernie Muirmoved:

This Council notes: 

·         This Government’s long-term vision for transforming social care through reforms which include a cap on care costs of £86,000, a more generous means-test, a shift towards a ‘fair’ cost of care, and the ability for residents who arrange and fund their own care to ask their local authority to do it on their behalf.

 

·         The consensus amongst local authorities and commentators, including the work undertaken by Newton Europe on behalf of the County Councils Network (CCN), that the £3.6bn allocated for Charging Reforms & Fair Cost of Care is substantially below the true likely cost of implementing such reforms.

 

·         With uncertainty on whether the three-year Spending Review will proceed, financial planning in Surrey, as well as other councils up and down the country is taking place in the dark.

 

·         The scale of additional cost impact represents a very real threat to the sustainability of the Council’s finances if sufficient new funding is not provided by the Government to cover the cost of the new burdens on Surrey County Council.

This Council further notes:

·         That 60% of Older People receiving Adult Social Care (ASC) services in Surrey currently privately fund their own care and will often purchase additional or enhanced services that are above meeting a person’s Care Act eligible needs.

 

·         That the Council will need to fund care for more people due to the increases to the capital threshold limits and as people reach the care cap. The changes apply to all people but will primarily impact older people.

This Council resolves to:

                 I.       Re-affirm its continued commitment to working with central government to seek sufficient resources and a fair distribution for Surrey, in order to meet current system pressures and fully fund reforms across the decade.

 

               II.       Continue to push for the delay and phased implementation of charging reforms beyond 2023 to provide Surrey County Council with sufficient time to transform its operating models and prepare for effective implementation.

 

              III.       Help ensure the development of Integrated Care Systems leads to a meaningful integration of health and social care.

 

             IV.       Support the continued investment in public health to maximise the role councils can play in reducing health inequalities.

 

               V.       Reinforce our commitment of tackling health inequalities across Surrey, ensuring no one is left behind.

Bernie Muir made the following points:

 

·         Noted that with the rapidly ageing population and the increase in those with complex needs, a way needed to be found to pay for social care needs.

·         The Council supported the Government's desire to tackle the long-term issue, but for Surrey the current proposals appeared to be untenable; more work needed to be done to assess the issue, and the Government timeline extended to put in place the appropriate resourcing and to discuss funding.

·         Noted that the Government's long-term vision for charging reforms included a new £86,000 cap for personal care costs from October 2023, monitored by means of a care account, extension of means tested support for anyone with less than £100,000 in chargeable assets which currently sat at £23,250, and an increase in the lower capital threshold from £14,250 to £20,000.

·         Noted that from October 2023, self-funders would be entitled to ask councils to arrange care on their behalf when seeking residential and nursing care placements for new people, and the phased introduction for existing self-funders would become available to all by April 2025 at the latest.

·         Noted that with 60% of the Council’s older people who received adult social care being self-funders, the proposed reforms would result in a significant proportion of them now qualifying for public funding.

·         Noted that without Government funding, that would not be financially tenable and would require an increase in the workforce needed to manage that care equivalent to between 85-300 social workers, a rise would be required in the rates local authorities pay as part of the Government's fair cost of care policies and there would be a rapid increase in assessments.

·         Noted that the Council was working hard to model the financial impacts, it was estimated that the additional cost to the Council would range from £1.2 billion to £3.2 billion over the next twelve years; it was a threat to the Council’s financial sustainability and therefore sufficient funding would be required.

·         Noted that the motion sought a pause in the planned October 2023 implementation date to allow the Council to gather more information, to review the policies and to give sufficient time to conduct an effective rollout.

·         Reiterated that the Council would need to fund care for more people due to the increase in the capital threshold limits as people reach the care cap, the changes apply to all people, but would primarily impact older people.

·         Asked Members for support for the motion which sought to work towards a workable solution to transform social care funding.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Riasat Khan, who made the following comments:

 

·           Reiterated the Council’s situation in which it  was estimated that 60% of those receiving adult social care were self-funders due to the combination of issues surrounding the unequitable national funding formula whereby it was estimated that the Council would face a funding gap of between £8 to £20 million in 2023-24, rising to between £25 to £40 million in 2024-25.

·           The Council required increased funding as a result of the loss of National Insurance contributions, inflation and the energy crisis; the funding gap would lead to an increase in Council Tax and would require an increase in trained social workers needed to conduct the means tested personal assessments.

·           Noted that the consensus amongst local authorities and commentators, including the work undertaken by Newton Europe on behalf of the County Councils Network (CCN) was that the £3.6 billion allocated for charging reforms and the fair cost of care was substantially below the true likely cost of implementing such reforms.

·           Noted that the Council should push for a delay and phased implementation to provide the Council with time to transform its operating models and prepare for the effective implementation.

 

Four Members made the following comments:

 

·           Welcomed the opportunity that the reforms would bring for Surrey’s residents but noted that there were concerns over the rushed implementation and the increased costs which would have a detrimental effect on existing recipients of packages and the Council as a whole.

·           Noted that the Council was likely to have one, if not the biggest number of self-funded populations across the country, around 10,000-12,000 self-funders.

·           Noted that the Government's fair cost of care review had recently been completed and Surrey’s response rate of 41% care of homes and 50% of the home care providers was poor but better than most councils.

·           Noted that the Care Quality Commission review of Adult Social Care would start in April 2023.

·           Noted that the Council was working hard towards the reforms being implemented in October 2023 but it was challenging; around 90 new staff were being employed to undertake the assessments. The Council was also designing a new online offer which would aid the assessment process and residents would be able to monitor their care package.

·           Noted that the Council was actively working to increase skills and encourage work in areas such as social care with partners such as the North East Surrey College of Technology (NESCOT). The Council was also lobbying Surrey’s MPs and the Government via the South East Strategic Leaders group.

·           Noted that it was the time to stabilise Adult Social Care and urged Members to support the motion to delay the implementation to at least until 2024, to have a staggered approach and increase investment across the sector.

·           Noted that the Council had a bad deal from the Government, Surrey was ill-funded and was being taken for granted by asking the Council to do so much on the social care front so quickly.

·           Highlighted that the Government’s funding to Surrey was only £2.7 million for the current year for the Adult Social Care Grant, that was gravely insufficient to prepare Surrey for the reforms.

·           Highlighted that the cumulative sum to the Council by 2033 could be as high as £3.2 billion, which would bankrupt the Council.

·           Noted that the Council needed to work on three things on the social care front, workforce, funding and integration. On workforce the Council needed to properly pay and value its current social care staff, recruitment and retention were key. On funding the Government needed to properly fund social care and elderly people’s retirement. On integration proper health and social care integration was needed, people should not be passed from pillar to post.

·           Recommended that Members who were unable to attend the Member Development Session on Adult Social Care should watch the recording on the Member Portal.

·           Noted that there were two big problems which were not being addressed: firstly, where were the people going to come from as there was a shortage of people with the appropriate skills and that needed to be solved nationally; secondly, expecting local authorities to provide all the funding was unsustainable and so the Government would need to fund a critical portion of running costs.

·           Noted concern about resolution II, as it called for further delay which was unacceptable and the length of that delay was unspecified; the proposer was asked if she wished to remove this.

·           Noted that the Council had never been able to keep up with assessments, yet the reforms were heavy on assessments; the original idea appeared twelve years ago and was now being discussed again. 

·           Recognised the difficulties in implementing the charging reforms and fair cost of care but noted that such changes were needed for the country and county.  

 

The Chair asked Bernie Muir, as proposer of the motion to conclude the debate; she made the following comments:

 

·           Noted that she did not wish to remove resolution II because the Council needed a workable solution, and going ahead with the charging reforms and fair cost of care that would bankrupt the Council was not a solution.

·           Highlighted the Leader’s comment that the Council was lobbying for the best outcomes for the people of Surrey, funding Adult Social Care was a key issue.

·           Reiterated that Surrey was an outlier due to its high proportion of residents who were self-funders and the timescale was not practical in the sense that the Council would need to means test an additional 9,500 -12,000 people via detailed assessments on top of the resourcing challenges in social care.

·           Emphasised that the Council was committed to finding a solution and would continue to discuss the matter with the Government and the CCN to find a solution that works for counties across the country and particularly outliers.

 

A Member asked whether there would be a separate vote on resolution II. The Chair clarified that the proposer had indicated that she wanted Members to vote on the entirety of the motion.

 

The motion was put to the vote with 65 Members voting For, 0 voting Against and 2 Abstentions.

 

Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:

This Council notes: 

·         This Government’s long-term vision for transforming social care through reforms which include a cap on care costs of £86,000, a more generous means-test, a shift towards a ‘fair’ cost of care, and the ability for residents who arrange and fund their own care to ask their local authority to do it on their behalf.

 

·         The consensus amongst local authorities and commentators, including the work undertaken by Newton Europe on behalf of the County Councils Network (CCN), that the £3.6bn allocated for Charging Reforms & Fair Cost of Care is substantially below the true likely cost of implementing such reforms.

 

·         With uncertainty on whether the three-year Spending Review will proceed, financial planning in Surrey, as well as other councils up and down the country is taking place in the dark.

 

·         The scale of additional cost impact represents a very real threat to the sustainability of the Council’s finances if sufficient new funding is not provided by the Government to cover the cost of the new burdens on Surrey County Council.

This Council further notes:

·         That 60% of Older People receiving Adult Social Care (ASC) services in Surrey currently privately fund their own care and will often purchase additional or enhanced services that are above meeting a person’s Care Act eligible needs.

 

·         That the Council will need to fund care for more people due to the increases to the capital threshold limits and as people reach the care cap. The changes apply to all people but will primarily impact older people.

This Council resolves to:

                    I.       Re-affirm its continued commitment to working with central government to seek sufficient resources and a fair distribution for Surrey, in order to meet current system pressures and fully fund reforms across the decade.

 

                  II.       Continue to push for the delay and phased implementation of charging reforms beyond 2023 to provide Surrey County Council with sufficient time to transform its operating models and prepare for effective implementation.

 

                 III.       Help ensure the development of Integrated Care Systems leads to a meaningful integration of health and social care.

 

                IV.       Support the continued investment in public health to maximise the role councils can play in reducing health inequalities.

 

                  V.       Reinforce our commitment of tackling health inequalities across Surrey, ensuring no one is left behind.

 

Item 9 (iii)

 

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

 

Under Standing Order 12.1 Nick Darbymoved:

 

This Council notes that: 

 

·         Surrey’s current Draft Capital Programme is oversubscribed against the affordability criteria.

 

·         When Your Fund Surrey (YFS) was set up, the financial landscape of the United Kingdom was very different.

 

·         YFS does not rely on funds that the Council already has, but instead, the council borrows the money at rapidly increasing interest rates which will impact on Revenue going forward.

 

·         The value of the applications received for YFS already exceeds £100million.

 

·         Residents have said in the budget survey that they support shifting investment to early intervention and prevention. This is in line with the current leadership motto of "no one left behind".

 

·         There have been very few applications from the most deprived areas of Surrey, and none have yet been successful. In contrast there have been a significant number of applications from the most affluent areas (the top 20% in terms of affluence).

 

·         As of the end of June successful bids have all come from the top 30% of areas in Surrey.

 

This Council resolves to call upon the Cabinet:

 

I.       Once the total amount of YFS grants approved reaches £20m, or such lower figure as Cabinet may decide by no later than 31 December 2022, to pause further YFS approvals.

II.      During that period of pause to refocus YFS to better align with the Council's priorities, the current financial challenges and the feedback from the residents in the budget survey.

Nick Darby made the following points:

 

·         Reiterated that the Residents' Association and Independents Group by the motion had not suggested that Your Fund Surrey should be closed down.

·         Noted that several months ago the Leader and the former Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources suggested openly that any questions on next year’s budget should be raised early and the motion was doing exactly that; it was a proposal and the Residents' Association and Independents Group would look to form a consensus working with the Cabinet.

·         Noted that through the series of briefings, the Finance team had highlighted the significant challenge around the Council’s budget due to many economic pressures, crises, insufficient funding from the Government, Home to School Transport costs heading for £56 million and borrowing costs heading for £80 million; the financial climate differed from when Your Fund Surrey was set up.

·         Highlighted the comments that morning from the Institute for Fiscal Studies about the need for significant Government cuts, furthermore employment figures referenced a loss of 50,000 social care staff across the sector; the local authority sector would bear the brunt.

·         Noted that the capital programme was oversubscribed, and officers had indicated that there was a need to reprioritise the projects which to be progressed must have a real rate of return.

·         Noted that the value of applications was more than £100 million; preserving extra services, particularly in Adult Social Care and Children’s Services, was what residents wanted and he was unconvinced that it would all be affordable.

·         Did not suggest that the Council should abandon those organisations with near-complete Your Fund Surrey applications; however, a figure needed to be set at which Your Fund Surrey could be paused, such as £20 million based on the small number of approvals already given.

·         Noted that the motion called for a pause and refocus, not to abandon Your Fund Surrey; time was needed to evaluate the successes and what could be done differently. Such details, together with the new fund for Members, could be discussed by the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee.

 

The motion was formally seconded by Robert Evans, who reserved the right to speak.

 

Fourteen Members made the following comments:

 

·         Noted that Your Fund Surrey was a central tenet of the Council's Empowering Communities priority, enabling residents across Surrey to make lasting and positive differences in their neighbourhoods.

·         Noted that Your Fund Surrey was cross-cutting across the Council’s and partner organisations’ strategic objectives.

·         Stressed that applications to Your Fund Surrey focused on priorities identified by residents, and by supporting those community-led projects, the Council was investing in accordance with what residents have identified as being important.

·         The Council’s records indicated that communities were positively engaged with Your Fund Surrey with over 250 applications received to date requesting £117 million. There were currently 116 live applications equating to £65 million; 14 projects for £4.5 million had been funded and there were potentially 7 applications of over £3.75 million to follow by the end of the year.

·         Noted that many of the projects funded had focused on early intervention and prevention by promoting the health and wellbeing of residents and had also provided residents with a safe space to exercise, socialise and learn new skills, bringing communities together helping to reduce social isolation, there had been the development of work and apprenticeship opportunities and the referral of patients to specific projects by GP surgeries.

·         Noted that the latest analysis of the data showed that more applications were coming from the most deprived areas of Surrey as a percentage of the total, the five lowest deprivation deciles in Surrey accounted for 62% of applications to date and over 50% of projects funded; projects would often provide benefits more widely outside of the immediate location.

·         Noted that while data showed that all communities were submitting applications to Your Fund Surrey, the neighbourhoods with the most extreme deprivation might benefit from additional support to progress ideas through to funding.

·         Announced the new Your Fund Surrey Member fund to simplify the process, whereby each Member would be allocated £50,000 from the Your Fund Surrey budget from early 2023 until the end of their current term to allocate to community-led capital projects in their individual divisions, the process would be more in line with the current Member Community Allocation process.

·         Your Fund Surrey was residents’ money to enhance, empower and invest in their communities in accordance with their aspirations and needs; the projects were life enhancing and ensured that ‘no one is left behind’, harnessing the creative energy developed during the Covid-19 pandemic.

·         Noted that Your Fund Surrey aligned with the Council’s priorities, and the projects were fantastic such as the Normandy Community Café.

·         Implored Members to get more involved in their local areas to bring projects to light which could make a difference, sustaining and empowering communities.

·         Welcomed the renewed energy brought by the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Communities and Community Safety and the introduction of the new fund; urged Members to use their allocation.

·         Noted that officers would look to identify and understand why projects had not been coming forward in certain areas and why residents were not engaging.

·         Welcomed the input into the budget setting process but would have liked to have had a discussion within that process around Your Fund Surrey concerns.

·         Noted that the Council would look at the capital programme during the budget setting process to ensure that the priority capital projects would be funded first.

·         Highlighted the short-sightedness of the motion, noting that Your Fund Surrey was designed to ensure funding was available to fulfil residents’ priorities and to empower communities.

·         Highlighted an example in Woking where Your Fund Surrey allocated £900,000 to refurbish the Old Woking Community Centre, a deprived area in receipt of little external funding; that funding was a lifeline to the centre which was a community hub for many residents. The project demonstrated the partnership working.

·         Praised the benefits of Your Fund Surrey and noted that the Liberal Democrat Group believed in investing in communities and valued volunteers.

·           Noted the need to acknowledge that the world had moved on economically since Your Fund Surrey was first announced, borrowing costs had risen and there was a risk of the Council not being able to fund whole services.

·           Noted that prior to the meeting the Liberal Democrat Group had suggested the referral of the motion to the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee; however, the proposer wanted it debated at Council. The Council needed to review and scrutinise how it supported community groups, and to review the data around the newly announced £50,000 Member allocation for Your Fund Surrey.

·           Quoted from the motion that ‘There have been very few applications from the most deprived areas of Surrey, and none have yet been successful.’; this statement was incorrect in the case of the Thorpe Green Community Fitness Project, for example, as the community facility was located adjacent to significant areas of higher deprivation outputs.

·           The motion referenced the budget survey of Surrey residents who supported the shifting of investment to early intervention and prevention; it was noted that Your Fund Surrey was designed to achieve that, and outlined the Fund’s mission statements about providing investment in schemes that encourage community interaction, reduce social isolation and promote social wellbeing.

·           Noted that there were other worthy community projects in the pipeline that deserved to be considered by the Your Fund Surrey Advisory Panel.

·           Welcomed Your Fund Surrey when it was first announced;however, since then there had been three problems: the inability to control the development of the bureaucracy around submitting applications; Your Fund Surrey acted on an unfair divisional basis with some areas in Surrey receiving most of the money, and the challenging financial situation whereby Your Fund Surrey was unfunded as it involved borrowing money totalling around £189 million which was unsustainable.

·           Highlighted the positive Community Safety Partnership Grant scheme which had been running for nearly two decades whereby Members in each division had an allowance of £5,000, and suggested that rather than Your Fund Surrey Members could be allocated £10,000 annually to provide real community improvement.

·           Noted a local example of their division which contained two of the most deprived estates in the county, Longmead Estate and Watersedge Estate and there was no land, money or expertise for a Your Fund Surrey project; it was patronising when the administration told Members that they needed to work with their communities, as they were already doing this.

·           Noted that in twenty years much could have been done to support the local residents, there was not a community centre and the youth service had been taken away. It was people on low budgets who were in need of services, the area noted above had one of the lowest car ownerships in the county and residents could not access services further afield. Residents in low income areas had not been consulted that their money would be taken to fund projects in more affluent areas; Your Fund Surrey money had been wasted.

·           Confirmed that a report would be taken to Cabinet setting out the plans for the newly announced Your Fund Surrey £50,000 Member allocation and a briefing note would be sent to Members following the meeting.

·           Welcomed the newly announced Your Fund Surrey £50,000 Member allocation and noted that it was depressing to hear the opposition constantly focusing on the negative aspects of what the Council was doing; more positivity was needed to recognise the great work underway including Your Fund Surrey.

·           Noted a local example of the Cobham and Downside Residents' Association which was developing a project to rejuvenate both the skatepark and Cobham Football Club’s facilities on the Leg O’Mutton Field and anticipated bidding for funds via Your Fund Surrey having been working with the team for the past eighteen months. The Cobham Village Partnership had been created, working alongside Elmbridge Borough Council to drive forward the application.

·           Recognised what had been achieved by Your Fund Surrey however it was funded through borrowed money and the borrowing costs had increased to just under 5% and would likely increase.

·           Noted that the most deprived communities often struggled to have the community instruction necessary to bid successfully, through Council Tax those communities subsidised projects which were benefiting wealthy communities; welcomed assurance that action would be taken to assist those communities better and to make the bidding process simpler.

·           Questioned why the announcement of the Your Fund Surrey £50,000 Member allocation was made in the middle of the debate with no forewarning and noted that it was convenient that the 2023 launch of the £50,000 new Member allocation coincided with the next round of local elections.

·           Clarified that the Council was not making any cuts and its finances were well- run. Queried the motion calling for a pause on Your Fund Surrey as the £100 million was being spent in the local communities.

·           Disagreed with the argument that the funding was going to wealthy communities, noting that their division was not wealthy and was working hard with their community to deliver the projects that were applying for Your Fund Surrey; it was Members’ responsibility to work with their local communities.

·           Noted that when Your Fund Surrey was established in 2019, it was warmly welcomed and considered innovative. The Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 had hampered the implementation of Your Fund Surrey, and it had only recently resumed operation as intended.

·           Noted a local example of the huge amount of volunteer effort to enable projects such as the Normandy Community Shop and Café, and the Pirbright Community Amateur Sports Pavilion in a position to submit a Your Fund Surrey application; dozens of projects across the county have been supported, with many more expected to follow.

·           Noted that whilst some communities might be unable to submit Your Fund Surrey applications due to a lack of support or suitable community groups, this did not mean that the rest of Surrey should not be able to take advantage of the fund where support and suitable organisations existed.

·           Noted that it was not a surprise that some of the opposition groups were using the motion to their advantage. 

·           Appealed to the motion’s proposer that on reflection it would be best to withdraw the motion for the following reasons: there was common ground amongst Members that empowering Surrey’s communities to get things done by working together and supported by the Council was the right thing to do irrespective of political affiliation, and that the value of progressing Your Fund Surrey was expressed by the announcement of the Your Fund Surrey £50,000 Member allocation, which should address some of the current deficiencies.

·           Recognised that the volume of applications received at the launch of Your Fund Surrey had reduced, largely due to Covid-19 which affected the ability of community groups to submit bids. It was also noted that the number of approvals had not met Members’ expectations, as discussed at the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee meeting in March.

·           Noted that it was unnecessary to refer the motion to the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee as it would receive another detailed report on Your Fund Surrey in December.   

·           Praised the initial work done by the former Cabinet Member for Communities on Your Fund Surrey and the project to empower communities, with many councils nationally seeking to adopt Surrey’s model.

·           Noted difficulties in their community trying to get projects off the ground because of a lack of expertise, money and resource; the pause provided an opportunity to reconsider where the money could be targeted best to help the poorest in the community and where the best value for money can be gained.

 

Robert Evans, the seconder of the motion, made the following comments:

 

·           Noted that having sat on the Your Fund Surrey Advisory Panel that had been discussing the applications over the last few months, most of them were worthy projects but the Council could not fund them all.

·           Whilst the Council spoke about levelling up, all the successful bids so far had come from the more prosperous areas in Surrey. Many communities submitting applications for Your Fund Surrey were using professional agencies with paid lawyers and solicitors, which not every area could afford to do.

·           Agreed with the comment made on the need to work with partners, and regarding levelling up noted that schools in the more prosperous areas did much better because they obtain more money from parent-teacher associations and voluntary funding than schools in the more deprived areas.

·           Reiterated that the motion was not asking to end Your Fund Surrey, but to pause it in order to refocus during the uncertain national economic situation.

·           Referring to the Your Fund Surrey £50,000 Member allocation, the sum of the Your Fund Surrey scheme would be £1 million for every division if funded equally; that would not happen.

·           Referring to motion 9 (i) on having properly funded Adult Social Care services, suggested that rather than borrowing £100 million for Your Fund Surrey the money could be used to fund an innovative Adult Social Care system.

 

The Chair asked Nick Darby, as proposer of the motion to conclude the debate; he made the following comments:

 

·           Repeated that the motion did not seek to close down Your Fund Surrey, it sought to pause it. The issue was its affordability, noting the Council’s borrowing of £100 million if all the funding was to be used; it was not a question of not wanting to support the communities.

·           Noted that the motion did not suggest how long that pause would be as there needed to be a complete review.

·           Disagreed with the call to withdraw the motion.

·           Welcomed the further review of Your Fund Surrey by the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee, in which he hoped to participate.

·           Noted that the Your Fund Surrey £50,000 Member allocation needed to be reviewed to understand what the circumstances were, as it would total £4 million a year for two years and that sum of £8 million was not far off from the £20 million at which he believed Your Fund Surrey should be paused at.

 

Under Standing Order 28.1, ten Members demanded a recorded vote, the motion was put to the vote with 17 Members voting For, 41 voting Against and 9 Abstentions.

 

The following Members voted For it:

 

John Beckett, Amanda Boote, Nick Darby, Jonathan Essex, Robert Evans, Chris Farr, Nick Harrison, Robert King, Eber Kington, Andy MacLeod, Ernest Mallett MBE, Michaela Martin, Jan Mason, Steven McCormick, Catherine Powell, Joanne Sexton, Chris Townsend.

 

The following Members voted Against it:

 

Maureen Attewell, Ayesha Azad, *Catherine Baart, Steve Bax, Jordan Beech, Luke Bennett, Liz Bowes, Natalie Bramhall, Helyn Clack, Clare Curran, Paul Deach, Kevin Deanus, Matt Furniss, Tim Hall, David Harmer, Marisa Heath, Jonathan Hulley, Saj Hussain,Rebecca Jennings-Evans, Frank Kelly, Riasat Khan, Rachael Lake, Victor Lewanski, David Lewis (Cobham), David Lewis (Camberley West), Andy Lynch, Cameron McIntosh, Sinead Mooney, Bernie Muir, Mark Nuti, John O’Reilly, Tim Oliver, Rebecca Paul, Becky Rush, Tony Samuels, Lesley Steeds, Richard Tear, Denise Turner-Stewart, Jeremy Webster, Buddhi Weerasinghe, Keith Witham.

 

The following Members Abstained:

 

Stephen Cooksey, Will Forster, Angela Goodwin, Jeffrey Gray, Carla Morson, George Potter, Lance Spencer, Liz Townsend, Fiona White.

 

[*Subsequent to the recording of the vote, Catherine Baart noted that she had mistakenly voted Against when she intended to vote For. The Chair agreed that this would be noted in the minutes.]  

 

Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:

 

The motion was lost.

 

John Beckett left the meeting at 13.02 pm.

 

Item 9 (iv)

 

Under Standing Order 12.3 the Cabinet Member for Environment, Marisa Heath, moved a proposal. The proposal was as follows:

 

That the motion below by Jonathan Essex be referred to the Greener Futures Reference Group - a Task Group of the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee - for consideration.

 

This Council notes that:

 

·         Advertising is successful in encouraging demand for the products advertised. For example, research by Purpose Disruptors showed that the UK advertising sector, through increased product sales had the impact of increasing UK carbon emissions by 28% (186 MtCO2) in 2019. Similarly, research by the New Weather Institute indicates that the carbon emissions resulting from the increased demand, for cars in the EU, generated by advertising, are more than Belgium’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

 

·         The 2022 Climate Mitigation Report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighted the potential for behaviour change to support carbon emission reductions. It lists regulation of advertising as an example of a policy measure that can have a “major influence on mitigative capacity”.

 

·         In an Attitudes to Advertising poll in the UK by Opinium Research in 2022 of 2000 people, 68% of UK adults said they would support restrictions on advertising of environmentally harmful products.

 

·         Advertising prohibitions and restrictions already exist; these include prohibition on advertising all tobacco products and e-cigarettes, guns and offensive weapons, ‘obscene material’. Rules also affect marketing aimed at children; high fat sugar and salt products; medical and health claims.

 

This Council believes that:

 

·         Banning advertising does not ban the products themselves; people are still free to buy the products.

 

·         Surrey County Council has committed to work in partnership to reduce carbon emissions across Surrey. A baseline report by Surrey University on behalf of the Surrey Climate Commission showed the extent of scope 3 emissions (in what we buy and import from outside of Surrey). One area where these can be reduced in Surrey is through the impact of advertising in public spaces.

 

·         Some advertising content undermines the Council's objectives. For example, petrol and diesel car adverts, especially for Sports Utility Vehicles, undermine air quality objectives. Airline advertising undermines carbon emission targets.

 

This Council resolves to call upon the Cabinet:

I.      To amend its Advertising and Sponsorship Policy to ban advertisements specifically for fossil fuel companies, flights, petrol and diesel vehicles, and wording the amendment to ban other as yet unidentified high carbon products.

 

II.    To implement this revised Advertising and Sponsorship Policy internally and wherever possible promote its adoption by other partners committed to Surrey’s Climate Change Strategy. This should include restricting advertising of high carbon products on bus stops, billboards and advertising spaces, plus all publications by Surrey County Council.

Jonathan Essex made the following points:

 

·         Noted that it would be useful to clarify what happens to the motion once it has been considered by the Greener Futures Reference Group.

·         Noted that there was a gap in policy in that area and the Advertising and Sponsorship Policysimply stated that it adopted the Council’s policy; the Council recently published a procurement strategy in the areas of environment and sustainability which clarified more strongly the Council’s position in terms of procurement.

·         Noted that the referral was a good idea in principle as the motion could be considered with the technical support of officers in a cross-party way which would be beneficial.

·         Noted that whilst the motion had an explicit focus on high carbon consumption, which fell outside of the scope of the Council’s emissions reduction targets, it was an area that the Council had an influence over, and having spoken to the Cabinet Member for Environment beforehand, there was a possibility to widen the motion slightly to look at wider environmental and climate aspects.

 

In speaking to her proposal, the Cabinet Member for Environment:

 

·         Recommended that the motion be referred to the Greener Futures Reference Group to enable detailed scrutiny of the Advertising and Sponsorship Policy.

·         Clarified that the motion would follow due process; the Greener Futures Reference Group was owned by the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee which could provide the approval to come to Cabinet to consider.

 

Jonathan Essex confirmed that he was in support of the referral of the motion to the Greener Futures Reference Group.

 

The proposal to refer the motion was put to the vote and received unanimous support.

 

Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:

 

The motion be referred to the Greener Futures Reference Group for consideration.

 

The Chair informed Members that there was seven minutes left of the time limit of one and a half hours for the total debate on original motions and would allow some extra time to debate the last motion.

 

Item 9 (v)

 

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

 

Under Standing Order 12.1 Liz Townsend moved:

 

This Council acknowledges that:

 

The Cabinet is scheduled to agree 'A County Wide Strategic Approach To Accommodation, Homes And Housing Needs In Surrey'.

 

This Council notes that:

 

Housing is not a core responsibility of the County Council.

 

This Council requests that:

 

The Cabinet's forthcoming strategy prioritises bringing forward key worker and affordable housing on its own land as a matter of priority and to suspend activities that are already under the statutory control of district and borough councils.

 

Catherine Powell moved an amendment which had been published in the supplementary agenda (items 7 and 9) on 10 October 2022, which was formally seconded by Nick Darby.

 

The amendment was as follows (with additional words in bold/underlined and deletions crossed through):

 

This Council acknowledges that:

 

The Cabinet is scheduled to agree 'A County Wide Strategic Approach To Accommodation, Homes And Housing Needs In Surrey'.

 

This Council notes that:

 

Housing is not a core responsibility of the County Council.

 

Its statutory duties include the maintaining and highways and infrastructure network as well as Public Health and Education functions.

 

This Council requests that:

 

The Cabinet's forthcoming strategy prioritises bringing forward key worker and affordable housing on its own land and ensures that its core responsibilities of highways infrastructure, transport, education and health are aligned with the local planning authorities’ development plans whilst cooperating with neighbouring counties as a matter of priority and to suspend activities that are already under the statutory control of district and borough councils.

 

Liz Townsend accepted the amendment and therefore it became the substantive motion.

 

Liz Townsend made the following points:

·         Noted that it was critical at the present time of extreme pressures on the Council’s finances when it was gearing up for a renewed period of crippling austerity, with the widening gap between rich and poor and increasing rates of child poverty; that the Council concentrates its funds and efforts on its statutory services.

·         Noted that residents were anxious about spiralling inflation and the cost-of-living crisis and wanted to see Members running their core services well, resolving the Home to School Transport crisis, fixing roads, providing better bus services, providing more resources targeted at education and Adult Social Care; putting political projects like the County Deal on the back burner.

·         Noted that areas of responsibility across councils were defined and the housing market was complex and one in which the Government heavily intervened in.

·         Noted that there was already a statutory duty for planning authorities to openly cooperate with other councils on development plans and on supplementary planning documents covering areas such as master plans and affordable housing all of which should be done in the open with formal public consultation.

·         Due to current economic uncertainty, it was expected that the delivery of top-down housing numbers by planning authorities granting planning permissions within a strategic framework was expected to slow and even halt.

·         Noted that when developers do not build, local plans and decision-making were overruled, a Surrey housing strategy would provide no assistance in such circumstances; it would be a talking shop.

·         Emphasised that what Surrey could do was to help to lobby the Government to tackle the root causes and to remove the incentive for developers not to build, developers knew that low delivery meant that planning authorities would be forced to grant even more planning permissions.

·         Noted that the Local Government Association (LGA) had repeatedly highlighted the one million plus properties across the country with planning permission yet to be completed, the trickle feed of housing onto the market kept house prices high and affordability out of reach.

·         Agreed with the Leader that Surrey needed to be more cautious about new initiatives, ensuring that its own house was in order first.

·         Stressed that the Council must demonstrate to residents that it was fulfilling its own key statutory roles such as to plan for and relieve the pressure on the crumbling local infrastructure due to new housing development; as well as to deliver housing through Surrey’s redundant and underused assets such as brownfield sites, delivering affordable housing allocated for key workers.

·         Noted that residents saw few examples of the issues being aligned with plans for development and county border communities felt that the impact of neighbouring county development went unaddressed.

·         Urged the Cabinet Member for Children and Families to reconsider, rather than embarking on a quasi-planning housing strategy which had no weight and no mandate and relied on overstretched resources to deliver.

The motion was formally seconded by Will Forster, who made the following comments:

 

·         Noted that if the Council wanted to show leadership on housing, it should use its own land and property and work with housing associations to bring forward affordable and key worker housing, that was a practical suggestion that the housing strategy should prioritise.

·         Noted that the Council did not do enough with its land, provided three examples of sites in Woking that the Council could use to provide affordable and key worker housing.

 

Three Members made the following comments:

 

·         Noted surprise at the motion, recalling a past meeting with the motion’s proposer in her division where the possibility of extra care housing was discussed with enthusiasm, acknowledging that the Council was taking a lead and wanted the best for its vulnerable residents.

·         Noted that it was a misjudged motion telling the Council to keep its hands of the district and borough councils’ statutory housing functions and to stick to its core responsibilities.

·         Noted that the Council was ambitious for Surrey and had identified four priority objectives and good quality sustainable housing made a significant contribution to all four, a person’s housing circumstances had a profound effect on many aspects of their life including their health, wealth and happiness.

·         Recognised that housing played a critical role in the economy and its potential to grow Surrey’s labour market.

·         Noted that a significant number of Surrey residents, businesses and organisations faced serious challenges around accommodation and housing, yet there was not an evidenced and joined up county-wide strategy or ambition that directed focus and alignment across the whole housing system; the baseline assessment and the Surrey housing strategy intended to address that.

·         Noted that the work to date had been endorsed by the Surrey Delivery Board, the Surrey Chief Housing Officers Association, Surrey Business Leaders Forum and One Surrey Growth Board.

·         Noted that alongside the district and borough councils, landlords, developers, investors and national regional agencies; the Council had a clear role and responsibilities in many aspects of housing.

·         Noted excitement at being touring the districts and boroughs with the officer team to discuss the housing strategy in more detail, responses so far had been positive and there was good engagement.

·         Clarified that the Lakers Youth Centre site in Goldsworth Park was out for resident consultation and there had been a response to a Member question at Cabinet on the matter.

 

A Member noted that the above was an incorrect statement from the Cabinet Member for Property and Waste concerning the Lakers Youth Centre site, the Chair noted that the Member could liaise with the Cabinet Member outside of the meeting.

 

·         Noted that the Council was having to do the work of delivering housing as the district and borough councils were not doing so; at the Leader’s request the Land and Property team had identified several suitable Council sites for development, including sites for key worker housing and one was in Redhill.

·         Noted that at present the Land and Property team had 128 capital projects underway which showed it was now a well-functioning service and the Council was delivering more: children's homes, SEND places, schools and supported independent living, than the Council had ever done.

·         Noted that the Council had a coordinating role with the district and borough councils, for example the Council fulfilled that role well through the Farnham Infrastructure Programme.

·         Disagreed with the way the Council was undertaking that coordinating role through the housing strategy and noted that it was remarkable that the motion’s proposer as the portfolio holder for planning at Waverley Borough Council had heard about the housing strategy at a Member briefing.

·         Noted that an external consultancy was providing an analysis of the housing strategy and was unsure about what the outcome would be, a great deal of work was going into the housing strategy but it appeared as though it would not result in much.

·         Noted that the main problem with housing and planning was the planning system, and that the Council could play a role in coordinating with the district and borough councils to approach the Government to sort out the planning system.

 

The Chair asked Liz Townsend, as proposer of the motion to conclude the debate; she made the following comments:

 

·         Disagreed with the comment that the district and borough councils were not delivering housing, they were delivering the planning permissions which was the only area within their control, they could not force developers to build.

·         Reiterated that housing was a country-wide issue, Government policy needed to change to stop housing being trickle fed onto the market and local-decision making being overruled.

·         Understood why the Council wished to be seen to have a coordinating role, however it would just be a talking shop.

·         Noted that the fundamental planning issues needed to be tackled by the Government, which were that district and borough councils provided planning permission but were tested against houses being built and they had no control over that.

·         Urged that in the present time of extreme budget pressures and upcoming cuts to services, that the Council should concentrate on delivering its statutory services for its residents.

 

The motion was put to the vote with 26 Members voting For, 41 voting Against and no Abstentions.

 

Therefore, it was RESOLVED that:

 

The motion was lost.