Agenda item

The Leader of the Council, the Deputy Leader or the appropriate Member of the Cabinet or the chairman of a committee to answer any questions on any matter relating to the powers and duties of the County Council, or which affects the county.

(Note: Notice of questions in respect of the above item on the agenda must be given in writing, preferably by e-mail, to Democratic Services by 12 noon on Wednesday 31 January 2024).

Paul Follows and Penny Rivers left the meeting at 13.00 pm.

Questions:

Notice of thirteen questions had been received. The questions and replies were published in the supplementary agenda (items 5i and 6) on 5 February 2024.

A number of supplementary questions were asked and a summary of the main points is set out below:

(Q1) Joanne Sextonreferred to the second paragraph of the response around the trial of the machinery and regarding the wording of ‘they felt’ and ‘we do not believe’, she asked the Cabinet Member to confirm why the advantages and disadvantages were not included in his response. She requested a detailed report as to why the Council was not proceeding with the innovative idea and to confirm how it was evaluated and analysed.

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth noted that there was a detailed report and he would check with the Highways Laboratory regarding whether it could be shared with Members. The JCB Pothole Pro was found to be more suited to wider surfacing repairs and that had not achieved better results than existing machinery, there were concerns around the compacting of the material and need for additional transportation to move it across Surrey.

(Q3) Will Forster asked whether the Cabinet Member could let Members know when the final costs are agreed with the aggrieved family.

The Cabinet Member for Children and Families, Lifelong Learning would provide that information.

(Q4) Hazel Watsonreferred to the problems with issuing paper parking permits for visitors with only twenty-eight residents applying for those, and asked what was being done to monitor and to ensure that all residents who want paper permits get them. She also asked when the Council's website would be updated on the application process.

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth noted that he would talk to officers about updating the website, there was also a phone number available. He noted that residents were written to about the changes to the contract. He explained that the team could look at SFRS’ vulnerable list to determine whether other people needed to be contacted on the matter. The team would be happy to contact any other residents that required assistance.

(Q5) Stephen Cooksey noted that as it was a statutory requirement, he sought assurance that the information would be published as soon as received.

Chris Townsend referred to the last sentence of the response that monthly reports on local enforcement activity were being sent to Members,he noted that those reports did not include information on enforcement around schools and he sought assurance that it would be included.   

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth responded to Stephen Cooksey noting that once received that information would be published and it would be included in the monthly update, he noted that some of the borough and district councils had not provided the information requested. Responding to Chris Townsend he noted that the schools programme would be added into the monthly report once it was up and running.

(Q6) Jonathan Essex asked whether the Cabinet Member would agree that it was unacceptable that since public health had become local authorities’ responsibility, it had a lower increase than it had within the NHS. He noted that if the Council was serious about prevention, he asked whether the Cabinet Member could write to the Government to demand an increase at least in line with Council Tax.

The Leader noted that yesterday the Government announced the coming year's public health grant and the Council would receive an additional £400,000, there was £700,000 more in the Council’s budget for next year compared to this year.

The Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing, and Public Health noted that he would welcome more money for public health, he congratulated the team for their hard work in the efficient use of the money available working in partnership across the system on prevention. Lobbying the Government for more money was ongoing.

(Q7) Catherine Baart noted that the baseline data was from 2019, she asked what was causing the delay in publishing the newer baseline data and when would the first measurement be made against that.

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth would provide a written response.

(Q8) Catherine Powell noted that the Foster Carers Portal was critical to the Council and welcomed that the project was in the build phase, but the roll out deadline of 31 March was challenging. She asked the Cabinet Member to advise how and when an End User Acceptance Group would be chosen and how much testing was proposed by the end of March.

Steven McCormick was astonished at the response given the MySurrey project for which business as usual issues remain ongoing since its go live in June 2023. He highlighted several areas of concern in the response around the Foster Carers Portal project which culminated in the potential delay in the implementation, he queried whether nothing had been learnt from implementing the MySurrey project and stressed the need to ensure that the same mistakes are not repeated. He asked for the Foster Carers Portal project plan to be urgently reviewed and a realistic and achievable plan be created and republished to improve its chances of a timely and on budget implementation.

The Cabinet Member for Children and Families, Lifelong Learning agreed that the Foster Carers Portal was an important project for the Council, the Fostering Service and foster carers, it was an enhancement designed to make foster carers’ lives easier. She welcomed the comments made and would ask the Fostering Service to expand on the plans and circulate information appropriately. 

(Q9) Robert Evans OBE noted that his question had implications for all Members. He asked whether the Cabinet Member was happy with the change in admission criterion and asked what advice she would provide to parents about the problem that they now could not get a place at their nearest school. He asked whether the Cabinet Member understood that if those changes were not challenged, there would be more families travelling further across Surrey taking their children to school. It seemed absurd that children were not allowed to have a choice of going to their nearest primary school.

The Cabinet Member for Children and Families, Lifelong Learning urged the Member to read the response closely which had been provided by the admissions service and to understand that it was in line with guidance issued by the Office of the Schools Adjudicator (OSA) and admissions law. Governing bodies can replace the words ‘nearest school’ for example the school in her division replaced the wording with ‘proximity of the child's address to the school’. The wording had changed but not the principle, the OSA asked for the removal of that wording to make it clearer to parents when making an application to a school regarding the likelihood of being admitted based on their distance from the school.

(Q10) Catherine Powell welcomed that the team had acknowledged that there was a secondary school shortage in Farnham and it was significant and growing, without an easy solution. She asked the Cabinet Member to advise when she thinks there would be a solution to the problem. Having looked at locations in Farnham where a school could be constructed there did not seem to be the sites, yet the Council was building more homes; the Home to School Transport budget would increase.

Michaela Martin noted that as lead member of the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan Group, asked whether it would it be possible to put the matter in writing to Farnham Town Council and for it to be made more aware of any developments in the future.

The Cabinet Member for Children and Families, Lifelong Learning responded to Michaela Martin noting that the question and response had been published in the public domain and therefore could be shared with Farnham Town Council. Responding to Catherine Powell, she could not say when a new school would be built in Farnham to meet the additional need. She urged the Member to keep in touch with the Education Place Planning team on the matter. She was aware that the planning for and delivery of a new school could take many years and she hoped that a solution could be found whether that would be the building of a new school or otherwise.

(Q11) Robert Evans OBE noted that the Cabinet Member asked in 2019/20 for Government changes, he asked whether four years was long enough to have those changes. He asked what advice he would give to residents who cannot walk along the pavement outside their house as it is blocked by vehicles, or those residents in a wheelchair or with a pram who cannot use blocked pavements. He noted that phoning the police was not a solution. The Leader had recently visited his division and saw many vehicles parked on pavements.

John O’Reilly asked whether the Cabinet Member would agree that it would be appropriate that the Member lobbies the Labour Party on the matter.

Mark Sugden noted that the consultation on pavement parking closed in November 2020 and no report had been published. He asked whether the Cabinet Member or former portfolio holder had received any answers from the Department for Transport (DfT) to their requests regarding when the report would be published.

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth responded to Mark Sugden noting that DfT stated that the report would be published in due time, he would chase DfT again on the matter. Responding to Robert Evans OBE he noted that the law was that people could ring the police if a vehicle was blocking a pavement and he urged them to do so. Unless there were yellow lines or a parking restriction then the pavement could not be enforced. He noted that in his division having rung 101, a police officer did move a vehicle along that was blocking a pavement.

(Q12) Catherine Powellthanked the Cabinet Member for confirming that the Performance Indicators were being regularly monitored and asked for him to advise which of those indicators he thought were the most concerning to him and what action he was taking.

Edward Hawkins asked whether the Cabinet Member was aware that for the past seven years he had problems with an area on a shopping precinct which had been designated as highway land, over the Christmas period and despite bad weather Ringway worked hard and carried out a superb job; he noted his thanks.

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth welcomed those positive comments from Edward Hawkins. Responding to Catherine Powell, he noted that there was not a particular indicator that was a concern, the Performance Indicators should be looked at together and those changed throughout the year. Due to the mild winter, there had been fewer potholes. He urged the Member to attend the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee to see the Performance Indicators and comment on those as appropriate.