Agenda item

The Leader of the Council 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 Anne Gowing in Democratic Services by 12 noon on Wednesday 9 July 2014).

Notice of 16 questions had been received. The questions and replies are attached as Appendix B.

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

(Q1) Mr Witham said that he would be submitting his views and also those of his residents to Guildford Borough Council and he urged other Guildford County Councillors to do the same.

Other Guildford Members made points about school place planning and roads. The Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning was also asked whether he could persuade Guildford Local Committee to have an additional meeting to discuss the Borough Council’s draft local plan so that there would be a co-ordinated response from this committee.  The Cabinet Member said that it was not within his remit to instruct local committees to do this. Also, the dates for the arrangements were yet to be defined and therefore he suggested that Members met with officers to discuss their views and that he would take further questions outside the meeting.

(Q2) Mr Jenkins considered that his question regarding the production of a detailed timeline for flood defence and alleviation work had not been answered and he also asked the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding Recovery why officers and Members from affected authorities were trying to raise £120m when the Prime Minister had previously said ‘money was no object’. The Cabinet Member referred to funding which Oxfordshire CC had recently received and said that Surrey had not yet received any funding for the River Thames scheme. He confirmed that the mulit-agency plan to raise £120m would be difficult and was still being discussed.

(Q3) Mrs White asked the Leader of the Council what arrangements had been made to discuss funding for the Junior Citizen Scheme with the office of the Police and crime Commissioner and could she be advised of the outcome. The Leader confirmed that it would be discussed as part of the regular meetings that both he and the Chief Executive had with the Police and Crime Commissioner.

(Q4) Mrs Watson requested assurance that funding cuts would not be made to the Highways budget and this was confirmed by the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding Recovery. Mr Essex asked for clarification on Value for Money and was advised to speak to the Cabinet Member outside the meeting.

(Q6) Mr Orrick confirmed that he would like to accept the Leader of the Council’s offer for updates on the setting up of networks. He also asked the Leader what authorisation did the County Council have to set up these Boards and was assured that proper processes were in place which could be scrutinised by the Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

(Q7) Mr Beardsmore questioned the response and referred to the Council motion from 16 July 2013 meeting when the Council had agreed to oppose any proposals that would reduce Heathrow’s role as a hub airport. The Leader of the Council confirmed that, since 2008, the County Council had recognised the crucial role of the airport and had continued to support the economic position for Heathrow and Gatwick in supporting employment for Surrey residents, providing the infrastructure was in place. The Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning agreed. They both considered that Mr Beardsmore had received a full answer and it would be wrong to say more until the outcome of the Davies Commission was known in 2015.

(Q8) Mr Robert Evans considered that since the Leader’s personal statement made earlier in the meeting, the response was now inaccurate. Mr Beardsmore accepted that County Council’s had been given 42 new responsibilities since 2010 but considered that the work was being done by all Members and staff and asked when they would receive financial remuneration. Mrs Watson said that, in the light of the recommendations from the Minister, Brandon Lewis in relation to Special Responsibility Allowances, would the Leader of the Council be reconsidering them.

Mr Essex asked if the Leader’s decision to accept the level of allowance recommended by the Independent Remuneration Panel was made as a result of public opinion. The Leader of the Council responded by stating that all Members of the Council were entitled to make personal decisions on what they claimed as allowances or expenses and made no further comment.

(Q9) Mr Mallett considered that the parking at the adjacent sports club was critical for Woodmansterne Primary School and asked that the Council resolve this problem. The Cabinet Member for Schools and Learning informed him that the sports club was privately owned, was not on County Council land and that the club was not interested in resurfacing their car park. Therefore, officers were exploring other options to mitigate the parking issues at this school.

(Q10) Mr Beckett asked the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding Recovery when had a building survey last been undertaken on Rowan House. Also, Mrs Mason challenged the statement that services to the public had not been affected, citing an issue of a delay in 180 disabled parking bays awaiting inspection. The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding Recovery said that, whilst recognising that there had been IT issues, the whole operation was working again and he challenged the comments made by Mrs Mason.

(Q11) Mr Harrison asked the Leader of the Council, if he was confident that sufficient progress had been made so that the County Council would not have to use reserves and balances to achieve a balanced budget. Mr Robert Evans asked the Leader why he considered that the County Council got a ‘raw deal’ from Government when the County had 11 MPs. The Leader referred to the Council Budget meeting in February when it had been agreed to build up reserves to meet current needs. In response to Mr Evans comment, he said that the County Council had also received a low level of Central Government funding under the previous Labour Government.

(Q12) Mr Kington considered that the Council should have a contingency plan in place and that the delay in obtaining planning permission for a demountable classroom at the Vale Primary School was unacceptable. Mr Hickman said that there had been a similar instance in his division. Mr Taylor acknowledged the enormous effort that officers were making to provide school places. Mr Beckett referred to the school’s travel plan which was due to be updated in the Autumn and asked that officers made it a priority to obtain the views of local residents.

The Cabinet Member for Schools and Learning responded by stating that the County Council was embarking on the biggest school expansion programme for many years and publically thanked officers from property, planning, education and highways, without whose work, this scale of expansion would not be possible. She acknowledged that parents preferred a local school so their children could walk there. On forecasting, she said that it could never be an absolute science but that the figures were within 2% accuracy of what was required and that work was on-going to improve the accuracy. Finally, she offered to respond to the questions from Mr Beckett and Mr Barker outside the meeting.

(Q14) Mrs Watson asked for the performance data to be available so that it could be scrutinised in public. The Leader of the Council said that scrutiny was the responsibility of select committees and that the Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee examined the Council’s performance on a quarterly basis, as stated in his written response.

(Q15) Mr Harrison asked the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, who said that he was cautiously optimistic, if he was content with the progress of the re-assessments of the open cases within the ‘Older People’ category.

(Q16) Mr Jenkins questioned the validity of the answer, because the biggest cost element was excluded. The Cabinet Member for Community Services provided an explanation concerning the capital investment in the new fire station and said that it represented good value for Surrey and that she would like to see more investment in other fire stations across the county.