Agenda item

1.         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 3 July 2024).

 

2.          Cabinet Member and Deputy Cabinet Member Briefings on their portfolios.

 

These will be circulated by email to all Members prior to the County Council meeting, together with the Members’ questions and responses.

 

There will be an opportunity for Members to ask questions.

Questions:

 

Notice of twenty-three questions had been received. The questions and replies were published in the third supplementary agenda on 8 July 2024.

 

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

 

(Q1) Joanne Sexton asked whether the message that she was to deliver to residents was that they should be thankful that the Council would meet its climate change target in 2050 by reducing the number of cuts per annum. That expectations were too high for the Council to accommodate and only some of the complaints had merit. That cuts would not be to the same standard as those made by residents to their own garden or as good as Spelthorne Borough Council used to cut the grass verges.

 

Robert Evans OBE asked whether the Cabinet Member personally met with Ringway which had been given the contract in Spelthorne. If so, what was discussed, what assurance did he seek from them and what assurances were gained.

 

The Deputy Cabinet Member for Highways noted that previously the borough and district councils helped the Council in cutting the verges which resulted in a better service for residents, the onus was now on the Council alone so there would be fewer cuts. The four cuts per year had been increased to six and further improvements had been made since last year based on the feedback of the task and finish group. The Council had also improved the identification of areas it was responsible for, technology solutions were in place to monitor what was being done. He acknowledged that residents want a high standard of service, which the Council was working towards using the resources it has.

 

Responding to Robert Evans OBE, he noted that he would check with officers about the discussions with Ringway. He had spoken to the assistant director who noted that Ringway would be an additional resource, providing the Council with flexibility to be able to send in an additional contractor to areas where it was falling behind.

 

(Q3) Tim Hall asked whether the Cabinet Member would agree with the need to link in other networks and partners going forward. He noted that the Family Centre in North Holmwood must be linked to other communities such as Box Hill and Leatherhead North.

 

Jonathan Essex asked how the figure of 1,282 families supported in the first course of the contract by the eleven Family Centres compared to the number of families supported when there were 58 Children’s Centres across Surrey.

 

The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning agreed with the need to have a close community-based network of Early Help across the county, not just in Mole Valley. The Early Help networks help to keep families safe and stop problems escalating. She noted that the Council had worked hard over the last few years to strengthen the Early Help offer to families with children of all ages. The former 58 Children's Centres were focused on families with young children, whereas the eleven Family Centres work with children and young people of all ages. The Family Centres were linked in with the new Intensive Family Support Service and the Council was bringing in its new integrated supporting adolescents team to address the disproportionate number of teenagers entering the social care system. She explained that the Early Help offer was underpinned by a whole network of community connectors who work across the county. She noted that the voluntary sector had an important role to play as not all Early Help services were delivered by the Council. She noted that partners were working together under Families First.

 

Responding to Jonathan Essex, the Cabinet Member noted that she would try to find the comparable figures, however she reiterated that the former Children’s Centres had a smaller range of children and had a different outreach.

 

(Q4) Helyn Clack welcomed that the interventions put in place were resulting in improvements in timeliness. She asked whether the Cabinet Member could share the information with Members regarding outstanding payments to schools, academies and trusts, to provide assurance and to advise local providers that it was being addressed.

 

Lance Spencer understood the ambition of getting 100% of the Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) completed within the legal 20 weeks but asked whether the 60% target was the right target, as that meant that 40% of children would not get their EHCPs in a timely manner. He noted the improvement compared to last year where only 25% of Annual Reviews were completed in a timely manner and asked whether the target was for 100% completion within the year.

 

The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning noted the improvement in the timeliness of the EHC Needs Assessments, the 60% target had been surpassed at around 72%. She hoped that the timeliness increases to as close to 100% as possible. Regarding Annual Reviews, she noted that 75% was inadequate and that needed to be close to 100% particularly for vulnerable children. She noted that an unintended consequence from accelerating many EHCPs over the last few months was a backlog of payments in the system to schools. She noted that the Leader called for all outstanding payments to be cleared by the end of term, she was confident that would be achieved. She noted that the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources had worked with the teams to change the processes to avoid a repeat.  

 

(Q5) Catherine Powell asked whether the Cabinet Member would agree to a meeting to discuss the outcome of the data analysis work expected to be completed next month regarding the update of the Surrey Highway Hierarchy Definition before the recommendations go to Cabinet. Regarding vegetation adjacent to the highway, she asked whether the Cabinet Member could share the primary routes that were automatically being managed so that local Members could identify missing routes, particularly concerning schools. She noted concern that the system was dependent on residents reporting issues other than highway defects and asked whether the Cabinet Member would consider a social media campaign to encourage residents to report such issues. She welcomed that there were self-guided walking routes around the countryside and that work was underway on resources for cycling and asked whether the Cabinet Member was still willing to consider and trial local Members to help create local walking and cycling maps using their own plans and strategies.

 

Edward Hawkins asked whether the Cabinet Member was aware that he was supporting two local schools on the Feet First: Walking Training programme using the Your Councillor Community Fund, to encourage young children to be able to walk safely on Surrey’s roads. He asked whether he was aware of the progress being made on the signalised school crossings, one had been running for at least a year and was popular, the second one was under construction. He noted that the work carried out by the county streets team was popular.

 

Catherine Baart noted that the emphasis was on taking a proactive approach to vegetation and she asked for the key routes that were being managed proactively.

 

George Potter noted that he had been trying to help residents with a particular road for two years regarding an overgrown private hedge. He asked whether the Cabinet Member was aware that when residents and Members contact Surrey Highways, often the response was that the overgrown hedge was not fully obstructing the footpath so no action was required. He called for a renewed look at the issue, to ensure the proactive monitoring of hedges and action to ensure that footpaths are maintained at the original width.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth noted that he was happy to have a meeting on the data analysis. He noted that the Surrey Highway Hierarchy Definition would be received by the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee before the Cabinet. He noted that he would provide Members with the key routes that regularly get checked and cleared. He noted a discussion yesterday about a social media campaign reminding residents of reporting such issues.

 

Responding to Edward Hawkins, the Cabinet Member welcomed the Member’s support of the Feet First: Walking Training programme, which along with Bikeability were important in educating young people about how to get to school safely. He noted an imminent announcement that any child on free school meals would get free Feet First: Walking Training programme and Bikeability training.

 

Responding to George Potter, the Cabinet Member explained that residents would receive a card reminding them to cut their vegetation back to their boundary.

(Q7) Eber Kington asked whether the Cabinet Member would arrange for his office to set up the site meeting, inviting the divisional Member for Epsom Town and Downs, and any county and borough officers and business organisations that he thinks might be able to assist with solutions.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth responded that he was happy to do so.

 

(Q8)Nick Darby asked the Cabinet Member to confirm that Ringway were not involved directly or indirectly in the assessment. He also asked him to confirm what criteria was used to assess the payment of claims, the response indicated that it was between the Council and Ringway.

 

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources noted that he would seek advice from officers regarding the involvement of Ringwayin making the assessment of the claims. He understood that the split between the Council and Ringway related to whether the pothole for example had previously been reported. Regarding the last financial year, he noted that there were 2,640 claims received and of those claimed, 118 were referred to Ringway and 270 were settled by the Council. The total compensation claimed was £83,638.

 

(Q9) Robert Evans OBE noted that the issue put the Council in a poor light where a new costly bit of pavement or road is laid and shortly afterwards it is dug up. He acknowledged the need for emergency works and asked the Cabinet Member whether he would agree that the utility companies must do more to find out what new connections were planned. 

 

Robert Hughes noted that emergency utility works did happen and were a nuisance for residents, he noted that in Send there was a sewer collapse and Thames Water did the work quickly and the road was repaired. However, he noted that at the main junction in the middle of Send Barnes Lane and Send Hill, the repairs by Thames Water two years ago left a road with rough terrain. He asked the Cabinet Member to ensure that utility companies repair the roads properly after their works and for him to revisit the road at the main junction of Send Hill and for that to be fixed.

 

Helyn Clack noted that her residents felt boxed in regarding the A24 diesel spillage and the SGN gas works on the A25. She noted that when such incidents occur, residents’ frustration concerned how the Council reacted to that with protecting rural and country roads from large heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) which get stuck stopping residents from leaving their homes. As well as the inability of the contractor to put out notices that such roads are unsuitable for HGVs. She called for the need to support the task and finish group in ensuring that utility companies understand that they cannot divert huge amounts of traffic onto rural roads and must protect those.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth shared the Member’s frustration around utility companies and their sweeping powers concerning emergency works. He noted that the Council and County Councils Network continued to lobby central government - encouraged contact with local MPs on the matter - and he noted the utilities task force trying to get the companies to understand the cost to the local economy and to the taxpayer of their works.

 

Responding to Robert Hughes, he noted that he would pick up the matter with the team about Send Hill. He noted that Surrey Highways had almost doubled the number of inspections it does against utility companies ensuring that roads are repaired like for like; the Council must therefore ensure that the roads are in the best condition.

 

Responding to Helyn Clack, he noted that the team had been out twice to check all the sign diversions, the issue was out of the Council’s control in terms of anyone choosing not to follow the official diversion route. He noted that the Council would ask the companies including SGN, to consider additional signage. He noted that the Council managed to get the businesses open as usual signage up which SGN neglected at the beginning; would continue to look at rural areas across the county.

 

(Q10)Steven McCormick asked whether the Cabinet Member could provide the action plan along with the date on which the system was planned to be live and confirmation of the date when reports on available Section 106 funds would be provided to all divisional Members.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth noted that he would send the Member the proposed plan in writing. He noted that the Council had over £40 million Section 106 funds that it needed to spend across Surrey, that was being looked at by the teams to deliver other areas such as local highway schemes. He noted that the information would be shared with Members in due course.

 

(Q11) Mark Sugden referred to the response to question a)and asked whether the Cabinet Member could outline how many queries had been made to the School Admissions Team and how many of those concerned his division.

 

The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning noted that she would ask the School Admissions Team whether they could provide that information. She noted that she had received three queries from residents in her division on the matter, which she had referred to the School Admissions Team. Should Members receive such queries from residents, she recommended that they urgently call the School Admissions Team who would provide the necessary advice.

 

(Q12) Tim Hall noted that the edge of Norbury Park was vulnerable and anything the Cabinet Member could do to encourage the various agencies to coordinate and prevent fly tipping around Salvation Place, Young Street, Leatherhead such as installing CCTV on the road would be appreciated.

 

The Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure believed that CCTV was likely the solution in that area and would try to get it sorted.  

 

(Q13) Catherine Powell asked the Cabinet Member to advise how many hours in June the HGV enforcement camera was in use on the Upper Hill Road and whether any warning letters were issued.

 

Robert Evans OBE noted that the issue affected part of his division, he asked if the cameras were to be installed who would monitor those. He asked whether the Cabinet Member accepted that many companies write off the odd £70 fine, as the option of going around a longer way or a different route would be worse or more costly to them.

 

The Deputy Cabinet Member for Highways noted that he would need to consult with officers before responding in writing to both Members, regarding the deterrent point the levels of fines for example could be looked at.

 

(Q14) Eber Kington thanked the Cabinet Member for agreeing to the change of policy.

 

The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning noted her commitment.

 

(Q15) Nick Darby understood that having reviewed the list of those consulted, it did not include Members and asked whether that was correct.  

 

The Deputy Cabinet Member for Highways noted that he would respond in writing.

 

(Q16) Robert Evans OBE noted that he was pleased that there were only twenty schools that had to close to become a polling station. He asked the Cabinet Member whether those schools must then schedule an extra school day to compensate for closing; he asked whether she would agree that weekend voting would resolve that.

 

The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning responded yes regarding weekend voting, she noted that she would find out the answer to whether schools that close need to schedule an extra school day.

 

(Q18) Mark Sugden noted that given that residents had been complaining about the road since 2009, the Council should have determined whether fine milling was appropriate or not. He noted the response stated that if fine milling was appropriate it would be added to the provisional programme, yet fine milling was already included on the Horizon list as the provisional programme. He also noted that if fine milling was not appropriate then other options would be considered and a revised timescale for the works would be communicated, yet no original timescale was communicated. He thanked Surrey Highways for their recent visit to undertake asphalt repairs. He noted that the entrance of the road backs onto the A309 Kingston bypass and regarding the upcoming visit by Surrey Highways he asked that advanced notice be given to residents in those roads so they can keep their cars off the road to ensure there would be no safety risks.

 

Jonathan Essex asked what the best practices were regarding the way in which the basic exercises are undertaken on concrete roads before resurfacing was needed, such as filling a pothole or repairing a failed joint. He noted that it did seem that concrete roads were maintained as well as tarmac roads.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth explained that fine milling was a relatively new treatment, the application of asphalt to concrete did not work and had stopped. He would speak to the team about the road, he noted that the road was structurally sound and so had not been prioritised at present. He noted that if fine milling was not appropriate other options would be considered, the Member and affected residents would be communicated with. He would check what advance notice has been given to those residents before the works and he noted that residents were sent a leaflet asking them to keep their cars parked on their drive if possible and not on the road or where the works would be. 

 

Responding to Jonathan Essex, he noted that concrete roads were structurally sound and required less maintenance than tarmac roads. He noted that many tarmac roads in Surrey - particularly in Waverley and Guildford - had been built on sand which meant they needed to be reconstructed, as those were not built to modern standards.

 

(Q19) Catherine Powell noted that given one quarter of children in Surrey's Children's Homes were not in school and were receiving Alternative Provision for an average of only nine hours a week costing over £50 per hour on average, she welcomed that those staff were being involved in the development of a flexible model of Alternative Provision. She asked the Cabinet Member to advise when she could share that model.

 

The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning noted that following the work undertaken by the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee and recommendations made regarding Alternative Provision, as well as the recommendation in the Ofsted Care Quality Commission inspection report after the SEND system inspection last year; there was a specific recommendation around Alternative Provision around the delivery of Alternative Provision. She noted that the service was working hard having developed the new Dynamic Purchasing System for Alternative Provision, the delivery of that provision was being reviewed. She noted that the CFLLC Select Committee would receive an updated report on the issue in the autumn and expected that the model would be included in that report.

 

(Q20) Eber Kington noted disappointment that the Cabinet Member saw the Council's role in the recruitment and retention of teachers as limited to developing strategies and providing professional development. He asked whether she would agree that the below responsibilities of Children's Services all impacted how challenging the role of the teacher could be and would likely impact retention and potentially recruitment; and if resolved, many teachers’ daily work experience would be improved. He referred to the responsibilities: delays in EHCPs resulted in delays in appropriate support being put in place in schools for children, the lack of specialist provision meant that children were in schools which cannot meet their needs, those pressures children faced were endured by the teachers and support staff who in some cases are physically attacked by children not in the right setting.

 

Jonathan Essex noted that the response suggested that the reduction in teachers was due to teachers leaving the profession, yet he asked whether the reduction in teachers was also connected to schools not having the sufficient funding to employ the number of teachers and teaching assistants needed. He asked how the number of teaching assistants compared.

 

The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning agreed with the statements made by both Members. She noted feedback from her visits to schools around the financial challenges faced, having to lay off learning and support assistance which puts pressure on frontline teaching staff. Having spoken to school leaders, recruitment and retention of school staff including teaching and support staff was one of the most acute challenges they faced. She recognised the challenges faced by teachers outlined by the Member, predominantly due to children in mainstream schools whose needs had not been correctly met.

 

Responding to Jonathan Essex, she accepted what he said about the financial challenges making it difficult for schools to be fully staffed. However, she welcomed that the new Government was bringing in 6,500 new teachers, which would improve the situation for maintained schools. She hoped that the Government would be able to review schools’ funding, giving them adequate resources to give children and young people the best start in life.

 

In line with Standing Order 10.12, the time limit of 45 minutes had been reached. Members could ask supplementary questions on Q21 - Q23 via email.

 

Cabinet Member and Deputy Cabinet Member Briefings:

 

These were also published in the third supplementary agenda on 8 July 2024.

 

Members made the following comments:

 

Cabinet Member forEnvironment: on the recipients of the grants through the Rural Prosperity Fund, Helyn Clack asked who those twenty-three rural businesses were, along with the further twelve applications being assessed at a total of £604,000 from the £1.2 million budget.

 

The Cabinet Member noted that she would provide the information requested. 

 

Deputy Cabinet Member to the Leader of the Council: on Hello Lamp Post, Catherine Powell asked whether the Deputy Cabinet Member could commit to providing a briefing to Members on this.

 

The Deputy Cabinet Member received a briefing on that last week, it was innovative and he noted that Members could be provided with such a briefing.

 

Jonathan Essex on the new 2024-2025 Communications Strategy, he referred to the focus areas which would feed into the priorities in the Organisation Strategy 2023 to 2028, the strategy included the priority ‘enabling a greener future’ yet the focus areas did not mention climate or the environment. He noted that the approach taken was concerning and asked whether the Deputy Cabinet Member would commit to including climate, environment and Greener Futures as a focus area, so as not to leave it behind.

 

The Cabinet Member for Environment explained that she had many conversations on the issue with the Member, she stressed the intention of continuing to pursue the climate goals. She noted that the communications work had been shared with the Greener Futures Board, to review over a broader spectrum linking into the Greener Futures behaviour change project; the work was being done collaboratively.