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 2 October 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 forty-three questions had been received. The questions and replies were published in the first supplementary agenda on 7 October 2024 (updated response to Q4 is contained in the second supplementary agenda published on 8 October 2024).

 

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

 

(Q1) Robert Evans OBE asked whether the Cabinet Member agreed that he should have been more specific in his question as he was referring to Brent Council's trial of placing skips in hotspots to encourage residents to deposit their rubbish rather than fly-tip. He noted the Council’s responsibility for collecting fly-tipped items.

 

The Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure noted that the borough and district councils were the waste collection authorities, and the Council was a waste disposal authority. She noted that Reigate and Banstead Borough Council had previously put skips out in certain areas to collect waste in that way, she noted that twin-hatted Members may wish to follow up the suggestion.

 

(Q2) Eber Kington asked whether the Leader agreed that the suggestion in the last paragraph that Members might need training workshops implied that the problem lay with Member’s ignorance rather than the quality of the data they received. He asked whether he would arrange for the performance team to fact check the claims made by Civic Watcher.

 

The Leader suggested that the Member attends one of the select committee meetings to ask questions there.   

 

(Q3) Jonathan Essex noted that the data showed that there was a large increase in the number of Looked After Children and Care Leavers who are accommodated in semi-independent accommodation. However, more 16 and 17 year olds were in that type of accommodation compared to five years ago, he asked whether semi-independent accommodation was the best place for them to live and if not what more could be done. Asked whether Looked After Children and Care Leavers, and their former foster carers could be asked those questions.

 

The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learningnoted that it was difficult to equate those figures to the individual stories of those children. She noted that the service and the relevant teams tried hard in every case to find a home that meets that child's needs, which might be semi-independent living. She noted that some Care Leavers were unaccompanied asylum-seeking children where supported accommodation was the right solution.

 

(Q4) Catherine Baart welcomed the table provided of the twenty-nine schools. She asked which of the remaining twenty schools of the original forty-nine schools awaited their road safety improvements that were identified in 2021, and asked how much clearing the backlog would cost.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth would provide a list of the remaining schools. He noted that £3 million would be used as part of the project, to finish this financial year. Discussions were needed about future years and he was looking at identifying capital funding to continue the scheme. He asked Members to encourage their schools to sign up to the Feet First and Bikeability training, that equipped pupils with the skills to travel to and from school safely.

 

(Q5)Andy MacLeod noted that the problem was typically caused by old houses being built on narrow roads with no off-street parking. The Council had few powers to deal with the matter. He noted that there had been no outcome since the Department for Transport’s (DfT) 2020 consultation and asked the Cabinet Member whether he agrees that the DfT should deal with the problem and provide solutions to it, and whether the Council and other councils should lobby them.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth noted that he would write to the DfT asking for the outcome of the consultation. He noted that the Council could in some cases ban pavement parking but that was limited, noted the signage for partially sighted people. Noted that the Member might want to follow up with the borough and district councils, for them to review their parking standards so that pavement parking is considered when new housing is approved.

 

(Q6) Catherine Powell asked the Cabinet Member to confirm that the answer to her question was that minutes of the Multi-Disciplinary Team panels were not made, but the key points from discussions were recorded in a database and were not shared with parents and carers. She asked whether the Cabinet Member believed that recording the key points from discussions but not sharing those with parents and carers was compliant with section 36 of the Children and Families Act 2014 and the General Data Protection Regulation. She noted a poll of 100 parents and carers where more than 90% had not received a rationale regarding decisions being shared.She asked the Cabinet Member to review the response and whether she recognises that an EHC Needs Assessment should be undertaken in accordance with section 36, paragraph eight of the Children and Families Act 2014, that was not the same as the criteria for issuing an EHCP in the Cabinet Member’s response.

 

The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning noted that her response stated that verbatim minutes were not kept of meetings, the key points were recorded and a decision letter produced which was sent to the parent. She provided assurance that the processes in assessing and issuing EHCPs were compliant with the relevant legislation and SEND Code of Practice. She was unaware of the poll mentioned and noted that the Member could follow up with her on the matter.

 

(Q7) Joanne Sexton had no supplementary question.

 

Robert Hughes noted that several parish councils spent money clearing out gullies which were left full of mud. He asked whether the Cabinet Member could review whether parish councils could be paid for their work undertaken, or for there to be an arrangement where they do that work on behalf of the Council.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth noted that as part of the task and finish group findings, the amount for gully cleaning repairs had increased. An extra £3 million would be injected into the Highways service for the rest of the financial year to tackle all elements of street cleaning within the Council’s responsibility. He noted that Members could use their highways revenue allocation to tackle any spot checks not done by the services and they could alert him to issues. He was happy to meet the Member’s parish councils to see whether anything could be done, there had been schemes in the past with parish councils, those were costly.

 

(Q8) Fiona Davidson asked the Cabinet Member if she could confirm that the parents and carers of children with Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) would be actively involved in the proposed study, regarding their experiences in accessing diagnosis and treatment. She noted that under the current Children’s Community Health Contract there was provision for that, but parents reported that the situation differed in reality. She hoped that under the new contract the provisions would be actively enabled and delivered.

 

Catherine Powell noted that a child in her division had been waiting for an FASD assessment for years despite it being confirmed during pregnancy. She asked the Cabinet Member to advise whether the Council or NHS keep records on the number of children in Surrey waiting for assessments and the length of the wait. She asked her to advise whether the Council keeps records of where FASD was suspected to be a contributing factor to children struggling in mainstream settings.

 

The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning thanked the Chair of the CFLLC Select Committee for her persistence on the issue. She noted that the Public Health team and the Children’s Commissioning team were scoping out the work, and she would work with the Chair of the select committee to ensure that the work needed to be done is carried out, which she expected would be co-produced with parents and carers. She would join with the Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing, and Public Health to ensure the issue is raised. Regarding Catherine Powell’s question, she would liaise with the Public Health team to find out what information was known and records kept.

 

(Q10) Becky Rush asked who approved the works. She noted that the asset programme manager had emailed her confirming that the Highways service had no plans to resurface the road, the response indicated that it was not a resurface however the road was dug up and the plan was to replace 400 metres. She asked how it was approved and escalated to be carried out as an emergency with no notice. She noted that residents did not believe the road was closed due to fly-tipping. She asked again to be involved in future decisions about the road.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth would follow-up with the Member.

 

(Q11)Will Forster had given apologies so had no supplementary question.

 

Lance Spencer asked the Cabinet Member to confirm that Woking Borough Council had no information on how much Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) money had been spent on the projects that the Council had provided a delivery capability for, and that the Council had no information on how much delivery it had done in Woking on the project.

 

Rachael Lake BEM congratulated the Member on becoming a Member of Parliament. She asked Group Leaders to consider that many of the Member questions could have been answered before the Council meeting by email to an officer or Cabinet Member.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth responded to Lance Spencer noting that he did not know the project referred to. He urged twin-hatted Members to encourage Woking Borough Council to accept CIL bids from Surrey County Council, he noted that it would be good to have joint working going forward. He noted that he could discuss the matter with the Member further. 

 

Eber Kington raised a point of order under SO 10.1 asking the Chair to preserve the right of opposition Members to ask questions and have those answered properly.

 

(Q12)Lance Spencer asked whether it was correct that the table implied that 32 young people had not been assessed in autumn 2024, and 71 young people were not yet assessed from 2023/24. He noted the bad use of language in the wording used in the reviews that the Council would not provide ‘nice to have transport for special educational needs children when they are 16 years old’, as parents and children faced a traumatic experience at the appeals panels. He asked whether the Cabinet Member could review the change in the implementation of the impacted policy.

 

Jonathan Essex asked that a review includes information on the distances and numbers of young children that had been affected and where, to understand why they were required to make those journeys by themselves.

 

The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning noted the significant budget overspend in-year and more than half of that was from an overspend in the Home to School Travel Assistance budget. She clarified that the Council had no statutory responsibility to provide Home to School Travel Assistance for anyone not of statutory school age, it may provide such assistance at its discretion, depending on their circumstances as assessed and parents could appeal. She noted that the Council must ensure that public money is appropriately spent on those who need the Council’s support the most. She noted that she would not review the policy because that was the Council’s statutory obligation.

 

(Q13)Hazel Watson noted the 15% reduction in early intervention spend in Surrey and asked the Cabinet Member what steps the Council would take to increase early intervention measures and how would it be measured.

 

Lance Spencer queried that between 2010/11 and 2021/22, the decrease had only been 15% as the report suggested it was 46%. He asked the Cabinet Member to provide more detail on the response as it seemed unrealistic.

 

The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning highlighted that the information related to a report detailing expenditure in 2021/22 which would likely relate to the previous year's spending in the previous administration and before she joined the Cabinet. Since then, the administration was focused on spending on early help and on prevention and early intervention. With a significant uplift in the Children's Services budget and over the past year an increase on spending on early help, the early help system was effective with a reduction in child protection plans and the number of Looked After Children; and Ofsted made a positive judgement on it. She noted that the CFLLC Select Committee did a recent deep dive into early intervention and early help spending which showed that the Council spent significantly more in certain areas of early health compared to other councils. 

 

(Q14)Stephen Cooksey noted that many Members believed that the franchising system or a municipal bus company might have advantages for the provision of bus services, he queried whether an assessment of those changes would cost millions of pounds. He asked the Cabinet Member whether the Council would undertake a comprehensive review following the publication of the Better Buses Bill.

 

Robert King noted that DDRT excluded many residents in Runnymede and Spelthorne and asked whether there was a plan to expand that into those boroughs.  

 

Edward Hawkins asked the Cabinet Member to let Surrey Heath divisional Members knew when the roll out of DDRT would happen in the borough in the coming months.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth noted that the feasibility around franchising was being considered. He stressed that the risk currently sat with the bus operators, the risk would sit with the Council if it goes for the full franchise system. He noted that Surrey had a competitive system with twenty-two bus operators compared to less than four elsewhere. He noted that there were some small and medium sized family businesses too which would be unable to compete on a franchise system level. He noted that Surrey Connect was in Surrey Heath, there was a third phase being looked at around the roll out to other areas including Runnymede and Spelthorne, the focus was on areas without a good public transport network.

 

(Q16) Liz Townsend was disappointed by the response and noted that she had asked for the rationale to be provided to parents and carers and whether the decision to withhold the information reflected statutory requirements or was based on a Surrey policy and practice. She noted that the response did not indicate what information parents and carers should expect to receive in terms of the minutes and the rationale for the decision-making process, as many parents reported that they received nothing; asked why there was a disparity between what the Cabinet Member was saying and what parents reported.

 

The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning reiterated her apology to those families who felt the service provided by the Council was inadequate. She was unable to answer the question about why that disparity exists and noted that it was the Council’s ambition to work in a more open and relational-based way with parents. That was in line with an objective from the End to End Review to work more closely with parents before decisions go to the panel to ensure a better understanding of the process and the information that would be shared.

 

(Q17)Ashley Tilling noted that it was unacceptable for the situation to continue beyond eighteen months regarding the four cherry trees being cut down by the Council. He noted that officers had concluded that the crossing would not be moved, meaning that there was unspent CIL money available. He asked that the four damaged trees be replaced without further delay.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth said that he would speak to officers and a policy was in place that any removed or damaged trees be replaced.

 

(Q18)Penny Rivers had given apologies so had no supplementary question.

 

Lance Spencer asked the Cabinet Member whether it would be possible to schedule training for Members on the changes to the 20 mph policy and how Members could access funding to pay for the consultation and speed strips.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth noted that Members had training on the matter but that could be re-provided. He encouraged Members to contact their highways engagement officer so they could provide advice on how to use their highways allocation for speed surveys and consultation.

 

(Q19)Paul Follows noted that as the Government would not allow anyone but the local transport authority - the Council - to franchise bus services, he asked whether the Cabinet Member would commit to working with the borough and district councils, and the town and parish councils to provide hyperlocal services. He noted that Godalming Town Council and Waverley Borough Council were both willing to work with the Council and provide funding and support to deliver that.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth encouraged the Member to write to him to discuss any particular routes or areas being missed.

 

(Q21) Chris Townsend asked the Cabinet Member how it was not a change in policy or strategy when the response stated that the five-year strategy was nearing its conclusion. He noted that the organisations had been visited to explain the end of the tenancy agreements, however he asked why those organisations were not being informed of how the change would work.

 

George Potter noted that the response focusedon what was technically permissible rather than addressing the question of what was right or wrong. Whilst the Council did have the permission, he asked whether it was right for a youth centre to be closed without any alternative provision being put in place. He asked whether there were plans to put in place a new five-year strategy once the existing one ends.

 

The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning said that she would follow the matter up with Chris Townsend as there were local issues which were not part of a county-wide policy. She noted that it was a Land and Property issue concerning the management of a building and not about service delivery.

 

(Q22)Robert Evans OBE asked whether the Cabinet Member would agree that it would not look good to residents if grass cutting happens after street sweeping.

 

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth noted that the Council shared information about its schedules with the borough and district councils regarding grass cutting and drain cleaning. Ideally, grass cutting would be followed by street sweeping and then gully cleaning. He noted that the Council was open to working more closely with the borough and district councils on the coordination.

 

In line with Standing Order 10.12, the time limit of 45 minutes had been reached. Members could ask supplementary questions on Q23 - Q43 via email.

 

Cabinet Member and Deputy Cabinet Member Briefings:

 

These were also published in the first supplementary agenda on 7 October 2024.

 

Members made the following comments:

 

Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure: on Reigate Priory School, Catherine Baart noted that ISG went into administration and as the application was joint with the Council she asked what the implications were for the proposal to relocate the school.

 

The Cabinet Member noted that she would follow-up with the Member on the application.

 

Jonathan Essex on the new location for the temporary library in Redhill, he understood that the temporary library would be needed until mid-next year, but its current location Consort House would have a new lease from the end of the month.He asked if the Cabinet Member could confirm whether the library would remain in Consort House with the new lease owners, or whether there would be a move to somewhere else and where. He hoped that the service would continue to be provided seamlessly to the new location. 

 

The Cabinet Member noted that the library was a priority to get delivered, it would move from Consort House and would be in the centre of Redhill. The new tenant would take over Consort House once the new library building is finished with upgrades and Super Access - a service in Surrey Libraries providing extended opening hours.

 

Deputy Cabinet Member for Strategic Highways: provided an update on the work of the Street Works Taskforce, which last met in late September and a key outcome of that meeting was that the fourteen utility providers and Council representatives agreed to talk to the Greater London Authority (GLA) about a new online tool mapping service. That mapping service would be useful to residents, utility providers and critical to the Council. He thanked the Assistant Director - Highways – Network and Asset Management for her work in chairing the taskforce.

 

Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning: on Independent School fees, Rebecca Paul noted that the new Labour government had decided to put a 20% VAT on those fees which was a concern, particularly as it was happening mid-year in January 2025. She asked whether theCouncil had assessed the impact of the potential influx of students into the state system and for Members to receive an update on a divisional basis.

 

The Cabinet Member noted that the secondary school admissions window was open and the team were monitoring the additional number of admissions to secondary schools, and it would do the same for primary schools. She noted that between June and September the School Admissions team received 161 in-year admissions, the team was working to assess that in partnership with Independent School providers across Surrey. She noted that information could be provided to Members but she was unsure whether that could be done on a divisional basis.

 

Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth: on highways communications, Eber Kington noted that the Cabinet Memberhad been advised that the painting of the yellow line parking restriction was prioritised and consequently was completed in early October. However, he noted that the yellow line had not been painted and he asked the Cabinet Member where he got that information and to confirm the new expected completion date.

 

The Cabinet Memberwould speak to the team and provide the revised date.

 

George Potter on highways communications, was surprised that theCabinet Member replied to his local Facebook group on drain clearances. He was also surprised to see an announcement that drains should be funded out of the divisional maintenance budget. Asked whether the Cabinet Member felt that £7,500 per member, per year was sufficient to clear all the drains across Surrey.

 

The Cabinet Member noted that he was not happy with the service’s response to residents regarding the case referenced and so responded directly, he had spoken to the team and revised communications would be circulated to residents. He noted that the amount to clear gullies and tackle the backlog of defects had increased by £5 million. He noted that the use of local allocation would ensure a quick response, with teams funded through the task and finish groups to undertake the extra work.

 

Robert King on the Integrated Transport Schemes (ITS) award, asked whether the Cabinet Member would communicate the recent changes on the ITS award to include a lack of duplicates and a year's bidding round on divisions. He noted that his ITS had been vetoed despite it scoring the highest in the independent panel's discussion for a neighbouring ward and he was not informed on why that happened.

 

The Cabinet Member apologised that the change was not communicated to the Member, he noted that he was trying to be fair as the Member was successful in the ITS programme last year. He noted that the criteria would be changing for the ITS to vary the schemes as there were many pedestrian crossings being prioritised, other schemes missed out. He noted that rural areas were struggling to submit their ITS bids and missed out on the scoring because often those areas did not connect up to pavements or cycleways. He noted that Members should have received a response from the Highways team alerting them as to whether they had been successful or not with their technical assessment. Once the future scoring criteria for the ITS programme is agreed, the recommendations would be taken to the select committee.

 

Deputy Cabinet Member for Highways: on the weed spray programme, Ashley Tilling noted that some streets in Elmbridge had yet to be sprayed. He asked whether there was an issue with the poor timeliness of placing contracts for weed spraying and asked whether the contracting process was under review to prevent future delays. Given the Council’s commitment to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, he asked whether the use of non-glyphosate weed killers could be explored such as Foamstream.

 

The Deputy Cabinet Member acknowledged the issue in Elmbridge, noting that the contractor made a later start and had been affected by the wet weather so the weed spraying was unfinished. The programme was under review to see whether the timeliness could be improved for next year, potentially adding a second spray. He noted that the alternative options to glyphosate were more expensive.

 

Mark Sugden on a potential second weed spraying, asked who would decide that, how would it be funded and what was the process to make that happen.

 

The Deputy Cabinet Member noted that it was being reviewed by the Cabinet, further discussions were needed and further information would be provided in due course.

 

John O’Reilly on the weed spray programme, sought assurance that the weed spraying in Elmbridge would happen this year and would not be delayed until 2025.

 

The Deputy Cabinet Member confirmed that the weed spray would happen, it had been left late in the year to undertake and despite the wet weather it was worth doing. He noted that there were some streets in Elmbridge where the weeds were out of control and needed to be addressed as quickly as possible.