Use the search options at the bottom of the page to find
information regarding recent decisions that have been taken by the
council’s decision making bodies.
Forthcoming decisions to be taken by the Cabinet and Cabinet
Members for the next 28 days and beyond can be found in the
Notice
of Decisions.
Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growth Decisions
Made at meeting: 15/09/2020 - Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growth Decisions
Decision published: 15/09/2020
Effective from: 23/09/2020
Decision:
It was agreed that:
1.
The Cabinet Member noted the proposed sites and locations of EV
charging bays in Annex 1 to undertake the Electric Vehicle Charging
Point trials funded by the Enterprise M3 (EM3) Local Enterprise
Partnership (LEP) in the Borough of Woking.
2.
The advertisement of all
necessary TROs across the selected sites in the
Borough of Woking, be authorised as and when required, in
order to allow the bays to be introduced and agree
that if no objections were maintained, the orders are
made.
3.
if there were unresolved objections, they would be dealt with in
accordance with the county council’s scheme of delegation by
the parking strategy and implementation team manager, in
consultation with the chairman/vice chairman of the Woking Joint
Committee and the appropriate Divisional county councillor, with
the addition also of the project sponsor.
Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growth Decisions
Made at meeting: 15/09/2020 - Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growth Decisions
Decision published: 15/09/2020
Effective from: 23/09/2020
Decision:
It was agreed that:
1.
The Cabinet Member noted the proposed sites and locations of
Electric Vehicle charging bays in Annex 1 to undertake the Electric
Vehicle Charging Point trials funded by the Enterprise M3 (EM3)
Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) in the Borough of
Spelthorne.
2.
The advertisement of all
necessary TROs across the selected sites in the
Borough of Spelthorne, is authorised as and when
required, in order to allow the bays to be introduced and
agree that if no objections are maintained, the orders are
made.
3.
If there were unresolved objections, they would be dealt with in
accordance with the County Council’s scheme of delegation by
the parking strategy and implementation team manager, in
consultation with the chairman/vice chairman of the Spelthorne
Joint Committee and the appropriate Divisional County Councillor,
with the addition also of the project sponsor.
Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growth Decisions
Made at meeting: 15/09/2020 - Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growth Decisions
Decision published: 15/09/2020
Effective from: 23/09/2020
Decision:
It was agreed that:
1.
A statutory consultation to amend the hours of operation of the
westbound A30 London Road bus lane to twenty-four hours a day,
seven days a week, and to review reducing the classes of vehicle
permitted to use the bus lane be undertaken.
2.
A statutory consultation to remove sections of the westbound A30
London Road bus lane be undertaken:
i.
Between Park Street and Lower Charles Street
ii.
Between Lower Charles Street and Grand Avenue
iii.
Note it is also proposed to remove the section of bus lane between
Frimley Road and 431-437 London Road, however, this is subject to
gaining approval for increased hours of parking restrictions in the
parking bays outside 423-437 and 443-457 London Road.
3.
Delegated authority to the Director for Infrastructure and Delivery
to deliver the suggested statutory consultations.
4.
To review the outcome of the consultation responses before
confirming any changes.
Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growth Decisions
Made at meeting: 15/09/2020 - Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growth Decisions
Decision published: 15/09/2020
Effective from: 23/09/2020
Decision:
It was agreed that:
1.
a notice is advertised in accordance with the Road Traffic
Regulation Act 1984, the effects of which would be to revoke any
existing traffic orders necessary, and impose an 18 tonne weight
limit across Chertsey Bridge on environmental grounds including the
exemptions detailed in Annex 2; and
2.
any objections to the Traffic Regulation Order should be considered
and resolved by the Cabinet Member for Highways in consultation
with the North West and North East Area Highways Managers and the
Chairmen of the Runnymede and Spelthorne Joint Committees, and
3.
the Order be made once any objections have been considered and
resolved.
Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Communties Decisions
Made at meeting: 15/09/2020 - Cabinet Member for Communties Decisions
Decision published: 15/09/2020
Effective from: 24/09/2020
Decision:
It was agreed that:
The annual Surrey Fire & Rescue Service
Statement of Assurance be approved for publication.
Applications for
financial support for Voluntary, Community & Faith sector
organisations are being received by the Council. These requests for
support are a direct result of financial hardship felt as a result
of the COVID-19 outbreak, due to either additional costs being
incurred by these organisations to meet increased demand for their
services or enable remote working, or as a result of reductions in
their usual funding sources (eg
donations and fund raising events).
Applications are
submitted on a standard request from and are being considered
initially by a panel made up of Strategy and Finance
colleagues. The panel is assessing
requests against the following criteria:
- Small and medium sized organisation with an annual income of
less than £1million during the financial year
2018/19
- Are not in receipt of any outstanding, adverse judgements from
relevant regulatory bodies e.g. Charities Commission,
CQC
- Operate within and provide services to meet needs in the county
of Surrey
- Provision of services to support vulnerable residents during the
COVID-19 pandemic, and/or later in the recovery phase
- Have provided SCC commissioned and/or funded services between
2015-2020, including organisations funded via grant, contracts
and/or one-off commissioning
- Provision of broader, strategic services to Surrey residents
that SCC considers vital to maintain
- Have evidenced and substantiated the additional financial
pressures caused to the organisation as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic
- Will remain viable and able to assist Surrey during the post
COVID-19 recovery phase, taking account of financial pressures
already incurred and those that are forecast
- Where funding will support the long term, future sustainability
of the organisation.
In addition,
applications must also demonstrate that:
- Funding is actively being sought from alternative, relevant
sources e.g. central government and Community Foundation for
Surrey. SCC hardship funding will particularly favour residual
pressures that cannot be met from other available
means.
- Organisations can remain viable between the receipt of staged
payments from the SCC COVID-19 Hardship Fund which may be paid in
several tranches
The following applications were recommended by the
Panel and approved by the Executive Director for Transformation,
Partnership & Prosperity & the Cabinet Member for Community
Safety, Fire & Resilience.
Name
|
Amount
awarded
|
Reason
|
The Maybury Centre
|
£5,000
|
The applicant asked for a grant of £10,000 to help the
centre to exist through the pandemic.
The Centre has been closed which has resulted in a significant loss
of income. The grant would ensure the
Centre is able to remain viable. It is
an important asset to the community in a deprived area of Woking
where a broad range of health, social, educational and recreational
activities take place. The Centre on
average has 20,000 users per quarter.
The Panel asked for more information from Woking BC about the
impact of closure and the borough council confirmed this would be
significantly detrimental to the area.
The Panel also asked the borough council to match fund the amount
which they have agreed to and we recommend this grant is
supported.
|
The Queen Elizabeth Foundation
|
£66,700
|
The QEF offers specialist neurological rehabilitative support
and Independent Living Service to some of the most vulnerable
people in Surrey. Due to pandemic their
fundraising initiatives were significantly impacted causing a
deficit of £1.2m and potential closure. Through innovative fundraising approaches they
closed the gap to £400,000 and were seeking grants from
partners. They approached the Leader
and it was proposed we give a one-off grant of £66,700
through the Hardship Fund. This was
proportionate to the number of beds Surrey CC was using and subject
to other partners (including CCGs and otherLocal Authorities) committing to giving grants
proportionate to their usage. QEF has
had commitment from a number of partners that they will be giving
grants. For eg, Surrey Heartlands have agreed to give
£66,700 too. They have secured
£179,000 and are waiting to hear from other LAs and CCGs and
the Panel proposes we release the funding as significant progress
and commitment has been made by other partners, taking the
applicant to a sustainable position.
|
Decision Maker: Interim Executive Director for Customers and Communities
Decision published: 08/09/2020
Effective from: 24/08/2020
Decision:
It
was AGREED that:
The
following applications met the agreed criteria for financial
support during the COVID-19 pandemic:
The
Maybury Centre
|
£5,000.00
|
Queen Elizabeth Foundation
|
£66,700.00
|
A
one-off payment of £71,700.00 will be made to support the
above organisations.
Decision Maker: Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee
Made at meeting: 28/07/2020 - Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee
Decision published: 03/09/2020
Effective from: 28/07/2020
Decision:
Witnesses:
Julie Iles, Cabinet
Member for All-Age Learning
Liz Mills, Director
– Education, Learning and Culture
Maria Dawes, CEO
– Schools Alliance for Excellence
Key
points raised during the discussion:
- The CEO of the
School’s Alliance for Excellence (SAfE) informed Members that
SAfE was a non-profit, schools-led organisation seeking to bring
coherence to the local education system to enable young people to
achieve the best possible outcomes through education. Strong
partnership working between schools and the other partners is key
to the efficacy of SAfE. SAfE is contracted by Surrey County
Council to deliver statutory school-improvement services on the
behalf of the Local Authority. An objective of SAfE was to
encourage all schools in Surrey to become members; currently two
thirds of schools were signed up to pay the 89p-per-pupil
subscription fee and the CEO hoped that this proportion would
increase following the high levels of engagement seen from all
schools with SAfE’s professional learning events which were
provided free of charge during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- SAfE had identified
26 maintained primary, 2 secondary and 2 pupil referral units and
special schools that needed additional school-improvement support.
SAfE had worked with these schools throughout the COVID-19 pandemic
and had already started risk assessments for the following academic
year. Owing to the pandemic, it was likely that there would be a
50% increase in the number of primary maintained schools that would
require additional support from SAfE.
-
SAfE had also helped schools to develop remote
learning, risk assessments and reopening plans, had supported
governors through webinars, and supported headteachers with their
wellbeing, free of charge throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Uptake
and engagement from schools during this period had been
significant.
- SAfE’s key
roles in the coming year were to be supporting all schools to
ensure that pedagogy and the learning children receive is of the
highest quality and to narrow the learning gap, which would be
exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Paul
Bailey, Partnership Development Manager, queried, on behalf of
Simon Hart, Chair of the Surrey Safeguarding Children Partnership,
whether safeguarding could be referenced in the objectives of SAfE.
The CEO stated that the responsibility for safeguarding remained
with the Local Authority but, nevertheless, SAfE always endeavoured
to ensure the safeguarding of children and it remained a top
priority. The Director stated that safeguarding was integral to the
Local Authority’s Ofsted rating and explicitly stated in the
contract with SAfE, adding that this matter could be tabled for
further discussion at the board of directors.
- A Member
highlighted that the majority of schools under the support and
challenge category were Primary education settings and asked for
what reasons this was so. The CEO stated that this was because
there were only eleven maintained secondary schools; it was a
product of the structure and status of a school, rather than due to
Secondary settings outperforming Primary settings.
- Member
asked about improving the educational performance of disadvantaged
children in Key Stages 2 and 4. The CEO stated that, on average,
disadvantaged children in Surrey performed worse than they might do
in other areas; this was a key focus for SAfE. Schools were being supported
through webinars to ensure that they did not lose focus on
disadvantaged children, especially given the expected increased
learning gaps due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Director was happy
to provide information regarding exam results and performance when
the data became available.
- A Member
asked how SAfE supported senior school governors. The CEO responded
that governors were key to enabling school improvement. Therefore,
in partnership with Surrey County Council, SAfE offered four
webinars to support governors during the COVID-19 pandemic. In
addition to a part-time retained resource, SAfE was also working
alongside Cognus Governor Services, the body which delivered the
council’s statutory responsibilities in relation to school
governance, to develop a new process for local leaders of governors. The Director informed the Committee that governors
responded positively to these webinars and suggested that this
method of engagement could be used in the future.
- A Member questioned
why the contract between SAfE and the council had not yet been
agreed. The CEO confirmed that the contract had been agreed since
the report was drafted earlier in the year. The contract was to be
amended to enable the transfer of statutory assessment and
moderation duties from the council to SAfE.
- A Member
asked whether SAfE was seeking to take contracts with other local
authorities. The CEO stated that SAfE would not have any other
contractual arrangements to deliver statutory school improvements
in other local authorities, as the focus of SAfE was on ensuring
that Surrey’s educational settings received the best support
through a local education partnership.
- A Member
expressed concern that the Director and the Assistant Director -
Education sat on SAfE’s board of directors. The CEO informed
the Committee that legal advice was taken when establishing the
governance arrangements, safeguards were included in order to avoid
conflicts of interest, and the board of directors’ membership
was kept under review. The CEO stated that having representatives
of the contracting local authority was typical of local education
partnership boards. Board members declared any relevant interests
at each meeting and would recuse themselves from decisions where a
conflict of interest was present. Contract monitoring was conducted
by the council’s commissioning team, rather than Children,
Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Directorate
officers.
- With
regard to an Ofsted inspection, a Member queried why one school had
dropped from an ‘outstanding’ to ‘good’
rating, and why two previously ‘outstanding’ secondary
schools were now rated ‘good’. The CEO responded that
the new Ofsted framework introduced in September 2019 had a greater
focus on school curricula and this was why the schools’
ratings were downgraded. SAfE was looking carefully at these
schools and would provide support around curriculum development.
The CEO assured the Committee that the decline in rating was not
due to issues relating to safeguarding or outcomes for
disadvantaged children.
- A Member
noted that a number of schools did not provide adequate distance
learning for pupils during the COVID-19 pandemic and asked how SAfE
would ensure that all children educated in Surrey received the
right level of education going forward. The CEO stated that during
the last weeks of the academic summer term, SAfE had communicated
with every school to check on risk assessments being carried out
for the anticipated return to school in September. Moreover, the
aim was for every school to have a contingency plan in place for
remote learning in case of a second lockdown. A priority was to
ensure that remote learning was of the same quality as that
delivered in school settings, should it be required
again.
- A Member
asked how SAfE differed from the previous provider that Surrey
contracted to deliver school improvement services, Babcock 4S. The
CEO explained that Babcock 4S was a commercial company which had an
80% joint-venture arrangement with Surrey County Council. SAfE is a
schools-led company which worked closely with the Local Authority
and is staffed by team of eight which utilises existing expertise
from within the school system. The rest of SAfE’s partners
are schools and SAfE was working with them to further develop the
partnership’s priorities. SAfE had joined the Association for
Local Education Partnerships and worked with their counterparts in
other areas.
- A Member asked about
the pressures on governors and whether those were appropriate. The
CEO commented that there were variety of governance roles and SAfE
needed to work with governors to clarify their roles and to
increase their skills.
- A Member asked how
much money the council had spent on consultants during the
development of SAfE. The Director stated that Christine Gilbert had
worked nationally on the development of educational partnerships
and had been used by Surrey County Council in an invest-to-save
approach. Christine Gilbert had been consulted to carry out
targeted work and her experience meant that the partnership could
be developed in a timelier manner. The consultant had provided
templates and model educational partnerships to inform the
development of SAfE. The Director was content to share the level of
funding with the Select Committee.
- A Member questioned
why one-third of schools in Surrey had not joined SAfE. The CEO
informed the Committee that SAfE was delivering the council’s
statutory responsibility for delivering school improvement,
therefore even those schools which had not signed up to SAfE were
still risk assessed and were supported by the partnership. Analysis
was being undertaken to show non-member schools how they had
benefitted from the free services that SAfE provided during the
COVID-19 pandemic. The CEO explained that the organisation
emphasised a collective approach to improving education and would
promote this to encourage high-performing schools to support
lower-performing ones.
- A Member cited the
education recovery plan for Surrey and asked the Director whether
emotional recovery and mental health would be looked at,
particularly for those who could not sit their GCSE. The CEO
notified the Committee that emotional recovery was being looked at
and planned for. Schools and sixth form colleges were working to
put plans in place to ameliorate the emotional gaps suffered by
young people. The recovery curriculum would cover social and
emotional aspects for children.
Actions:
i.
For the Director to provide information
regarding exam results and educational performance of disadvantaged
children in Surrey.
ii.
For the Director to share the cost of consulting on
the establishment of SAfE with the Select Committee.
Recommendations:
i.
That the Cabinet Member for All-Age Learning give an
update on the work of the Schools Alliance for Excellence at the
January 2021 meeting of the Select Committee.