Decisions

The Joint Committee (Spelthorne) agreed to:

(i)            not to proceed any further with the proposed double yellow lines in Ford Close at the present time but to review it at next parking review with officers exploring the possibility of white lines.

Reasons for Recommendation:

1.    The Joint Committee reviews on-street parking annually as part of its remit.

2.    The Joint Committee recognised the impact anti-social parking had on certain residents in this case and would like to monitor the issue.

The Joint Committee (Spelthorne) agreed to:

(i)    Approve the capital maintenance programme to be funded from the £78,000 capital allocation for this Financial Year 2019-20

(ii)   Authorise the advertisement of a legal notice for the relocation of two speed cushions in Clare Road, Stanwell, in support of bus stop improvements at the junction with Bedfont Road, and to consider any representations in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Divisional Member and if there are no significant objections to relocate the speed cushions

(iii)   Authorise the Area Highway Manager in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and relevant Divisional Member(s) to undertake all necessary procedures to deliver the agreed programmes.

Reasons:

1.    The Joint Committee authorises Highways personnel to proceed in order that they can carry out their agreed programme for 2019/20 in a timely fashion.

.

The Joint Committee (Spelthorne) agreed:

(i)                     The continuation of the Joint Committee’s task groups for the year 2019/20

(ii)                    To agree the membership as set out in each Terms of Reference

(iii)                   To note in Annex 2, the Terms of Reference and membership of the external bodies set out in 2.2 – 2.9 of the report.

(iv)                  To appoint Joint Committee members to these groups from the nominations set out in Annex 3 with the addition of Cllr Alison Griffiths to the Health & Wellbeing Board, Cllr Richard Smith-Ainsley to the Parking Task Group.

(v)                    To note that the Joint Committee’s appointment to the Health & Wellbeing Board is for a county councillor only.

Reason:

The Joint Committee decides on the continuation of their Task Groups and to membership of external bodies at the beginning of each municipal year.

The Joint Committee (Spelthorne) agreed:

(i)                    The Committee’s delegated community safety budget of £3000 for 2019/20 be retained by the Community Partnership Team, on behalf of the Joint Committee, and that the SSSP and/or other local organisations be invited to submit proposals for funding that meet the criteria and principles.

(ii)                   That authority be delegated to the County Council’s Community Safety Manager, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Joint Committee, to authorise the expenditure of the community safety budget in accordance with the criteria and principles.

(iii)                   The Committee receives updates on the project(s) funded, the outcomes and the impact it has achieved.

Reasons:

1.    The process agreed by the Committee allows the funding to be allocated promptly and in a transparent way.

2.    The Committee will be updated with the progress of the projects in order that it can monitor their success.

To delegate authority to the Cabinet Member for Highways and the Head of Highways & Transport to enter into agency agreements with Districts / Boroughs for the management and maintenance of small areas of highway land.

RESOLVED:

1.    That authority is delegated to the Head of Highways and Transport, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Highways, to enter into “Town Centre Highway Management Agreements” with district/borough councils which request this arrangement was agreed.

2.    That local / joint committees undertake operational oversight of any such agreements was agreed.

Reason for Decision:

The introduction of Town Centre Highway Management Agreements enable willing district/borough councils to manage and maintain their prestige locations according to local priorities and needs.  Standards of maintenance will need to be as high as, or greater than that provided by the county council for the rest of the highway network.  The agreements may help to attract additional investment in the highway network. Income from licensing will facilitate such investment.

They will build on close cooperation between the county council and district/borough councils in delivering services for Surrey residents.

[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Communities, Environment & Highways Select Committee]

RESOLVED:

It was agreed that non-exempt information may be made available to the press and public, where appropriate.

RESOLVED: That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information under the relevant paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

RESOLVED:

That the decisions taken by Cabinet Members since the last meeting were noted.

Reason for Decision:

To inform the Cabinet of decisions taken by the Leader, Cabinet Members and Strategic Investment Board under delegated authority.

There was one petition relating to Surrey Fire & Rescue Service.  Details of the petition and Cabinet response is attached as annex 2.

There were two questions from Mr Jonathan Essex.  These and the responses are attached as annex 1.

Mr Colin Kemp declared a personal interest in item 12 - Proposal to enter into a local education partnership with Schools Alliance for Excellence in that he was a director at Surrey Training School Networks until last year but he took no part in the negotiations.

The Minutes of 25 June 2019 were approved as a correct record.

To seek Cabinet approval to join a regional Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) lead by West Sussex County Council (WSCC). Joining this DPS will enable Surrey County Council to commission Special Educational Need or Disability (SEND) placements from Non Maintained Independent (NMI) Schools and Colleges from September 2019.

RESOLVED:

1.    That Surrey County Council join with West Sussex County Council to implement the Children’s Placements and Other Support Services Dynamic Purchasing System contract for the provision of the placement of day and residential learners in independent schools and colleges from July 2019 until 31st March 2026 was approved.

2.    That providers as listed in the Part 2 annex to the submitted report be awarded a place on the new Dynamic Purchasing System as they have passed the Invitation to Tender (ITT) evaluation process, whilst recognising that further organisations will be able to join throughout the duration of the Dynamic Purchasing System if they pass the ITT.

3.    That authority be delegated to the Director of Education, Lifelong Leaning & Culture to implement the Dynamic Purchasing System and award all contracts, where a mini-competition tender procedure has been followed under the new Dynamic Purchasing System.

Reason for Decision:

Working regionally with West Sussex County Council and using a Dynamic Purchasing System  will achieve the following benefits:

·         By increasing market share, it will enhance Surrey’s position to influence and negotiate; share information around specialist educational. placements; address gaps in support and improve value for money

·         Provide a framework where there is transparency around price and service offer which support value for money commissioning within Surrey’s new Gateway for Resources team. 

·         Support better quality of education and outcomes for children through collaborative contract management and monitoring.

·         Build up cost knowledge of the sector in a joined-up way with other local authorities so that Surrey achieves best value and is charged at a similar rate as neighbouring authorities.

·         Joint working with suppliers to ensure compliance with regulations and laws.

·         A better understanding of suppliers’ processes, which may foster collaboration and working together to reduce costs.

·         Standard templates for contracting thus reducing supplier time working out variances between forms and contracts when placing children.

[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning & Culture Select Committee]

To approve the working arrangements and the terms of the agreement between Surrey County Council and Woking Borough Council under which the Woking Town Centre Housing Infrastructure scheme will proceed.

RESOLVED:

1.    That Surrey County Council accepts the funding award of £95million for the A320 Woking Town Centre project from the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) allocated by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, subject to Woking Borough Council entering into a legal agreement with Surrey County Council to deliver the project and accept all grant conditions as set by Homes England as well as indemnifying Surrey County Council against all financial and legal risks was agreed.

2.    That Surrey County Council enter into appropriate legal agreements with Woking Borough Council to allow the Woking Borough Council to act as agent to deliver the project, accept all bid grant conditions as set by Homes England was agreed.

3.    That authority be delegated to the Executive Director Community Protection, Transport & Environment and the Deputy Leader regarding any further decisions relating to this project was agreed.

4.    That authority be delegated to the Executive Director Community Protection, Transport & Environment in consultation with the Deputy Leader for any future decisions on the three remaining HIF bids should they be successful and subject to meeting relevant and similar terms and conditions as set for the Woking Town Centre grant award was agreed.

Reason for Decision:

To accept the grant funding awarded by government to the A320 Woking Town Centre project and enter into appropriate legal agreements to pass on all financial and legal risks in delivering the project to Woking Borough Council.

The grant funding will allow Woking to continue to prosper as a town and provide much needed housing for the local community.

To fast track decisions on the remaining three HIF bids should they be successful.

[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Communities, Environment & Highways Select Committee]

The Cabinet is asked to approve the principles to support the delivery of the Council’s statutory responsibilities for home to school transport for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities; and to delegate responsibility to the Lead Cabinet member[s] for reviewing the Council’s SEND travel assistance policy following consultation with children and young people with SEND and their families. 

RESOLVED:

1.    That the design principles to support the delivery of the Council’s statutory responsibilities for home to school transport for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities be approved.

2.    That the Executive Director for Children, Families and Learning in consultation with the Cabinet Member for All-Age Learning finalises proposals for public consultation from September 2019 be agreed.

3.    That responsibility be delegated to the Executive Director in consultation with the Cabinet Member for All-Age Learning to review the Council’s SEND travel assistance policy following public consultation in Autumn 2019, including children and young people with SEND and their families. 

Reason for Decision:

There were significant areas of underperformance in relation to Surrey County Council’s delivery of its arrangements for home to school transport for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities.  Poor practice and culture were driving poor outcomes for children and young people and high costs. Delivery of the outcomes sought through the proposed design principles will benefit all Surrey residents by supporting the integration and independence of children and young people with SEND, promoting environmental sustainability and securing the efficient use of public resources.

[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning & Culture Select Committee]

The cabinet is asked to agree in principle the forming of a Regional Adoption Agency (RAA) to be known as Adoption South East. The RAA will consist of Surrey, East Sussex & West Sussex County Councils and Brighton & Hove City Council.

RESOLVED:

1.    That Surrey County Council’s participation in (the creation of) a Regional Adoption Agency (RAA) to be known as Adoption South East (ASE) in partnership with Brighton and Hove City Council, and East and West Sussex County Councils was agreed.

2.    That authority be delegated to the Executive Director for Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People & Families to take any action necessary or incidental to the above including entering into and signing off the Partnership Agreement and any other agreement between Surrey County Council and the participating Authorities in order for the Regional Adoption arrangement to be implemented by 2020 was agreed.

3.    That authority be delegated to the Executive Director for Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People & Families to agree transfer of the Council’s contribution to the pooled RAA budget, in accordance with the terms of the Partnership Agreement was agreed.

Reason for Decision:

In response to the Action Plan for Adoption and alongside many other Councils Surrey County Council, in conjunction with Brighton and Hove City Council, East and West Sussex County Councils has developed a proposal to deliver its adoption services via a RAA. The Government has a power through the Education and Adoption Act 2016 which allows it to direct a Local Authority to join a Regionalised Adoption Agency if it has not already done so by 2020.

[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning & Culture Select Committee]

Recommendation is for Cabinet to note the progress made delivering the Improvement Plan, the Children, Families, Life Long Learning & Culture restructure and the findings from the recent Ofsted inspections and Children’s Commissioner interim review.

RESOLVED:

1. The progress made delivering the Children’s Improvement Plan and the findings from the recent Children’s Commissioner Re-Visit, Ofsted Monitoring Visit 03 and Ofsted Annual Conversation was noted.

2. That Cabinet review progress in December 2019 on the delivery of the Children’sImprovement Plan and the findings from subsequent inspections was agreed.  (The Children’s Commissioner will be conducting a further review of our improvement work in October 2019 and Ofsted will next conduct a Monitoring Visit in October-November 2019.)

Reason for Decision:

The Department for Education appointed Children’s Commissioner will next be reviewing our progress improving practice across children’s services in Surrey in October 2019. The Commissioner will then report to the Department for Education and Secretary of State for Education in November 2019. 

The next Ofsted Monitoring Visit, focussed on the Assessment service, will take place October-November 2019 with publication of the report in late-November 2019.

[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning & Culture Select Committee]

That the Cabinet approve that Authority is delegated to the Executive Director for Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance, to award a contract to the winning bidder to provide Reactive and Cyclical Maintenance services to Surrey County Council Maintained Buildings in the Surrey West Area for up to 7 years.

RESOLVED:

That authority be delegated to the Executive Director for Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Support, to award a contract to the winning bidder to provide Building Maintenance and Statutory Building Maintenance & Responsive Building Repairs – Building Fabric Maintenance to Surrey County Council Maintained Buildings in the Surrey West Area for up to 7 years.

Reason for Decision:

To ensure that a decision can be made flexibly and quickly to make sure that we can provide continuity of service and to maximise the mobilisation period available to the new Contractor.

[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Resources & Performance Select Committee]

To provide a formal response to the consultation by the Transport for the South East (TfSE) that proposes the terms under which Sub National Transport Body (STB) statutory status will be requested from Government.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the consultation draft of the Proposal to Government (Annex 1 to the submitted report)  including the powers and responsibilities requested by Transport for the South East (TfSE) and the proposed governance arrangements with the following amendments to Annex 1 (Table 1) be agreed,

            a.        Rail - The powers being sought for rail should be for strategic schemes only and the County Council must still be consulted directly on the terms of the franchises and any matters that affect us locally (including infrastructure and service enhancements).

            b.        Bus Service Provision - The powers being sought for bus service franchising should be in partnership with and with the agreement of the County Council.

2.    That authority be delegated to the Executive Director for Community Protection, Transport and Environment in consultation with the Deputy Leader to make any final changes to the TfSE proposal submitted to Government.

Reason for Decision:

The TfSE Proposal to Government is a constructive way for Authorities in the South East Area to exercise a common voice to government through the use of the powers sought in Annex 1.

[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Communities, Environment & Highways Select Committee]

This report is to confirm the council’s commitment to the Accommodation with Care and Support Strategy. To endorse our ambition to deliver an additional 2000 units of extra care, including 724 affordable units, over the next ten years.To endorse our ambition to deliver 700 additional units of independent living over the next five years. To delegate authority to the Cabinet Member for ASC and Executive Director for ASC on the decision for all future developments. To agree to resource the dedicated development team to deliver the strategy.

RESOLVED:

1.    That commitment to the Adult Social Care Accommodation with Care and Support Strategy as approved by Cabinet on 30 October 2018 was reaffirmed.

2.    Cabinet endorsed its ambition to deliver:

a.    sufficient units of affordable extra care housing to reduce the council’s reliance on traditional residential and nursing care over the next ten years; and

b.    sufficient additional units of independent living to support people with a learning disability and/or autism over the next five years.

3.    That the existing pipeline schemes that have been identified as suitable for extra care housing:

a.    are assessed against the criteria and the process set out in the Asset and Place Strategy; and

b.    have full business cases developed and submitted to Cabinet for consideration and (if appropriate) approval at its meeting in October 2019, was agreed.

4.    That the use of available delegated powers to acquire individual units in existing or new developments, and for larger acquisitions to be brought forward to Cabinet for approval was endorsed.

5.    That the overall programme be included in the budget report and capital programme to be brought forward in January 2020 was agreed.

6.    That all other existing vacant sites be reviewed in accordance with the Asset and Place Strategy for their potential development as extra care or independent living accommodation, and that suitable sites were brought forward to Cabinet for approval once the business case was developed be agreed.

7.    That a dedicated team be resourced within Adult Social Care to deliver the project in line with the Accommodation with Care and Support Strategy was agreed.

Reason for Decision:

To ensure the Council delivers its Accommodation with Care and Support Strategy and Community Vision for Surrey 2030.

[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Adults & Health Select Committee]

Cabinet are asked to approve:

A local education partnership with Surrey’s Schools to discharge its statutory duties in respect of school standards. 

The council’s enters into a schools company, which will be a private company limited by guarantee, as a partner with a 19 per cent share, to discharge this responsibility.

Delegation of the authority to enter into the relevant  contractual agreement to the Lead Cabinet Member and Executive Director for Children, Families, Learning and Culture.

RESOLVED:

1. That the establishment of the new school-led partnership for improvement in Surrey known as the Schools Alliance for Excellence (SAfE) be approved.

2. That the Council’s participation as a member of SAfE with two officers of the Council to be appointed to the board of directors of the company be endorsed.

3. That the commission SAfE lead and manage Surrey’s school improvement strategy for an initial three years, from September 2019 to 2022 was agreed.

4. That delegated authority be given to the Executive Director for Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for All-Age Learning, to agree, as appropriate, to SAfE being contracted for further council commissions over the next three years was agreed.

5. That the Council act as the ‘supervising authority’ for SAfE was agreed.

Reason for Decision:

Surrey County Council outsourced its school improvement services over 15 years ago. Through the contract, Babcock 4S was engaged to undertake all 11 council duties relating to school standards and the quality assurance of all maintained schools, 14 compliance checking duties and five relating to the curriculum. This contract came to an end in March 2019, and these duties are currently being undertaken by council officers on a short-term basis.  However, this is not consistent with the developing schools-led system and partnership approach underpinning our work with children and families.

Over recent years, Surrey schools have built a system of improvement using local practitioners and teaching schools.  The recommendations in this report would extend the breadth and depth of that schools-led system so it can accelerate improvement in the outcomes for children and young people, particularly the most vulnerable, in Surrey schools.

[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning & Culture Select Committee]

The Cabinet are asked to approve the consultation of changes to the library service and cultural services, in particular the delivery of the statutory services provided and he delivery of an efficient and effective library service.    

RESOLVED:

To defer this item.

Reason for decision:

Following on from the widespread consultation at the end of 2018, the County Council had been discussing with districts and boroughs the precise way forward for a 21st century library service. These discussions had been fruitful but more time was required to formulate the final proposals. This item was therefore deferred to allow sufficient time for detailed discussions.

The cabinet member for all-age learning should approve:

1. In principle, charging schools for the costs to the council on an ‘averaged’ basis.

2. A scheme of charging for a community or voluntary controlled school, for a voluntary aided school (which does not require HR service input) and for foundation or trust schools (which do not require human resource or property service input). 

3. The annual consideration of charges, taking account of any inflation or deflation in the specific areas of work, being delegated to the executive director.

RESOLVED:

1. The charging of schools for the costs to the council on an ‘averaged’ basis was approved.

2. That charges of £6,000 for a community or voluntary controlled school, £5,000 for a voluntary aided school (which does not require HR service input); £4,000 for foundation or trust schools (which do not require human resource or property service input); and charges to be negotiated on a case by case basis for private finance initiative (PFI) schools was approved.

3. That annual consideration of charges, taking account of any inflation or deflation in the specific areas of work, be delegated to the Executive Director for Children, Families and Learning and that the Council’s constitution be amended to allow the scheme of delegation to reflect this.

4. That charges be levied for any new school formally requesting to convert to academy status (upon receipt of approval from the Department for Education) from 1 September 2019 was agreed.

Reason for Decision:

The costs nationally of schools converting to become academy trusts (or becoming a part of an existing trust) are high.  The House of Commons committee of public accounts estimated in its report, published in July 2018 and entitled ‘Converting schools to academies’, that the cost to the government of conversions had been £745,000,000 since 2010.

The committee noted that the full cost of conversion, including spending by schools and local authorities, is unclear.  Surrey County Council, unlike many other top-tier councils in England, has not adopted a policy of charging for the costs it bears relating to such transfers.  This currently means that the burden is shifted from general taxation to the council tax payer in Surrey.  It also has an effect on the resources available for other council priorities.

For these reasons, it is proposed to charge schools, on the basis set out in recommendations above, for the costs to the council of conversions, on an averaged basis.

[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning & Culture Select Committee]

Cabinet is asked to agree providing Council Tax Relief for the Surrey County Council element of Council Tax for all of Surrey County Council’s Care Leavers who live in ‘independent’ or ‘semi-independent’ accommodation, living inside or outside of the local authority area.

RESOLVED:

1.    That Council Tax Relief be provided, for the Surrey County Council proportion of Council Tax, for Care Leavers (living in and out of the county) in independent and semi-independent living arrangements from 1 April 2020 from the ages of 18-25 years old (up to their 25th birthday) was agreed in principle.

2.    That for Care Leavers from the ages of 18-25 years old (up to their 25th birthday), living in independent and semi-independent living arrangements outside of Surrey County Council local authority area; that 75% of their Council Tax is paid for Surrey County Council was agreed.

3.    That Cabinet review this each political cycle (i.e. every 4 years), including understanding the impact this has made for Care Leavers, with the first review taking place in 2021 following the County Council elections was agreed.

Reason for Decision:

Through its Corporate Parenting responsibilities Surrey County Council (and its partners) has a duty to do the very best for Children in Care and Care Leavers, and provide the necessary care and support so they can achieve their potential. Supporting with the cost of living through Council Tax Relief will help Care Leavers to manage their transition to adulthood and help make their own home affordable, providing stability and a safe place.

[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning & Culture Select Committee]

To approve the business case for the project to provide a new Special Education Needs unit allowing 21 places for pupils with high COIN (communication and interactive needs) requirements.  The construction of the unit will reduce the out of County placements that SCC currently provides for.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the proposal to build a specialist centre at Worplesdon Primary School in partnership with Freemantles School, be agreed in principle, and the project to proceed subject to a full public consultation and statutory notices was approved.

2.    That the funding for this project be allocated from the Special Education Needs & Disabilities Capital Grant of £10.7m and the scheme be added to the Capital programme, as detailed in the Part 2 annex of the submitted report.

Reason for Decision:

A new specialist provision centre at Worplesdon Primary School would meet the demand for additional places for children and young people with communication and interaction needs (COIN). This is the first centre in Surrey that is being developed in partnership between a special school and a mainstream primary school. The two schools working in partnership ensure pupils benefit from the expertise of a special school as well as inclusion in a mainstream primary school.

[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning & Culture Select Committee]

To consider the month end budget report and make any recommendations as appropriate.

RESOLVED:

Cabinet noted that;

1.            The Council’s forecast revenue and capital budget positions for the year.

Cabinet approved;

2.            The re-profiled 2019/20 capital budget of £114m, and

3.            The draw-down of revenue funding carried forward at outturn for;

              i.        £0.28m for bus planning

             ii.        £0.05m for completed local highways works

            iii.        £0.23m for Economic Development

Reason for Decision:

This report is presented to comply with the agreed policy of providing a monthly budget monitoring report to Cabinet for approval of any necessary actions.

[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Resources & Performance Select Committee]

The following recommendations were agreed:

1.    The Orbis Public Law Joint Committee is dissolved.

2.    The necessary consequential changes are made to the Constitution.

Key points raised in the discussion:

1.    The Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) explained that the annual report was one of his statutory duties and that he had seen steady progress made against his plan but noted that there was always room to do more and the Panel’s comments on the draft plan would be incorporated into the final version.

Members noted that although crime had not increased as much as the national average it had still increased and asked the PCC to expand on this.

2.    The PCC suggested amending the report to highlight that while reported crime had increased, actual crime was static according to the Crime Survey of England and Wales. He expressed that an increase in reported crime could be seen as neutral or good news. It could be seen as neutral because the Home Office definition of crime had changed which impacted the statistics. He noted it was positive because people were reporting more and were more ready to discuss crimes such as Domestic Violence, Child Sexual Exploitation and Modern Slavery than they had been previously.

3.    The PCC noted that some crimes had seen a real increase in occurrences, such as breaking and entering into vehicles, but that the police had been running public awareness campaigns to make people more aware of their personal belongings.

4.    The PCC was confident that the police were on top of crime and would ensure Surrey stayed safe. He noted one exception to this and expressed that he was concerned about cybercrime which needed more attention nationally to reduce rates.

5.    It was also noted that rates of clearing up crime were too low nationally and that this was true in Surrey, but that the PCC was holding the Chief Constable to account in this area.

Members highlighted areas of the report that needed editing before the final version was published.

6.    Members commented that the report only went into detail of four of the six priorities outlined in the Police and Crime Plan and asked that the final report include all priorities.

7.    It was noted that the “Year At A Glance” did not mention the problems identified with disclosure and the fact that the PCC had asked for a review of this. The PCC noted that disclosure needed to be discussed in the final report as the issue was ongoing.

8.    It was pointed out that the “Year at a Glance” stated that 75% of tax payers were happy to pay extra for additional officers and police staff, but actually it was 75% of people surveyed, and this should be made clear. The PCC agreed that the report should make it clear that 75% of people surveyed were happy with the rise in the Precept and this change would be incorporated into the report.

9.    No mention of collaboration with other forces was given in the part of the report which focused on the “Making Every Pound Count” priority and this should be considered. On collaboration with other forces, the PCC noted that as well as collaboration with Sussex Police, Surrey was joining a four area collaboration with partners in Thames Valley and Hampshire.

10.  Members commented that there was no real mention of terrorism and that if the information that came out of the Parsons Green attack was from the last year, this should be discussed. The PCC noted that the although the Parsons Green attack took place a few years prior, reverberations were still having an impact and that these should be commented on.

11.  Members queried why there was only one reference to counter-terrorism in the report given the substantial cost that goes into training counter-terror police. It was asked that the PCC detailed plans for the public on how he aims to protect them from the threat of terrorism.The PCC assured the Panel that counter-terrorism policing was taken very seriously and by its nature most work was done away from the public eye. He stated he was happy that there were enough resources in place. He clarified that this report was not his policing plan but that something could be added to the report to put people’s minds at ease.

12.  Members commented that the percentage related to confidence in police dealing with these crimes, rather than in the instances of crimes themselves, and this needed to be reported more clearly.

There was a query about whether the report needed to clarify where the 100 extra officer roles would come from.

13.  Members noted that the report was not consistent and sometimes implied there were 100 new roles being created while at other times suggested that 25 roles were being saved and 75 new roles were being created. The PCC stood by the statement of 100 extra officers, and felt that the language used was accurate, open, honest and consistent. He further commented that due to extra space in the budget this number was now 104 as 79 new positions could now be added.

14.  The PCC explained that this would positively impact neighbourhood policing because the expected loss of 25 positions would have hit neighbourhood policing the hardest as this was one of the few places where substantial cuts could be realised but that fortunately this did not need to happen.

15.  The PCC explained that these officers and staff would not be instantly visible to the public because of the time it takes to recruit, train and deploy people into certain roles. He noted that due to funding being done on a yearly basis he could not plan how many officers he would be able to recruit next year. If the Chancellor put forward a 3-year funding plan it could help planning for future recruitment and would allow residents to see visible increases.

Members scrutinised the drop in confidence in police being able to deal with anti-social behaviour from 77.7% to 71.6%.

16.  Members highlighted that the report stated ‘local issues’ were responsible for the drop in confidence in police being able to deal with anti-social behaviour but that there was no information about why the public think the police had not responded, and that it was instead focused on the causes of the anti-social behaviour.

17.  It was of some concern that close to 30% of people were not confident in the police being able to deal with anti-social behaviour and the Panel wanted more detail on how the PCC and Chief Constable planned to address this.

18.  It was noted that despite a drop in the percentage of people who felt confident that the police could deal with anti-social behaviour and crimes in their area, the number remained high. The PCC made clear that it was among his main focuses moving forward but that he understood why people wanted more to be done about anti-social behaviour. He noted that of the 104 new police recruited many would be directed specifically to deal with local issues as feedback from public engagement meetings with the Chief Constable showed that people were concerned by issues such as noisy neighbours, speeding, inconsiderate driving, and tensions caused by unauthorised encampments.

19.  The PCC also commented that the Policing in Your Neighbourhood system was now bedded down and that community commanders were dedicated to stop these low level crimes.

20.  On the issue of speeding particularly it was noted that speeding enforcement officers were in place but there was limited funding to do this. The PCC suggested that it was important to press the County Council to revitalise the Drive Smart partnership which he was frustrated at the progress of. It was also noted that Community Speedwatch was increasing in coverage and was doing positive work. The PCC praised the work of the volunteers and groups who provided the service.

21.  Members noted concern for the safety of Community Speedwatch Volunteers who had reported having things thrown out of windows at them. The PCC agreed to raise this at a course he was due to go on.

22.  The Panel requested more information and timescales on the PCC providing transit sites to ease tensions from unauthorised encampments. The PCC expressed that the transit sites were not police responsibilities, and that this lay with the borough, district and county councils as they were the biggest land owners and had planning responsibilities. It was noted that the PCC had met with local and county leaders but that there was not yet a publically identified transit site in the county.

23.  The PCC payed tribute to the County Council for making three sites available as negotiated stopping places, but that under the law they had not been designated as transit sites and lacked the facilities needed meaning police could not move people from unauthorised encampments to these sites. The PCC suggested Panel Members encouraged their districts and boroughs to move this process forward.

Members asked the PCC to give more detail about the in-house Victim Support and Witness Care Unit, particularly about how it is staffed.

24.  The PCC explained that the unit was set up on 1 April 2019 and that after a few teething problems it was now fully staffed with no backlog and was fully operational.

25.  He noted that there was no more money available so numbers of users would remain stable.

26.  The PCC noted that the staffing contract had previously been with Victim Support which was largely a voluntary based organisation. He paid tribute to the dedicated volunteers, many of whom had been brought on as staff. He further noted that recruitment was ongoing for additional staff.

27.  It was explained that bringing the service in-house not only fulfilled the County and the PCC’s statutory responsibilities, but provided victims with a single point of contact and a more seamless service than previous methods of helping victims.

The Panel raised the issue of rural crime which they thought was not covered enough in the report.

28.  The PCC acknowledged that under the previous PCC many rural residents felt their needs were not being addressed but that they had not been forgotten.

29.  He explained that the NICHE system of recording crime had a specific flag to categorise rural crimes so that statistics could be gathered to help inform police work.

30.  The Commissioner detailed how Surrey Police had gone from one to two pan-county rural liaison officers with the specific remit of making sure that colleagues across the force take rural crimes seriously.

31.  Members appreciated the increase in rural liaison officers but commented that given the size of the rural area this was concerning.

32.  The PCC agreed that there were too few officers but that the 100 extra officers and staff would go some way to give necessary resources in this area. He also noted that there was also push-back from urban areas that they do not have enough police presence because rural areas are too heavily focused on and that there was a fine balance to be struck.

33.  Members wanted to know if any of the 104 new officers who are yet to be assigned a remit could be directed to rural crimes. The PCP agreed and noted that some of these new recruits would be directed to rural crimes but they were largely to help in local policing. He pointed out that local policing included the policing of rural communities.

Members expressed concerns about cybercrimes and asked that the PCC addressed this in more detail in the report, and provided information to residents on how to protect themselves.

34.  Members were concerned that no information had been given to residents about how to protect their interests, nor about where to go for help if they had been targeted.

35.  The PCC said that he felt pessimistic about cybercrime and commented that more needed to be done on a national and international level. It was expressed that this was an issue he had repeatedly asked for more action on and hoped that Central Government would think more seriously about.

36.  Despite this, he noted that Surrey Police do a lot to address cybercrime and the message to residents was to take precautions to protect themselves.

Members asked that the PCC provided more details on Independent Custody Visitors (ICVs).

37.  Members requested that the PCC provided a more detailed explanation of ICVs including their role and the impact that their actions had so that the public could see the importance of the work that they do.

38.  The PCC praised the work of the people who volunteer as ICVs and explained that the scheme was run from his own office. He commented that he was aware that the report could contain too much technical language and that he would take a look at the report to highlight the work done by the volunteers.

39.  Members wanted to feedback some positive points to the PCC. They noted that close partnership working with police within Elmbridge to tackle tensions around unauthorised encampments had been particularly good, and that Community Speedwatch volunteers would like to pass on praise to Surrey Police for the training they had received.

40.  It was noted by the Panel that more central locations should be used for community events to encourage better attendance from the public to which the PCC responded that areas where reports of particular concern had come from were largely selected but that new locations would be used for engagement meetings in the autumn.

RESOLVED:

Members of the Police and Crime Panel commented on and noted the annual report prior to its formal publication.

Actions/ Further information to be provided:

That the Panel formally writes to the PCC with the comments and feedback raised in the discussion.