Decisions

On 1st March 2022 the Department for Health & Social Care (DHSC) published details of the ADULT SOCIAL CARE OMICRON SUPPORT FUND.  This was the final specific ASC Covid funding stream.

Surrey County Council (SCC) has received £1m of Omicron Support Fund monies.  Funding was provided so that “Local authorities have discretion to use the funding as needed locally, to support the adult social care sector, including relevant local authority staff, in its COVID-19 response, and in particular increased challenges posed by the Omicron variant”.

The funding was unringfenced and did not have to be spent within a set period.  When the funding was received, the Council was paying out the final allocations of the Infection Control and Testing Fund 3 and Recruitment & Retention Fund round 2 funding streams to ASC providers.  It was agreed therefore that Omicron Support Fund monies would be retained on the balance sheet so they could be utilised to support ASC providers in the early part of the 2022/23 financial year.

As with all previous Covid grant funding streams, the Council consulted with the Surrey Care Association to seek views on the best way to dispense the limited grant funds across Surrey’s broad ASC provider base.  Following this consultation the Adults Leadership Team determined that given this funding stream is unringfenced it would be most appropriate to invite all ASC providers to bid for funds against a set of criteria.  Providers were invited to submit applications for a funding allocation towards:

•The cost of staff sickness in April 2022.

•Hardship payments to pass onto staff members who have suffered loss of earnings due to sickness and/or the need to self-isolate.

•The cost of facilitating safe visiting in April 2022, with the option to submit a claim for the period May-June 2022 as well if funds could accommodate.

•Other cost pressures caused by the pandemic in April 2022, with the option to submit a claim for the period May-June 2022 as well if funds could accommodate.

Due to the limited value of grant funds, a decision was taken to prioritise funding for providers who provide services to residents whose care is funded by the Council.  This was made clear on the application form.

An online form was prepared to gather applications and this form was sent to providers on 20th May 2022 inviting them to apply with a deadline of 10th June 2022.

Applications were received from 165 providers, totalling £3.1m.

Decision made:

It was AGREED that:

The following allocations would be made from the COVID Winter Support Grant extension:

A petition was received from Witley Parish Council to “Install a speed VAS and a junction warning VAS, and to implement some improvements to signage, road markings and speed limit locations on the A283, along with some changes to the New Road junction”

This site falls between the Godalming South, Milford and Witley division and the Eastern Villages division and therefore it would be at the discretion of the divisional members to decide whether they wish to part fund any or all of the proposed works. However, both Witley and Hambledon Parish Council's may wish to fund the works themselves and the County Council would be happy to undertake the projects on their behalf subject to the funds being made available.

The local committee agreed:

That the Chair and the Divisional member write to the Cabinet Member (Highways) on this issue.

The Local Committee (Waverley) agreed:

(i)    To note the committee approved allocations and works progressed during 2020/21

(ii)  To agree the recommendations made in this report for utilising the available highways budget for 2021/22.(Paragraph 2.1.8 - 2.1.16 refers.)

(iii)To agree to allocate the £500,000 parking surplus fund reserved for Farnham to the Farnham Board.

(iv)To delegate to the Area Highway Manager, in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Divisional Member, the ability to resolve any problems encountered, to facilitate scheme delivery throughout the year.

Woking Joint Committee:

(i)    Noted the applications determined by the Sub Group and its decisions to date.

(ii)   Agreed the Hook Heath CIL application for £15,000.

Reasons for decisions:

To keep the Joint Committee informed of the decisions of the Sub Group and the applications to date and to agree the one application that was above the limit of the group.

Item 4a – petition to 'review the traffic arrangements in Goldsworth Road at the junction with Poole Road, Woking, to prevent the access to McDonald’s drive-through restaurant causing access problems to homes and businesses. and gridlock to the traffic in that area at busy times.’

SCC Officers agreed to continue to review the situation and to work with the Borough and McDonalds to try to find alternative solutions.

The Joint Committee noted that:

(i)            Meetings were held prior to the reopening of the McDonald’s Drive-thru to discuss possible measures to minimise the impact of queuing traffic.

(ii)          No options could be identified for segregating McDonald’s traffic from traffic that was either passing along Goldworth Road or trying to access Morrison’s.

(iii)        Another meeting will be held to review the situation and identify any possible alternative routes to McDonald’s. 

(iv)        The cost of any traffic management measures should not be borne by Surrey County Council

Item 4b – petition to 'trial the reduction in speed limit to 20 mph in White Rose Lane, Mount Hermon Road, York Road and roads ancillary to those roads.'

Members discussed at length the issues of the area and how to gather residents views, noting that the introduction of speed limits or mitigation measures could impact negatively on surrounding roads, and the fact that there were similar issues in other parts of the Town.

Members also discussed that, subject to agreement by the Mount Hermon Borough and County Councillors, the Joint Committee could explore the possibility of using Neighbourhood Community InfrastructureLevy funds to design, consult upon and implement, if approved by consultation, speed restrictions (including a 20 mph zone) for Park Road and White Rose Lane.   

The Joint Committee were aware that this was contrary to the SCC speed limit policy, but did discuss whether an exception could be made, on the understanding that this did not set a precedent.

The Joint Committee noted that:

(i)            It would be impractical to trial a 20mph speed limit in a road, as opposed to permanently reducing the speed limit, because the amount of work required for assessment, advertising and implementation, as well as the associated cost, is similar in both instances.

(ii)          White Rose Lane, Mount Hermon Road and York Road are all included in the Woking speed management plan.  Speed surveys previously undertaken in both roads indicate a relatively good level of compliance with the speed limit but with speeds too high to permit a 20mph speed limit in accordance with Surrey County Council’s Speed Limit Policy.

(iii)        Residents’ concerns will be discussed with officers of the Speed Management Plan review group and new speed surveys will be requested to include Park Road.

(iv)         Vehicle speeds and road safety will continue to be monitored in White Rose Lane, Mount Hermon Road and York Road, as they are for all sites on the Woking speed management plan.

(v)          Petitions have previously been received for a 20mph speed limit along White Rose Lane in 2014 and 2017 and in both instances, the Woking Joint Committee agreed to take no further action.

However, the Joint Committee also agreed to:

Delegate to Officers to agree, in consultation with the Area Highways Manager, the way forward (including CIL bids for funds) in full consultation with Members.

The Woking Joint Committee agreed to:

i)              Note the progress with schemes and revenue funded works for the 2020/21 financial year.

ii)             Note the budgetary position.

iii)           Note that a further Highways Update will be brought to the next meeting of this Committee.

iv)           Agree the proposed capital works programme for 2020/21, shown in Table * and as agreed at the informal meeting of the Woking Joint Committee on 10 March 2021.

v)            Agree that authority is delegated to the Area Highways Manager to allocate the £100,000 capital maintenance budget to support the implementation of the capital maintenance programme for 2021/22.

vi)           Authorise the Area Highways Manager to undertake all necessary actions to deliver the capital works programme, consulting with the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Divisional Members where necessary.

Reasons for decisions

The decisions are made to enable progression of all highway related schemes and works.

This contract covers all the Council’s printing requirements from publicity and promotional material to corporate stationery and printed forms where required by the business. Apart from the corporate stationery and forms all the print requirements are bespoke material, one-offs and hugely varied in their requirements. Over the life of the previous contract the Council's print spend has being driven down through a combination of better buying through the contract and a move to digital communications, but there is still a need for printed material to communicate with residents.

The new contract is for an initial period of three (3) years and has two (2) optional two (2) year extensions.

A full OJEU procurement has been carried out and following the evaluation of the seven (7) responses received, the response from Corporate Document Services Ltd, scoring highest for both quality and price, has been identified as the most economically advantageous tender.

Decision made:

It was AGREED that:

1.           a Direct Award contract be formed with Capita ESS for an initial 3 year term with further extension option of 2 further years. This would be accessed via the KCS framework.

That the Local Committee (Epsom & Ewell) agreed:

(i)     That the County Council’s intention to make an order under the Road Traffic Regulation act 1984 be advertised and, if no objections are maintained, the order be made

(ii)     If objections are received Transport Development Planning is authorised to try and resolve them, in consultation with the Chairman / Vice Chairman of this committee and the county councillor for the division, and decides whether or not they should be acceded to and therefore whether the order should be made, with or without modifications.

Reasons:

It is recommended that the waiting restrictions in this report are progressed as they

will help to:

• maintain road safety

• maintain access for emergency vehicles

• maintain access to shops, facilities, and businesses

• maintain access for refuse vehicles, buses and service vehicles

• Reduce traffic congestion

• Better regulate parking

That the Local Committee (Epsom & Ewell) agree to:

(i)     Delegate authority to the Area Highway Manager in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Divisional Members to decide a programme of schemes for next Financial Year 2021-22 in which to invest the additional ITS funding;

(ii)   Authorise the Area Highway Manager, in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Divisional Member, to advertise a Traffic Regulation Order for a change to the parking provision outside St Joseph’s School in Rosebank, as detailed in section 2.2 of the report and Annex B, and to resolve any objections that may arise.

(iii)  Authorise the Area Highway Manager, in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Divisional Member, to advertise a change to the parking provision in College Road, as detailed in section 2.3 of the report and Annex C, residents in Longdown Lane North & South to be notified of the advertisement, and to resolve any objections that may arise.

(iv)  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:

A programme of schemes needs to be developed to invest Committee’s share of the new allocation for ITS schemes in the next Financial Year 2021-22.

Amendments to parking provision would be beneficial to improve visibility outside St Joseph’s School in Rosebank, and to prevent obstruction in College Road.

The Education and Lifelong Learning service and Finance service are responding to a consultation on changes to the formula which will be used to distribute the high needs block of the Dedicated Schools Grant to local authorities in 2022/23. This funding stream provides funding for education services to pupils with high levels of special educational needs and disabilities. The proposals centre on the way in which historic spend levels are used in the funding formula, but also seek views on any new indicators which might be used in the formula in future years to better reflect the level of need in individual local authority areas.

Decision made:

It was AGREED to submit the proposed attached response to the consultation outlined above.

Reasons for Decision:

The responses to the consultation will be submitted to Government so that it can be considered in relation to any future decision on the proposal.

To respond to the petition.

A petition of 5,288 signatories was submitted and presented by Hannah Dalton. 

The petition read:

“Currently the delivery of local council services in Surrey are via a two tier system split between Surrey County Council (SCC) and the 11 Borough and District Councils. The proposed Unitary business case would abolish the Borough and District councils and develop the County Council as a single council managing all services for Surrey’s 1.2 million residents resulting in: - A council where a Cabinet of 12 elected representatives or a single Mayor make decisions - Decision makers with scant knowledge of the local area, let alone any real concerns or interests in the impact of their decision making. The response of the 11 Borough and District Councils to the Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted how critical it is to have in place a local authority which has a strong relationship with the community it serves. If the Unitary business case is successful, at a time when our local authorities should be focused on economic recovery and supporting residents through recession, it will instead be engaged in implementing a radical restructuring of local government.”

Written Response of the Leader of the Council

As I have said previously and consistently, what is most important to me, beyond any structural change or governance, is our residents, their priorities and giving them more influence over their own communities. I want Surrey to be a uniquely special place where we address health inequalities and grow a sustainable economy from which everyone can benefit; that has a greener future and empowered communities and where no one is left behind.

Surrey County Council, working with its partners, has over the past year amply demonstrated a real and knowledgeable concern for and strong relationships with local communities and residents. Sitting as full Council, Cabinet and Scrutiny Committees, with Divisional Members and staff working tirelessly in people’s homes, neighbourhoods, villages, and towns, we have more than risen to the challenge for our 1.2m residents across the County. We will continue to do so as we move from tackling the pandemic to focusing on economic recovery and building back better. The Residents of Surrey want local government to deliver the best services they can and to keep council tax as low as possible, but the current two tier system can often cause confusion for residents who are unclear as to which authority is ultimately responsible.

Further to the Minister’s announcement on 3 July 2020 that there was to be a Devolution and Recovery White Paper in the Autumn, I wrote to the Government to set out our ambition for Surrey and our wish to engage with Government on the reforms needed to ensure its achievement.

As a consequence of not being invited by the Government to submit a business case for change and the urgent priority of tackling the pandemic in Surrey, I have made it crystal clear that Surrey County Council stopped all work on submitting a business case in October 2020.

The Leaders of the 11 District and Borough Councils in Surrey commissioned a report from KPMG which recognised that the current system of local government is not sustainable. As well as exploring unitarisation for Surrey, it identified a number of areas where authorities could deliver savings through greater collaboration. Indeed it has become very apparent during the current budget process that many District and Boroughs have insufficient funds to deliver their services and many are having to use reserves which cannot provide a long term solution.

The County Council has a strong track record in recent years of transforming and improving services and driving out efficiencies in service delivery and is ready to engage with any proposals from the District and Borough Councils that will deliver better and improved services to our residents and will potentially ultimately reduce their council tax.

Further comments by the Leader of the Council:

It was the Government’s decision not to progress with the Surrey County Council submission and unless the Government changes its position then no further work has been or will be undertaken by the Council on this issue.  If the Government does invite a business case, then there will be a full public consultation and it will be down to residents to decide if they want any change to the local government structure.

The position of the boroughs and districts is simple in that there needs to be better quality and lower costs services which may lead to a reduction in Council Tax. 

The Joint Committee (Guildford) AGREED:

(i)     to formally advertise Surrey County Council’s (SCC’s) intention to make an order for the proposals developed in respect to shown in ANNEXE 1 (8 locations)

(ii)   to formally advertise Surrey County Council’s (SCC’s) intention to make an order for the proposals prioritised by the P&AQWG and shown in ANNEXE 2, which include locations from the List of Requests that score 20 points or above (35 locations).

(iii)  that in respect to recommendations (i) and (ii), if no representations are received, the proposed controls be introduced, or if representations are received that these will be considered by the Parking Manager, in consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair, and respective ward and divisional members, and the way forward determined.

(iv)  in respect to the List of Requests shown in ANNEXE 3, remove all requests that score 5 points or less (66 locations), or which score between 6-10 and have remained on the list for more than 5 years without being progressed (potentially up to 114 locations).

(v)   to an appraisal by officers of the methodology associated with parking reviews in preparation for the next review with a view to improving the transparency of the process.

Reasons for recommendations:

To:

(i)    assist with safety, access and traffic movement,     

(ii)   increase the availability of parking space and its prioritisation for various user-groups in various localities,

(iii)   make local parking improvements.

The Guildford Joint Committee:

(i)    NOTED the committee approved allocations and works progressed during 2020/21

(ii)   AGREED the recommendations made in this report for utilising the available highways budget for 2021/22. (Paragraph 2.1.8 - 2.1.12 refers.)

(iii)  DELEGATED to the Area Highway Manager, in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Divisional Member, the ability to resolve any problems encountered, to facilitate scheme delivery throughout the year.

Reasons for recommendations:

The committee is asked to agree the recommendations to enable progression of works orders and expenditure of the Committee budget.

Land & Property Service is responding to Right to Regenerate: reform of the Right to Contest consultation:

This consultation is to help to shape a reform of the Right to Contest, in order to encourage the right to be utilised more effectively and more widely to stimulate regeneration and the more productive use of land.

Strand 2 of the Community Right to Contest allows members of the public to request that the government directs the disposal of unused or underused land, including vacant homes and garages, owned by public bodies. This right is little-known and little-used, with only one direction to dispose issued since 2014.

The aim of this consultation is to strengthen the right and make it simpler to use as the new ‘Right to Regenerate’.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/right-to-regenerate-reform-of-the-right-to-contest

Decision made:

It was AGREED to submit the proposed attached response to the consultation outlined above.

Reasons for Decision:

The responses to the consultation will be submitted to Government so that it can be considered in relation to any future decision on the proposal.