Decisions

The existing school accommodation at the St Matthews CofE Primary School does not enable the provision of a full statutory educational offer that meets the educational needs of Surrey’s most vulnerable learners; therefore, a new block is required. The school is forecast to accommodate an additional 13 primary aged SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) pupils. The places are planned to be phased in over a period of 3-4 years commencing in September 2023. 

This project therefore will involve the design and construction of a new building adjacent the main school which will provide high quality modern accommodation facilitating the best learning environment for the new cohort of 13 SEND pupils.

Following a compliant tender exercise, it is proposed to award the contract to TG Escapes Ltd. The Contract value is £1,180,500.

It was AGREED that:

Approval to procure a Contract for Surrey County Council English National Concessionary Travel Scheme was granted as part of the Annual Procurement Forward Plan by Cabinet on 21st December 2021 Min ref: 243/21 – Authority was delegated to the Executive Director of Environment, Transport & Infrastructure.

The Home Office are seeking views on the Firefighters’ Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2023. The consultation document sets out the background to the changes needed to enact the second phase of the remedy in the McCloud/Sargeant cases.

A response will be submitted by Surrey Fire and Rescue Service.

To submit Surrey Fire and Rescue Service’s response to the government’s consultation on the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme retrospective remedy.

Speakers:

Lloyd Whitworth, Head of Investment & Stewardship

Anthony Fletcher – Independent Advisor, MJ Hudson

Milo Kerr – Border to Coast

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Head of Investment & Stewardship explained that the fund had 10.8% in the multi asset credit fund of Border to Coast and 2.4% in gilts at the current time, both underweight target asset allocations.  Therefore, a recommendation was being made that those weightings and the nature of the investments should be reviewed.

2.    The Independent Advisor gave a detailed precis of the submitted report which included:-

• That he was not satisfied with the report from BCPP and gave a detailed explanation why. 
• Only two of the managers had outperformed over 12 months and those were the high yield manager and the emerging debt hard currency manager.  All the other managers underperformed. 
• It was still too early to compare the performance of BCPP to the “cash plus benchmark” but he thought it was perfectly reasonable to expect the managers they had selected to have outperformed.
• He pointed out a few areas of the BCPP presentation that were lacking in detail and analysis.

3.    BCPP responded to the comments made:-

• They were mindful that, in this instance, they didn't appropriately present the latest positioning of the fund and how they had made decisions.

• The new CIO had joined in January and had a priority to evolve the presentation performance and the level of transparency to investors. The importance of providing the right information and transparency to allow an assessment of strategy was understood.

Actions/ further information to be provided:

None.

Resolved:

1.    That the Fund’s credit market holdings, respective funds’ investment performance, and review by the Fund’s independent investment adviser be noted.

2.    That officers, investment consultant and investment advisor be approved to review the Fund’s weighting to credit markets and the nature of those investments.

The Committee took a comfort break at 14.25pm and reconvened at 14.35pm.

George Potter returned to the table.