Decisions

RESOLVED:

1.    That approval to Procure for the projects listed in Annex 1 – “Annual Procurement Forward Plan for 2020/21” in accordance with the Council’s Procurement and Contract Standing Orders was approved.

2.    That where the first ranked tender for any projects listed in Annex 1 is within the +/-5% budgetary tolerance level, the relevant Executive Director, Director or Head of Service (as appropriate) is authorised to award such contracts was agreed.

3.    That the procurement activity that will be returned to Cabinet for review of the commissioning and procurement strategy prior to going out to market, and which is highlighted in grey in Annex 1 was agreed.

Reasons for decision:

To comply with the Procurement and Contract Standing Orders agreed by Council in May 2019.

To provide Cabinet with strategic oversight of planned procurement projects for 2020/21.

To ensure Cabinet oversight is focussed on the most significant procurements.

To avoid the need to submit multiple individual requests for Approval to Procure as well as individual contract award approvals for work taking place in 2020/21.

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

To consider whether the item considered under Part 2 of the agenda should be made available to the Press and public.

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 two delegated decisions taken by the Committees-in-Common since the last meeting of the Cabinet be noted.

Reason for decision:

To inform the Cabinet of decisions taken by Cabinet Members, Strategic Investment Board and the Committee in Common subcommittee under delegated authority.

One report was received from Resources & Performance Committee in relation to Item 7 on the agenda.  This and the Cabinet response is attached as an annex.

There was one question from Mr Will Forster.  This and the response were published as a supplement to the agenda.

There were none.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 17 December 2019 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

An apology was received from Mrs Natalie Bramhall.

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

RESOLVED:

1.    That the amended capital budget of £122.1m which includes additional works in Epsom Town Centre funded by Epsom & Ewell Borough Council (£1.1m); be noted and approved.

2.    That the Council’s forecast revenue and capital budget positions for the year be noted.

Reason for decision

This report is 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 and Performance Select Committee]

This report sets out the financial context for the Council and the draft Revenue and Capital budgets for the 2020/21 financial year and indicative budgets for the period 2021 to 2025.

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet makes the following recommendations to Council on 4 February 2020. 

Cabinet recommends that Council:

1. Approve the net revenue budget requirement be set at £968.4 million (net cost of services after service specific government grants) for 2020/21 (Annex B to the submitted report), subject to confirmation of the Final Local Government Financial Settlement;
2. Approve the total Council Tax funding requirement be set at £765.3 million for 2020/21.  This is an increase of 3.99%, made up of an increase in the level of core Council Tax of 1.99% to cover core Council services and an increase of 2% in the precept proposed by Central Government to cover the growing cost of Adult Social Care (Annex E to the submitted report);
3. Note that for the purpose of section 52ZB of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, the Council formally determines that the increase in Council Tax is not such as to trigger a referendum (i.e. not greater than 2%);
4. Set the Surrey County Council precept for Band D Council Tax at £1,511.46, which represents a 3.99% uplift. This is a rise of £1.11 a week from the 2019/20 precept of £1,453.50. This includes £131.46 for the Adult Social Care precept, which has increased by £29.07. A full list of bands is as follows:

5. Approve the Flexible Use of Capital Receipts Strategy for 2020/21 to meet the statutory guidelines for the use of such receipts to fund transformation and the move back into the County (Annex F to the submitted report);
6. Note that underlying General Fund Balances remain at £21.3 million as at 1 April 2020;
7. Approve the Total Schools Budget of £505.7 million to meet the Council’s statutory requirement on schools funding;
8. Approve the overall indicative Budget Envelopes for Executive Directorates and individual services for the 2020/21 budget (Annex B to the submitted report);
9. Approve the total £1.447 billion proposed five-year Capital Programme (comprising £851m of budget and £596m pipeline) and approves the £175.7 million capital budget in 2020/21 (Annex C to the submitted report);

10. Approve the Capital Strategy (Annex G to the submitted report), which provides an overview of how risks associated with capital expenditure, financing and treasury will be managed as well as how they contribute towards the delivery of services;
11. Approve the policy for making a prudent level of revenue provision for the repayment of debt (the Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) Policy) (Annex H to the submitted report); and
12. Approve the Investment Strategy (Annex I to the submitted report), which provides detail on how the Council will manage commercial investments;

Cabinet recommends that the Audit & Governance Committee:

13.  Approve the Treasury Management Strategy and Prudential Indicators (Annex J to the submitted report) which set a framework for the Council’s treasury function to manage risks, source borrowing and invest surplus cash.

Reasons for decision:

Council will meet on 4 February 2020 to agree a budget and to set the Council Tax Precept for 2020/21. Cabinet is required to recommend a budget to Council for consideration at this meeting. The budget directs available resources to support the achievement of the Council’s ambitions and priorities in the 2030 Vision and the Organisation Strategy.

The budget will also support the delivery of the continuing transformational changes that are required to ensure that the Council can improve priority outcomes for residents, while managing growing demand for services and ensuring future financial sustainability.

To agree changes to the way in which mental health commissioning and operational services will be delivered by Adult Social Care. To support the plans for future working with partners, providers and stakeholders and establishment of a clear professional identity for Mental Health Social Work.

RESOLVED:

That the priorities and work programme for phase 2 of the Mental Health Programme Review be approved.

Reason for decision:

Meeting our requirements under the Care Act and delivering the transformation programme for Mental Health requires significant work to reshape commissioning and operational practice as the service has not established a clear professional identity within the previous arrangements. This needs to be managed whilst also undertaking and embedding the organisational development required so that ASC Mental Health can be viewed as a key partner and contributor to the fast developing landscape of Health and social care. The phase 2 programme will enable us to achieve this.

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

Cabinet to note the progress made delivering the Improvement Plan, the results / feedback from recent Ofsted Monitoring Visits and inspections from the Children’s Commissioner (and his resulting recommendations to the Department for Education), the forward plan for improvement priorities for 2020 and the expected inspections this year.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the progress made delivering the Children’s Improvement programme and the findings from the recent Children’s Commissioner Visit and the fourth Ofsted Monitoring Visit be noted.

2.    That the on-going scrutiny arrangements of the improvement programme for the next 6-12 months as described in paragraphs 16-24 of the submitted report be reviewed and agreed.

3.       That Cabinet would review progress in May 2020 on the delivery of the Children’s improvement programme and the findings from the April 2020 Ofsted Monitoring Visit be agreed.

Reason for decision:

The next Ofsted Monitoring Visit will take place on 7 and 8 April 2020 with publication of the inspector’s findings in late-April 2020. At this point the service is expected to have greater certainty on whether the Surrey’s children’s services will be ready for a full re-inspection from Ofsted this year.

As outlined in the main section of the report, the improvement programme is progressing well with Surrey’s children’s services successfully delivering the actions from the improvement plan to address Ofsted recommendations from the 2018 full inspection. There are comprehensive scrutiny arrangements already in place for 2020 with involvement from council officers, Members, partner agencies, the Department for Education and other key stakeholders.

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

Following Cabinet’s agreement of the new Organisation Strategy 2020-25 and the direction agreed for the next phase of Transformation (Cabinet, 29/10/19), this report sets out the refreshed set of transformation portfolios and programmes that will be delivered to achieve the council’s strategic ambitions and priorities.   Cabinet will be recommended to approve the proposed Transformation Programme.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the council’s refreshed transformation programme be agreed.

2.    That the investment required to deliver improved outcomes and financial benefits through transformation will be considered as part of the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) report to Cabinet (28/01/20) and Council (04/02/20) be noted. 

Reason for decision:

The transformation programme, stretching across all aspects of the council’s work, will help to ensure we are enabling better lives and a better place, improving the quality of residents’ lives and reducing the inequality in life expectancy that exists across the county. It will enable the council to respond proactively and effectively to the complex and rapidly changing context we are working in. The programme will also make a significant contribution to achieving the financial sustainability required so that the council can deliver priorities for residents within available resources.

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

To consider the responses to the consultation on proposed changes to Surrey’s admissions arrangements for community and voluntary controlled schools and coordinated schemes for September 2021 and to determine Surrey’s admissions arrangements and coordinated schemes for 2021.

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet make the following recommendations to the Council on 4 February 2020.

Recommendation 1

That priority is introduced for children of staff for September 2021.

Reasons for decision

·         there was overwhelming support for this proposal

·         it will help community and voluntary controlled schools with staff recruitment and retention

·         it is permitted under the School Admissions Code

·         the definition of children of staff is compliant with the Code

·         it will put community and voluntary controlled schools on an equal footing with those academies, foundation, free, trust and voluntary aided schools which already give priority for children of staff

Recommendation 2

That the Published Admission Number (PAN) for Reception at Worplesdon Primary School is decreased from 60 to 57 for September 2021.

Reasons for decision

·         It will enable children admitted to the Special Education Needs & Disabilities (SEND) specialist centre to be educated in the mainstream class more than 50% of the time

·         It will reduce the likelihood of the school having to take qualifying measures to meet infant class size legislation

·         It is supported by the Headteacher and Governing Body of the school

·         There will still be sufficient places for local children if the PAN is decreased

·         It will have no impact on children who are currently on roll at the school 

Recommendation 3

That no changes are made to the assessment of nearest school for 2021 admission.

Reasons for decision

·         It will allow time for a wider review of the use and definition of nearest school ahead of consultation for 2022 admission

·         It will enable parents to have some historical benchmark by which to make informed decisions about their school preferences for 2021 admission

Recommendation 4

That the Published Admission Numbers (PANs) for September 2021 for all other community and voluntary controlled schools (excluding Worplesdon Primary School which is covered by Recommendation 2) are determined as they are set out in Appendix 1 of Enclosure 1.

Reasons for decision

·         Most other PANs remain as they were determined for 2020 which enables parents to have some historical benchmark by which to make informed decisions about their school preferences for 2021 admission

·         The PAN for Ash Manor School has been increased from 210 to 240 as part of a planned expansion

·         The School Commissioning team supports the PANs

Recommendation 5

That the aspects of Surrey’s admission arrangements for community and voluntary controlled schools for September 2021 for which no change has been consulted on, are agreed as set out in Enclosure 1 and its appendices.

Reasons for decision

·         The existing arrangements are working well

·         This will ensure stability and consistency for the majority of Surrey’s parents, pupils and schools

·         The arrangements enable parents to have some historical benchmark by which to make informed decisions about their school preferences

·         The arrangements enable the majority of pupils to attend their nearest schools and in doing so reduce travel and support Surrey’s sustainability policies

·         The changes highlighted in bold in sections 14 and 15 of Enclosure 1, which have not otherwise been referenced in this report, have been made in response to determinations by the Schools Adjudicator

Recommendation 6

That the primary and secondary coordinated admission schemes that will apply to all schools for 2021 are agreed as set out in Enclosure 2. 

Reasons for decision

·         The coordinated schemes for 2021 are essentially the same as 2020 with dates updated

·         The coordinated schemes will enable the County Council to meet its statutory duties regarding school admissions

·         The coordinated schemes are working well

To approve changes to on street parking policies as well as fees and charges for on street parking enforcement services carried out by district and borough councils.

RESOLVED:

Cabinet agreed that:

1.    That Local and Joint Committees should consider, as part of the parking review process, the introduction of on-street parking charges where appropriate to help improve access to retail areas or other facilities be agreed.

2.    That where there is no parking surplus or other funding source to contribute towards a parking review, proposals in the review will be limited to dealing with road safety and obstruction problems rather than parking schemes be agreed.

3.    That the council’s intention be advertised, in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 be agreed  to make the following changes to on street parking permits:

            a.        Amend the charge for the first resident permit issued to a household from £50 to £80.

            b.        Amend the charge for 2nd and subsequent resident permits issued to a household from £75 currently to:

·         2nd permit charge £100

·         3rd and subsequent permit charge £130

            c.        The maximum charge for visitor permits can be set at £3 per day where it is considered appropriate by local or joint committees. (Note: the £2 daily charge remains the default)

            d.        We introduce a 2 hour visitor permit, to be available in all permit schemes, costing £1 (see recommendation e. for annual eligibility limits)

            e.        Greater discretion is given to district and borough enforcement teams (and local/joint committees) to set annual visitor permit limits as particular circumstances allow. The maximum however should be set at 150 for daily permits or 250 for 2 hour permits per household per year.

             f.        Carers permits (as described in annex 1) will be issued for free (currently £10 per year, permits for medical and care professionals remain free)

            g.        There is no change to our current policy of assessing and providing disabled bays free of charge.

            h.        We introduce a child care permit (as described in annex 1) at the same rate as a resident permit, the charge dependent on how many resident permits had been issued to the property.

              i.        The statutory notice includes the intention of the council to increase the charge for annual resident parking permits by £4 every 2 years for 6 years.

4.         That following the statutory advertisement of changes described above, the decision to implement the changes be delegated to the Head of Highways & Transport in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Highways.

5.         That paper permits be phased out by 2021 with a shift to ‘virtual permits’ to reduce waste and improve convenience be agreed.

6.         That new residential developments built within the boundaries of existing permit parking schemes (or CPZ’s) should not automatically qualify for resident permits be agreed and eligibility be determined by a local/joint committee in a parking review or by the Cabinet Member for Highways.

7.         That the following changes to charges made for suspensions and waivers be introduced from April 2020:

a.      The initial charge for a suspension (valid for up to 3 days) be changed from £65 to £75

b.      The charge for each additional day that the suspension is in force be changed from £10 to £12

c.      The initial charge for a parking waiver (valid for up to 3 days) be changed from £15 to £25

d.      The charge for each additional day that a parking waiver is granted be changed from £5 to £6.

8.         That a persistent evader policy is developed and trialled with district and borough enforcement teams that will entail immobilisation or removal of persistent evader vehicles (those whose owners evade payment of parking fines) and that the approval of the final policy is delegated to the Cabinet Member for Highways be agreed.

9.         That from April 2020 a charge of £50 be introduced to assess an application for a new Access Protection Marking (APM) or the extension of an existing one and a charge of £120 to provide a new APM (if the application is successful), or to refresh or extend an existing one be agreed.

10.      That red routes be used in appropriate locations (following national guidance) and enforced by camera if needed to improve flow of traffic be agreed.

11.      That Cameras be used on a trial basis to enforce certain restrictions such as school keep clears to improve safety outside schools. A policy on future use of camera enforcement of parking and other restrictions will be developed and approval sought by the Cabinet Member for Highways in due course.

Reason for decision:

The Surrey County Council (on street) Parking Strategy was adopted in 2011 and sets out our policies about on-street parking regulation and enforcement. It has evolved and developed in the years since and it is now time for a more comprehensive update to ensure it is in alignment with the Community vision 2030 and changes in national legislation. The relevant ambitions of our 2030 vision are outlined below.

Residents live in clean, safe and green communities where people and organisations embrace their environmental responsibilities. The proposals in this report include changes to resident permits that will encourage the use of off street parking thus freeing up road space. Setting increasing charges for multiple permit applications could encourage fewer multi permit applications from a single household (although allowing for this eventuality). Other proposals include ways of improving safety outside schools with camera enforcement of school keep clears and reducing antisocial pavement parking.

On street Electric Vehicle (EV) charging trials are also planned to commence in 2020 in parts of the county to evaluate how this evolving technology might be made more widely available and so encourage the use of electric vehicles.

Businesses in Surrey thrive. Regular parking reviews help keep pace with changes to the wider built environment and the introduction of improved limited waiting facilities near shops and businesses will improve access to them for customers and deliveries.

Journeys across the county are easier, more predictable and safer. Regular parking reviews can keep on top of obstructive parking issues and new powers to introduce red routes and camera enforcement can help improve traffic flow and safety. We will lobby the government to bring in legislation to make ‘footway obstruction’ a civil offence that can be enforced under CPE.

By 2030 we want Surrey to be a uniquely special place where everyone has a great start to life, people live healthy and fulfilling lives, are able to achieve their full potential and contribute to their community and no one is left behind. The provision of free disabled parking bays, medical permits and, carers permits will help improve the mobility of disabled residents as well as access to more vulnerable residents who are in need of care by medical staff or relatives. More flexible visitor permit arrangements will improve access arrangements for some residents.

This policy update also looks at the range of charges we or our enforcement agents make for various parking services in light of the Fees and Charges Policy adopted by Cabinet on the 18 December 2018.  A key principal of this is that users of discretionary services are expected to pay for the full cost of the service being received rather than it being supplemented/paid for by the general tax payer.

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

Declarations of Interest:      None

Officers attending:  David Curl, SCC Parking Manager, Ian Reynolds, WBC Parking Manager, & Geoff McManus, WBC Assistant Director

Petitions, Public Questions, Statements:  None

The Joint Committee discussed the report in detail.  It was noted that the report did ask for Bank Holiday parking charges to be considered throughout the Borough, but Members asked that this be restricted to Zone 1 only. 

Members also discussed bringing the car parks in line with the off street parking areas and commencing evening charges at 6pm and this will be considered later in the year once the new technology allows and in the knowledge any final decision on this matter would be for the Executive of Woking Borough Council.

The Joint Committee (Woking) agreed that:

(i)            the proposed changes to parking controls in and around Zone 1, as amended following a statutory consultation (described in Section 2 & 3) are implemented and the traffic order amendment made. – with Bank Holiday charging only applying to Zone 1.

(ii)           authority to introduce parking restrictions in The Grove, Ferndale and Horsell Moor (subject to public consultation) is delegated to the Parking Strategy and Implementation Team Manager in consultation with the WBC Assistant Director for Place, the chairman/vice  chairman of this committee and the local county councillor.

(iii)          the Joint Committee allocates funding from the 18/19 on street parking surplus as detailed in paragraph 5.1 of this report to proceed with the introduction of the parking amendments,

(iv)         An amendment is included in the parking traffic orders to allow the use of ‘virtual resident and visitor permits’ in all the Woking controlled parking zones.

(v)            A mobile phone payment system for parking is introduced in the Woking CPZ (the existing payment methods, voucher and meter will remain)

Reasons for Recommendations

The changes to parking restrictions recommended above will:

• Increase turnover in the on street limited waiting bays in the evenings improving access to local businesses.

• Reduce obstructive parking on the single yellow lines in the town centre to maintain an effective traffic management regime. This will also help keep the footway clear in some locations improving access and safety for pedestrians.

• Protect the residential areas of The Grove and Ferndale from displacement parking in the event this is needed and encourage visitors to use the town centre car parks in the evening where there is ample capacity. It is simpler to go straight to a car park rather than driving around town looking for a parking space which in itself adds to congestion and pollution.

• Help improve the street-scene in the Church Street East area

• Allow effective bank holiday parking enforcement

• Provide more choice for visitors about how to pay for parking

Declarations of Interest:      None

Officers attending:  Andrew Milne, Area Highways Manager, SCC

Petitions, Public Questions, Statements:  None

The Integrated Transport Scheme (its) work programme for Woking includes an assessment of the speed limit on A320 Egley Road, B380 Guildford Road and lengths of B380 Mayford Green and Westfield Road, Mayford.

These roads are currently subject to a 40mph speed limit. The speed limit on Egley Road has been reviewed before, since which time the Hoe Valley School has been opened. An undertaking was given to review the speed limit again once the school had opened and this assessment included the B380 Guildford Road plus the short lengths of B380 Mayford Green and Westfield Road that are also subject to a 40mph and which could be seen as anomalous if they were not included.

The assessment suggests that a reduction of the speed limit to 30mph would generally be appropriate, with one section of the road requiring additional measures to help encourage lower speeds.

The Joint Committee (Woking) agree that:

(i)     The speed limit on A320 Egley Road from a point approximately 20m south of Turnoak Roundabout to a point approximately 110m south of Mayford Roundabout should be reduced from 40mph to 30mph.

(ii)    The speed limit on B380 Guildford Road, between its junctions with Westfield Road and the Mayford Roundabout, and on the B380 Westfield Road, between its junction with Guildford Road and the existing speed limit terminal signs approximately 60m north-eastwards from that junction, should be reduced from 40mph to 30mph.

(iii)   The speed limit on B380 Mayford Green between the Mayford Roundabout and the existing speed limit terminal signs approximately 60m north-west of the roundabout, should be reduced from 40mph to 30mph.

(iv)   The speed limit change should be advertised in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the effect of which will be to implement the proposed change and revoke any existing traffic orders, as necessary;

(v)    The Area Highways Manager in consultation with the Chairman of the Woking Joint Committee and the relevant Divisional Member resolve any objections received in connection with this proposal.

Reason for Decision:

Recommendations have been made taking into account the existing vehicle speeds, the guidance within Surrey County Council’s Speed Limit Policy and extensive discussions with Surrey Police’s Road Safety and Traffic Management Team.

The Mole Valley Local Committee agreed to:

iii) Reject both options 1 & 2 put forward in the report.

Reason for decision

The above decision was made because the Local Committee felt neither option was a solution or was what the residents wanted. Neither option would achieve what Transform Leatherhead was trying to.

The Mole Valley Local Committee agreed:

i)              That the county council’s intention to introduce the proposals in Annex 1 with a few minor additions is formally advertised, and subject to statutory consultation;

ii)             That if no objections are received when the proposals are advertised, the appropriate traffic regulation orders are made;

iii)            That if objections are received which cannot be resolved, in accordance with the county council’s scheme of delegation, the Parking Strategy and Implementation Team Manager considers 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.

Reason for decisions:

The above decisions were made as it is expected that the implementation of the proposals will both increase the safe passage of vehicles and also ease the parking situation within mainly residential areas.

The Mole Valley Local Committee agreed to:

General

i)          Note that the Local Committee’s devolved highways budget for capital works in 2020/21, subject to approval by full Council, £240,400.

ii)         Agree that the devolved capital budget for highway works be used to progress both capital improvement schemes and capital maintenance schemes.

iii)        Note that should there be any changes to the programme of highway works as set out in this report, a report will be taken to a future meeting of Mole Valley Local Committee to inform members of the changes.

Capital Improvement Schemes (ITS)

iv)        Agree that the capital improvement schemes allocation for Mole Valley be used to progress the Integrated Transport Schemes programme set out in Annex 1;

v)         Authorise that the Area Highway Manager, in consultation with the Local Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman, be able to vire money between the schemes agreed in Annex 1, if required;

vi)        Agree that the Local Committee Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Area Team Manager, together with the local divisional Member are able to progress any scheme from the Integrated Transport Schemes programme, including consultation and statutory advertisement that may be required under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, for completion of those schemes. Where it is agreed that a scheme will not be progressed, this will be reported back to the next formal meeting of the Local Committee for approval.

Capital Maintenance Schemes (LSR)

vii)       Agree that the capital maintenance schemes allocation for Mole Valley be divided equitably between County Councillors to carry out capital maintenance works in their divisions, and that the schemes to be progressed be identified by divisional members in consultation with the Area Maintenance Engineer.

Revenue Maintenance – Member Local Highways Fund

viii)      Note that members will continue to receive a Member Local Highways Fund allocation of £7,500 per county member to address highway issues in their division; and

ix)        Agree that the Member Local Highways Fund be managed by the Area Maintenance Engineer on behalf of and in consultation with members.

Reason for decisions:

The above decision were made in order to agree a forward programme of highways works in Mole Valley for 2020/21 – 2021/22, funded from the Local Committee’s devolved budget.

The Surrey County Council Commissioning Sub-Committee:

1. Gave approval to procure for the projects listed in Annex 1 – “Annual Procurement Forward Plan for 2020/21” in accordance with Surrey County Council’s Procurement and Contract Standing Orders.

2. Agreed that where the first ranked tender for any projects listed in Annex 1 is within the +/-5% budgetary tolerance level, the relevant Executive Director, Director or Head of Service (as appropriate) is authorised to award such contracts. For contracts over £1million the SCC Commissioning Sub-Committee delegates authorisation to approve the award of contract to the relevant SCC Cabinet Portfolio holder, in alignment with the Procurement and Contract Standing Orders.

3. Agreed the procurement activity that will be returned to Committee in Common for review of the commissioning and procurement strategy prior to going out to market, and which is highlighted in grey in Annex 1.

Witnesses:

Ryan Bird, ePCR Operations Manager, SECAmb

Peter Carvalho, Senior Contracts Manager (Ambulance Contracts & IUC), Surrey Heartlands

Bethan Eaton Haskins, Executive Director of Quality & Nursing, SECAmb

Kate Scribbins, Chief Executive, Healthwatch Surrey

Nick Markwick, Co-Chair, Surrey Coalition of Disabled People

Key points raised during the discussion:

1. The Executive Director of Quality and Nursing gave a summary of the report, including the following points.
   1. The report looked at performance, executive development and future plans. Despite advances having been made, the service still required radical improvement. SECAmb examined its own performance from a quality perspective, not a financial perspective.
   2. The incoming HR director of SECAmb could be announced as Ali Mohammed. Details of new executive leadership, including the new Chief Executive, were covered in the report.
   3. SECAmb’s top priority was sustaining and improving response times.
   4. SECAmb received an outstanding rating in the caring category, which was a good morale boost for staff. They also received an outstanding rating in the well-led category.
   5. For category 1 and 2 calls (the most urgent), the service was close to or exceeding targets. However, SECAmb remained challenged with regard to category 3 and 4 calls, due to the lower priority level.
   6. There were struggles in recruiting paramedics, which might worsen when paramedics started working in primary care, as this would make the job offer less attractive to some.
   7. Hospital handover delays were also an area of concern. There needed to be system-wide change to tackle this.
   8. Ofsted found two out of the three areas inspected in the clinical education department less than satisfactory. Members were assured that education programmes were still being run, but were no longer allowed to be called apprenticeships. An independent review of this had been commissioned.
   9. Whatever the outcome of Brexit, mutual aid had been agreed upon in order to mitigate potential negative impacts.
2. A Member asked for more information on performance issues in rural populations. The Executive Director explained that there was a strategy to ensure that essential framework remained in place in rural areas. The ePCR Operations Manager added that rural areas were mainly where category 3 and 4 delays were seen. The Senior Contracts Manager (Ambulance Contracts & IUC) remarked that collaborative work was being done with regard to system resilience and accessing local care pathways that could not currently be accessed.
3. A Member requested clarification regarding SECAmb’s acquisition of the NHS 111 contract. The Executive Director answered that the commissioning for the 111 and 999 services were separate, and that currently SECAmb ran the 999 contract but until now had not run the 111 service. Qualified healthcare professionals would handle 111 calls where necessary.
4. Members emphasised the importance of SECAmb staff having special training regarding mental health and learning disabilities. For example, explaining the situation to patients with autism was essential for alleviating anxieties that could be more likely for autistic patients. The Executive Director explained that there were mental health clinicians in the assessment centres and this had had a significant impact on improving outcomes. Members suggested that mental health-friendly ways of working be put in place as a default for all patients.
5. A Member enquired whether the eight posts that formed part of the operational restructure were new posts or just existing posts with the name changed. The Executive Director responded that some were new posts, such as the Deputy Director of Operations, but the majority were not and were rather just slightly different from before.
6. A Member asked how paramedics dealt with delays at hospitals, and whether hospitals with the longest waiting times were reported. The ePCR Operations Manager stated that delays within a targeted area were not currently examined; however, paramedics did send out messages to other paramedics about alternative pathways available if delays were being encountered.
7. A Member enquired if there were some hospitals that were generally worse in terms of delays. The ePCR Operations Manager replied that this was the case. Ashford and St Peter’s Hospital had made marked improvements recently.
8. A Member expressed concern about the reasons for handover delays. The Executive Director informed members that there had been a national project about particularly challenged services, and that steps had been taken to reduce delays, such as pathways having been changed.
9. The ePCR Operations Manager observed that paramedics ‘on the ground’ were sometimes frustrated about access to pathways and having to go to A&E rather than doing a direct referment, due to lack of capacity in the system.
10. A Member enquired if councillors could attend A&E to observe handover delays and discover what problems were causing handover delays. It was agreed that this would be helpful.
11. The Co-Chair of the Coalition asked how cases were categorised and remarked that a resident might have been injured for a number of hours before they made the phone call and this should be taken into account. The Executive Director responded that a triage (priority assessment) tool was used, and was very strict and there was absolutely no deviation from it. It was being ensured that trained clinicians would be available to provide advice over the phone, and where patients had to wait for some time for an ambulance welfare calls were conducted every 30 minutes to check on the patient’s condition. If the patient’s condition had worsened, the category might be changed accordingly. Moreover, the Executive Director confirmed that the waiting time pre-call was taken into account.
12. The Co-Chair of the Coalition asked how the system and response times were being improved in the long term. The Executive Director responded that the two most important factors in this were increased staff and an increased fleet of ambulance vehicles.
13. The Chief Executive of Healthwatch Surrey requested more information about the patient engagement strategy. The Executive Director replied that historically SECAmb had been poor at patient engagement but that SECAmb had scrapped their old strategy and started a new piece of work in which Healthwatch had been heavily involved.
14. A Member asked what SECAmb’s strategic planning was for the long term. The Executive Director responded that in 2019 SECAmb had started an initiative to determine strategic direction, including staff consultation. The next step was to initiate wider consultation; the findings would be published in the next calendar year.
15. A Member asked if waiting times at A&E were measured starting from when the ambulance arrived at the hospital, or when the patient entered the hospital itself. Members were informed that the latter was the case, which could be problematic because patients could be waiting in an ambulance for some time without it being taken into account.
16. A Member requested statistics and more information on abandoned and hoax calls, and asked how the Select Committee could help with reducing these issues. The Executive Director informed the Select Committee that there was a plan and a process around these. The ePCR Operations Manager added that locating some frequent callers was challenging because they often were of no fixed abode.
17. A Member queried what went wrong with clinical education in SECAmb, and what plans were being put in place to address the immediate issues with clinical education. The Executive Director replied that there was now a robust plan for improvement, and a review was being conducted to understand what had gone wrong.
18. A Member commented that issues with staffing in CCGs and with regard to paramedics would affect SECAmb’s staffing issues, and emphasised the importance of working with CCGs to improve recruitment for all parties.

Recommendations:

The Select Committee:

Actions/further information required:

1.    For SECAmb to provide details on the potential impact on the service of halving the number of wasted hours;

2.    For SECAmb to provide statistics regarding abandoned and hoax calls, and frequent callers.