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.

It was AGREED that:

 

SCC will spend its Contain Outbreak Management Fund grant as per the recommendations set out above.

 

It was agreed in the delegated decision report “Use of Local Authority Framework/ Practical Support for those Self isolating grant funding” 26th July 2021, that SCC would make the full value Practical Support grant available to Surrey’s 11 District & Borough (D&Bs) Councils subject to D&Bs confirming the value of funding required and the actual amount spent to support people self-isolating in their local areas within the terms of grant conditions, and this delegated decision confirms that in the first instance D&Bs will continue to be offered funding up to March 2022, and any carry forward of grant into 2022/23.

 

SCC will initially reimburse each D&B for the value of actual eligible expenditure they report to SCC as spent in the period 1^st March 2021 – 30^th June 2021.  SCC will ask D&Bs to then submit a budget plan for the period 1^st July 2021 – 31^st March 2022 and will reimburse each D&B for actual eligible expenditure

reported to SCC as spent against the submitted budget plan on a quarterly basis within this period. SCC will not make any reimbursements to D&Bs unless they provide an actual expenditure return.

 

If applications for funding received from D&Bs exceed the total value of grant funding remaining after initial reimbursements for the period 1^st March 2021 – 30^th June 2021, then the budget plans submitted for the period 1^st July 2021 – 31^st March 2022 will be adjusted based on each D&B’s population weighted by the Index of Multiple Deprivation for each local authority area to ensure each D&B receives an equitable allocation of grant funding.

 

Currently the initial £830,856 received has not been fully spent due to low numbers of self-isolating residents coming forward for support and the very specific grant conditions, and it is unlikely D&Bs will need much, if any, of the additional grant received per month since July, based on latest information provided to SCC.

 

SCC will consider if any funding not spent by D&Bs could be used for alternative purposes to meet qualifying SCC costs within the terms of the grant and then return any unspent funding at 2021/22 year end to DHSC.

 

The decision is to approve final hourly funding rates paid in 2022/23 to providers of the funded early entitlement for two, three and four year olds under the early years funding formula. These rates must be notified to providers by 31 March 2022.  These hourly rates could not be agreed at the date of the Cabinet report because at that point insufficient data on take up of the funded early entitlement was available to determine affordability

 

Decision made:

 

It was AGREED that the proposed formula funding rates should be approved for submission to DfE, in line with the DfE’s national funding formula (there are small  local variations in lump sum and basic entitlement rates, in order to protect small schools, and a 3.87% ceiling on per pupil gains to ensure affordability).

 

Reasons for Decision:

 

To comply with legislation. The proposed funding rates are consistent with the recommendations of Cabinet and of the Schools Forum on 7 October 2021 and 14 January 2022 and will assist in the smooth transition to NFF for Surrey schools.

 

Decision made:

 

It was AGREED that the proposed formula funding rates should be approved for submission to DfE, in line with the DfE’s national funding formula (there are small  local variations in lump sum and basic entitlement rates, in order to protect small schools, and a 3.90% ceiling on per pupil gains to ensure affordability). The 3.90% ceiling is the only change from the decision of 21 January 2022.

           

 

Reasons for Decision:

 

To comply with legislation. The proposed funding rates are consistent with the recommendations of Cabinet and of the Schools Forum on 7 October 2021 and 14 January 2022 and will assist in the smooth transition to NFF for Surrey schools.

Surrey County Council (SCC) has a statutory duty to support disabled children, young people and their families. Personal Support is part of the short breaks offer but is a specialist service and is only available following assessment. 

 

Personal Support is home-based care, primarily used by SCC’s Children with Disabilities team to provide families with respite care (short break), in accordance with their assessed needs. Personal support may also be used to provide other types of support such as emergency or crisis support and support outside the home for children and young people to access and be included in social and leisure actives in their local communities.

 

The services provided through the new contract will be available to all of the Children’s Services teams and the procurement value reflects this scope.

 

The new DPS for Personal Support Services will commence on 1^st April 2024 and it will be in place for 3 years, up to 31^st March 2027. There is also an available extension of 2 years taking this to 31^st March 2029.

 

It was AGREED that:

 

1.           A contract is awarded to Impower Consulting Limited under the ESPO Framework Consultancy Services 2021 664_21 Lot 4c Social Care Childrens.

 

It was AGREED that:

 

1. Surrey County Council will make placements for Translation and Interpreting Services calling off from a framework led byEast Sussex County Council
2. All Placements made will be approved by the Lead Commissioner for Children’s resources

 

Declarations of Interest: None

Officer attending: Zena Curry, Highways Engagement and Commissioning Manager, SCC

Petitions, Public Questions, Statements: Seven written public questions were received before the deadline. The full wording of the questions and officer

responses were included within the supplementary agenda pack.

 

Key points from discussion:

Question one. John Moyer did not attend the meeting. Julia Dickinson attended and asked about making cycling schemes on the High Street one way.

 

The Highways Engagement and Commissioning Manager confirmed that the needs of the various users of the High Street have to be balanced. At the moment it is one way so cyclists have to dismount and walk as a pedestrian to come down the High Street to the feature at the bottom. There have been some concerns from pedestrians about the interaction between pedestrians and cyclists. It has been looked at but it is not possible to make it work with the constraints of the width of the High Street that is available once it has been used for tables and chairs. The Highways Engagement and Commissioning Manager confirmed that this can be looked at again as part of the Mole Valley Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) but it is unlikely due to the constraints.

Question three. Cllr Hall confirmed that Waterway Road possible future cycling and pedestrian improvements is still on the Integrated Transport List of Schemes (ITS) and is being promoted by himself and Fetcham Residents Association. Officers will be passing on the suggestions to the LCWIP project team.

 

Question five. District Councillor Elizabeth Daly asked how much signs would cost as already have speed data. The Highways Engagement and Commissioning Manager confirmed that changing a speed limit from 20 to 30 has to meet policy and outlined the process. Subject to the approval of the local county councillor this could be added to the Integrated Transport List of Schemes (ITS) for potential future development and funding.

Question six. District Councillor Elizabeth Daly asked isn’t flooding of properties such as those in Proctor Gardens and the sewage discharge running into rivers also a concern that Surrey County Council should be prioritising. Cllr Curran added that she didn’t believe the properties in Proctor Gardens had been flooded by the surface water on the road though this can affect the driveways.

It was confirmed by District Councillor Elizabeth Daly and Cllr Curran that flooding was reported to Surrey County Council and work has been done on drainage gulleys. The Highways Engagement and Commissioning Manager confirmed that no amount of highway drainage works will stop the surface water that forms in times of heavy rain. Colleagues in the Strategic Flooding Team are aware of the surface water risk and should the priorities change they will do more work and work is currently being planned on one of the soakaways.

Question seven. Monica Weller attended and asked how much it would cost Surrey County Council to start getting the active travel message across. The Highways Engagement and Commissioning Manager said the Active Travel Behavioural Change Officer is working on ways to engage with communities on the way we travel and part of transformation of transportation across Surrey changing the hierarchy so that pedestrians and cyclists have a higher priority in certain types of roads. District Councillor Paul Kennedy asked if the draft proposals of the Mole Valley Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) would come to the Local Committee. The Highways Engagement and Commissioning Manager confirmed that the Mole Valley Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) isn’t funded from the delegated budget of the Mole Valley Local Committee so the decision would not come to this committee. There is broad base of engagement including members, resident groups, individuals by market research led or through a system called commonplace where information can be put. If District Councillor Paul Kennedy has information the Highways Engagement and Commissioning Manager is happy to pass it on.

 

 

The Home Office has introduced a Community Sponsorship Scheme whereby local community groups can take responsibility to welcome and support refugee families from conflict-ridden regions directly into their communities. This complements resettlement work that has been undertaken by local authorities as part of the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme (VPRS). Surrey County Council and Surrey’s Districts and Boroughs have been active participants in the VPR Scheme since 2015 and over 100 families have been resettled in Surrey.   The Community Sponsorship Scheme was paused by the Home Office during the pandemic and is now being reintroduced. 

It is recommended that Community Sponsorship is encouraged and enabled as a means to resettle Syrian Refugees under the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme and the Cabinet Member gives consent to prospective Community Sponsors in Epsom subject to them meeting the Home Office criteria for that consent.

It was AGREED that:

 

1.           The Executive Director for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning gives consent to a prospective Community Sponsor in Epsom subject to them meeting the Home Office criteria for that consent

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.    That Cabinet note the Council’s forecast revenue and capital budget positions.

Reasons for Decisions:

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)

 

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

That Cabinet makes the following recommendations to Council on 8 February 2022.

 

Cabinet recommends that Council:

 

1. Approves the net revenue budget requirement be set at £1,042.0 million (net cost of services after service specific government grants) for 2022/23 (Annex B), subject to confirmation of the Final Local Government Financial Settlement.
2. Subject to finalisation of the tax base, approves the total Council Tax Funding Requirement be set at £831.0 million for 2022/23, subject to final confirmation of District and Borough tax base. This is based on a council tax increase of 4.99%, made up of an increase in the level of core council tax of 1.99% to cover core Council services, including 1% for mental health, and an increase of 3% in the precept proposed by Central Government to cover the growing cost of Adult Social Care (Annex E).
3. Notes that for the purpose of section 52ZB of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, the Council formally determines that the increase in core council tax is not such as to trigger a referendum (i.e., not greater than 2%).
4. Sets the Surrey County Council precept for Band D Council Tax at £1,626.39, which represents a 4.99% uplift. This is a rise of £1.48 a week from the 2021/22 precept of £1,549.08. This includes £185.48 for the Adult Social Care precept, which has increased by £46.47. A full list of bands is as follows:

 

 

5. Notes that the 4.99% increase in Council Tax will be deployed as follows:

·           0.99% increase to fund the increased cost of delivering services

·           3.00% increase to fund additional spend in adult and children’s social care

·           1.00% increase to fund additional investment in mental health.

Across this investment, the 3% increase in Adult Social Care Precept will be directed entirely to Adult Social Care.

6. Notes that underlying General Fund Balances are projected to remain at £28.0 million as of 1 April 2022.
7. Approves the Total Schools Budget of £575.2 million to meet the Council’s statutory requirement on schools funding (as set out in Section 9 of the 2022/23 Final Budget and Medium-Term Financial Strategy to 2026/27).
8. Approves the overall indicative Budget Envelopes for Executive Directorates and individual services for the 2022/23 budget (Annex B).
9. Approves the total £1,909.6 million proposed five-year Capital Programme (comprising £1,031.2m of budget and £878.4.9m pipeline) and approves the £212.1 million Capital Budget in 2022/23 (Annex C).
10. Approves the Capital and Investment Strategy (Sections 1 to 3), 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. Approves the policy for making a prudent level of revenue provision for the repayment of debt (the Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) Policy) (Annex G).
12. Agrees the Council’s refreshed Transformation Programme (as set out in section 3 of 2022/23 Final Budget Report and Medium-Term Financial Strategy to 2026/27)
13. Note that the investment in Transformation required to deliver improved outcomes and financial benefits is built into the proposed Medium-Term Financial Strategy (as set out in section 3 of 2022/23 Final Budget Report and Medium-Term Financial Strategy to 2026/27.
14. That Cabinet approves the £15m transfer from the Budget Equalisation Reserve to the Transformation Reserve set out in paragraph 10.
15. That Cabinet notes that the Audit & Governance Committee has approved the Treasury Management Strategy and Prudential Indicators (Annex F – Section 4) which set a framework for the Council’s treasury function to manage risks, source borrowing and invest surplus cash on 24 January 2022.

 

Reason for decision:

 

Council will meet on 8 February 2022 to agree a budget and to set the Council Tax Precept for 2022/23. 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 Refreshed 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.

 

 

 

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

That Cabinet RECOMMENDS that the County Council:

 

1.    Notes the data research review on poverty, with emphasis on children, in Surrey as requested in a previous Council motion.

2.    Endorses and adopts the proposed framework, approach and themes as the basis for the Council’s strategic response to child poverty in the county.

 

Reasons for Decisions:

 

A strategic response to child poverty will ensure that SCC stays true to its principle of ‘no one left behind’ and deliver a number of benefits to Surrey residents.  A more aligned strategy around support services will ensure cross-cutting understanding of personal circumstances; more tailored advice and support, more effective signposting between services and community offerings, effective targeting of hardship funds for families, and new projects to mitigate and impact the root causes of poverty in the county.

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.    That Cabinet approves in principle the use of SEND Capital funding against the programme of adaptation and refurbishment of Surrey County Council (SCC) owned assets and state maintained schools for Phase 4 of the programme. This is in order to deliver up to 872 additional Specialist School Places in Surrey from September 2023 onwards.

 

2.    That Cabinet delegates the decision to transfer the £60m SEND Capital funding from pipeline to budget to the Capital Programme Panel, based on approval of individual business cases once schemes, locations and costs are confirmed.

 

3.    That Cabinet approves the delegation of authority to allocate resources from the approved £60m budget required for individual projects to the Cabinet Members for Education & Learning, Resources and Land & Property, following Capital Programme Panel approval.

Reasons for Decisions:

 

Following national legislative changes brought about by the 2014 Children & Families Act and revised Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Code of Practice, 2015, Surrey has seen the number of Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) as a percentage of the 4-19 general school age population increase from 3.4% to 4.1% between 2018-2021. This figure is projected to increase to over 5% of the 4-19 general population by 2024, resulting in the projected demand for up to 6,000 maintained specialist school places. (Annex 3)

The sustained increase in demand for specialist provision has resulted in over-reliance on the independent school sector and out of county placements, which frequently also involves excessive home to school travel distances for EHCP pupils outside of resident districts and boroughs.

The Department for Education expects Local Authorities (LA) to manage their specialist estates efficiently to avoid detriment to schools’ educational offers, creating disadvantage to children and young people who have SEND or to the LA’s financial position. This means ensuring the availability of maintained specialist school places that are appropriately matched to SEN need-type, phases of education and geographic location so that all of Surrey’s statutory school age children with an EHCP that require a full-time specialist setting in either a mainstream SEN Unit or Special School have a named placement, ready for the beginning of each academic year.

The recommended Phase 4 SEND Capital investment completes the planning for sufficiency of specialist school places from September 2023 to 2031.

(The decisions on this item can be called-in by the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee)

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

That Cabinet RECOMMENDS that County Council agree:

 

1.    That priority for children who have the school as their ‘nearest school’ is removed from the admission criteria for Hurst Park Primary School, Langshott Primary School, Meath Green Infant School, Tillingbourne Junior School and Wallace Fields Junior School for 2023 admission, as indicated in Enclosure 1.

2.    That a catchment area is introduced for Walton on the Hill Primary School for 2023 admission to replace ‘nearest school’, as set out in Enclosure 1 and Appendix 5.

3.    That a nodal point to measure home to school distance is introduced for Reigate Priory School for 2023 admission, as set out in Section 8 of Enclosure 1.

4.    That the Published Admission Number for Year 3 at West Ashtead Primary School is reduced from 30 to 2 for 2023 admission, as set out in Appendix 1 of Enclosure 1.

5.    That a Published Admission Number of 4 is introduced for admission to Year 3 at Leatherhead Trinity Primary School for 2023 admission, as set out in Appendix 1 of Enclosure 1.

6.    That a Published Admission Number of 2 is introduced for admission to Year 3 at Felbridge Primary School for 2023 admission, as set out in Appendix 1 of Enclosure 1.

7.    That priority is given to children of a member of staff for entry to a nursery school for 2023 admission as set out in Section 20 of Enclosure 1.

8.    That a supplementary information form is introduced for families applying on the basis of exceptional social/medical need for 2023 admission, as set out in Appendix 6 of Enclosure 1.

9.    That the Published Admission Numbers (PANs) for September 2023 for all other community and voluntary controlled schools are determined as they are set out in Appendix 1 to Enclosure 1.

10.  That the aspects of Surrey’s admission arrangements for community and voluntary controlled schools for September 2023 for which no change has been consulted on, are agreed as set out in Enclosure 1 and its appendices.

Reasons for decisions:

Recommendation 1:

·         It will bring the admission criteria into line with the majority of other community and voluntary controlled schools

·         It will ensure that the admission arrangements for these schools comply with the School Admissions Code

·         It will simplify the admission arrangements 

·         It will enable parents to better understand how their application will be considered

·         Analysis would indicate that this change will have no or minimal impact on the intake to each of these schools 

·         Where children might be displaced, a place at an alternative local school will be available

·         It will enable school specific criteria to remain for Wallace Fields Junior School which exists to accommodate a feeder link from Wallace Fields Infant School

·         The final distance criterion will still exist which will enable remaining applicants to be prioritised based on the distance they live from the school, ensuring children who live closer to the school are allocated ahead of children who live further away

·         86% of academies, foundation, trust and voluntary aided schools do not give priority on the basis of ‘nearest school’

·         The change is supported by the Headteacher and Governing Body of Hurst Park Primary School, Langshott Primary School, Meath Green Infant School and Wallace Fields Junior School

·         The change is not supported by the Headteacher and Governing Body of Tillingbourne Junior School which is concerned at maintaining pupil numbers and serving the areas of Gomshall and Shere. However, with a projected deficit of Year 3 places across Tillingbourne Valley until 2026/27 and the projected forecasts for Godalming showing a surplus of Year 3 places for the foreseeable future, the local authority does not anticipate that the school will face a shortage of pupils nor that children from Godalming will displace children from Gomshall and Shere.

 

Recommendation 2:

·         It will ensure that the admission arrangements for these schools comply with the School Admissions Code

·         It will simplify the admission arrangements 

·         It will enable parents to better understand how their application will be considered

·         The introduction of a catchment is not anticipated to affect the pattern of admission to the school as it has been based on the catchment created by use of ‘nearest school’

·         The final distance criterion will still exist which will enable remaining applicants to be prioritised based on the distance they live from the school, ensuring children who live outside catchment but closer to the school are allocated ahead of children who live further away

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

 

Recommendation 3:

·         It will ensure the pattern of admission does not change if the school moves site

·         It will ensure that families to the north of Reigate will still be served by the school if the school moves site

·         Use of a nodal point to measure home to school distance is permitted by the School Admissions Code

·         It is supported by Surrey’s Education Place Planning team

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

 

Recommendation 4:

·         It is supported by the Headteacher and Governing Body of the school, having been requested by them

·         It is supported by Surrey’s Education Place Planning team

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

·         It will help the school maintain financial viability as they will be able to operate with just one class in KS2

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

 

Recommendation 5:

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

·         It is supported by Surrey’s Education Place Planning team

·         It will help to offset the reduction in PAN at West Ashtead Primary School

·         It will help to alleviate any pressure on places in Fetcham and Bookham

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

 

Recommendation 6:

·         It is supported by the Headteacher and Governing Body of the school, having been requested by them

·         It is supported by Surrey’s Education Place Planning team

·         It reflects what is currently being operated within the school

·         It will ensure parents know that they can formally apply for a place in Year 3

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

 

Recommendation 7:

·         It will align the criteria for entry to a nursery to that for Reception

·         Priority for children of staff is permitted under the School Admissions Code 

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

·         It will help nurseries with staff recruitment and retention

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

 

Recommendation 8:

·         It will ensure applicants can be guided through the process for applying on the basis of social/medical need

·         It will enable applicants to understand what they need to provide to support their application

·         It will enable applicants to declare details of their case in more detail than is allowed on the application form

 

Recommendation 9:

·         Most other PANs remain as they were determined for 2022 which enables parents to have some historical benchmark by which to make informed decisions about their school preferences for 2023 admission

·         The PAN for Oakwood School has been increased from 300 to 330 to provide additional capacity in Horley

·         The Education Place Planning team supports the PANs

 

Recommendation 10:

·         The admission arrangements are working well

·         The local authority has undertaken to review the admission arrangements for the remaining two schools which will still use ‘nearest school’ ahead of any consultation on the arrangements for 2024

·         The arrangements enable the majority of pupils to attend a local school and in doing so reduce travel and support Surrey’s sustainability policies

·         The changes highlighted in bold in Section 7, Section 11, Section 12 and Section 16 of Enclosure 1 have been made to add clarity to the arrangements and reflect existing practice

 

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

See Exempt Minute [E-01-22]

 

Reasons for Decisions:

 

See Exempt Minute [E-01-22]

 

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

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.    Agree that SCC undertake a procurement exercise with the aim of appointing a supplier(s) to work in partnership with the Council and its Key Delivery Partners to deliver public EV chargepoints at a large scale across Surrey.

2.    Agree to the establishment of a reference group through the CEH Select Committee which will be engaged to provide scrutiny support to the procurement exercise, including in helping to define the outcomes to be specified in the procurement and the network plan.

3.    Agree to delegate authority to the Executive Director for Environment Transport and Infrastructure in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure following further engagement to determine the procurement model of a single supplier or suppliers.

4.    Agree to receive a further report to Cabinet (in Q3 of 2022) to ask for a decision to proceed once the outcome of the procurement exercise is known.

 

Reasons for Decisions:

 

The recommendations will enable the development and delivery of the vital EV public charging infrastructure necessary to support the transition away from petrol and diesel cars to electric for those without access to other means of charging.  The long-term sole supplier proposal will enable the Council to work in partnership with District and Boroughs and the opportunities to offer access to other public sector and community partners including the NHS.  This would offer increasingly consistent and interoperable chargepoints for EV users in Surrey.  This arrangement would target on-street locations and off-street car park locations.  The contract would be fully funded in most locations by the supplier in return for the supplier retaining the majority of the revenue.  In some cases more profitable sites would cross-subsidise less commercial locations.  Additionally, some sites may be supported by government and where justified SCC funding to achieve a geographically and socially equitable chargepoint network.

(The decisions on this item can be called-in by the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee)

 

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.    That Cabinet approve allowing users of pickups, trailers or vans registered on the SCC permit scheme to bring chargeable construction waste to the nine CRCs that currently accept it.

2.    That Cabinet approve restricting the use of all Surrey CRCs to Surrey residents only, requiring proof of identity to gain entry, to ensure Surrey are only paying for waste we have a legal duty to dispose of.

3.    That Cabinet approve temporary COVID measures allowing residual waste to be accepted at the four ‘Recycling Only’ CRCs be made permanent.

 

Reasons for Decisions:

 

There is currently an anomaly in the CRC operating policy that allows a resident with a car to bring in chargeable construction or DIY waste to CRC sites but does not allow residents who have a permit for a van, pickup, or trailer to bring in the same waste.

 

Construction and DIY wastes are not considered household waste. Residents are allowed to bring certain construction and DIY waste into nine CRCs by car and dispose of it for a charge.  The original rationale for not allowing vans, pickups, and trailers to be used was to reduce the risk of trade waste abuse through limiting capacity of vehicles permitted. Changing the policy to allow users of permitted vans, trailers, and pick-ups to bring chargeable construction and DIY waste to the nine CRCs that operate the chargeable waste scheme will make the policy simpler for residents and more consistent. Trade waste will still be banned from CRCs.

 

Secondly, most waste disposal authorities that border Surrey have now introduced resident only policies at their CRC sites preventing Surrey residents from using them. To ensure that that SCC are only paying for waste they have a legal duty to dispose of it is recommended that a Surrey resident only policy is also implemented at Surrey CRCs. 

 

Finally, during the Covid pandemic residual waste containers were reintroduced at the four ‘recycling only’ Surrey CRCs as a means of reducing congestion at other CRCs caused by social distancing measures. Tonnages of residual waste across Surrey have not increased because of this measure, therefore it is recommended that SCC retains these temporary arrangements mainly as a means of reducing car travel undertaken by residents who currently have to travel longer distances to CRC sites that do accept residual waste.

 

(The decisions on this item can be called-in by the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee)

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Cabinet Member of the Month report be noted.

 

There were no delegated decisions to note.

 

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.

There were no delegated decisions to note.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Scrutiny of 2022/23 Draft Budget and Medium-Term Financial Strategy to 2026/27 report and recommendations were considered. The response from the Cabinet was published as a supplement to the agenda.

 

There were none.

 

There were none.

 

There was one public question. The question and response was published as a supplement to the agenda.

 

There were no Member questions.

 

Rebecca Paul declared a personal interest noting that two of her children attended a school mentioned in item 13.

 

The Minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 21 December 2021 were approved as a correct record of the meeting.

 

There were no apologies.

 

1.    The dissolution of the Orbis Joint Committee and the establishment of the Orbis Partnership Oversight Board was approved.

2.    That the oversight of the Orbis Partnership and attendance at the Orbis Partnership Board by Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources and/or the Cabinet Member for Transport and Infrastructure was noted.

3.    That delegated authority be given to the Deputy Chief Executive/Executive Director of Resources to agree any consequential amendments to the Orbis Partnership Agreement.         

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed that, based on the evidence:

 

i) That the speed limit be reduced from 50mph to 40mph on A24 Horsham Road,

Capel between the existing 50mph speed limit north of the Clarks Green

roundabout. New 40mph terminal signs will be installed to north of the West

Sussex country boundary.

 

ii) Authorised the advertisement of a notice in accordance with the Road Traffic

Regulation Act 1984, the effect of which will be to implement the proposed speed

limit changes, revoke any existing traffic orders necessary to implement the

change, and, subject to no objections being upheld, that the order be made;

 

iii) Authorised delegation of authority to the Highway Engagement & Commissioning

Manager in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman of the Local

Committee and the relevant local divisional member to resolve any objections

received in connection with the proposal.

 

iv) Noted that if the reductions in speed limit have not been successful, then further

engineering measures or a return to the original higher speed limit may be

necessary.

 

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Reducing the speed limit on this roads will help to manage vehicle speeds to a level more appropriate to the use of road and will reduce the risk and severity of collisions. Lower speeds can also reduce air and noise pollution, and make it easier and more pleasant to walk, cycle and ride horses.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed that:

 

(i) in Dorking Hills division bus stop clearways are formalised at the following

stops: a) at both Westcott House bus stops and b) at both Parsonage

Lane bus stops, on Guildford Road, Westcott with bus stop clearways to

operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week

 

(ii) in Leatherhead and Fetcham East division bus stop clearways are

formalised at the following stops: a) at both All Saints Church bus stops, b)

at Park Rise bus stop (Stop N) on Kingston Road, Leatherhead, c) at

North Street bus stop (Stop S) on North Street, Leatherhead, d) at

Orchard Close bus stop, Cobham Road, Fetcham (towards Leatherhead)

with bus stop clearways to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week

 

(iii) in Leatherhead and Fetcham East division, bus stop clearways are

introduced at the Bridge Street, Leatherhead bus stops (Stop P and Stop

Q) with bus stop clearways of 23 metres in length, to operate 24 hours a

day, seven days a week, and that affected frontages are informed of the

proposals and given time to feedback before any implementation

 

(iv) in Bookham and Fetcham West division a bus stop clearway is formalised

at Orchard Close bus stop, Cobham Road, Fetcham (towards Bookham)

with the bus stop clearway to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week

 

(v) any objections from affected frontages will be addressed by delegated

authority by the Strategic Transport Group Manager, in consultation with the relevant Surrey County Councillor and the Chair of the Mole Valley Local Committee.

 

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

It is recommended that Mole Valley Local Committee agree to the formalising or

installation of bus stop clearways operating for twenty-four hours a day, seven days

a week. This is to ensure that buses servicing these bus stops can provide

passengers with step-free access at all times and ensure that there is good visibility

for the bus driver to see waiting passengers as well as aiding journey time reliability.

These measures aim to support the use of public transport and to make the public

transport offer more attractive by making it more accessible and reliable.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The Local Committee (Mole Valley) :

i) Noted the results of the consultation set out in section 2, Annex 2 and Annex 3.

 

ii) Agreed that, based upon the results of the consultation, changes be made to the

pedestrian zone as follows;

 

a) That the hours of operation of the pedestrian zone be extended from Monday

to Saturday 10am to 4:30pm to Monday to Sunday 10am to 4:30pm and that

the parking restrictions within the pedestrian zone be extended, from 8am to

6pm Monday to Saturday to 8am to 6pm Monday to Sunday

 

b) permit cyclists to cycle within the pedestrian zone as long as the cyclist

follows the existing one-way system in Church Street and High Street,

Leatherhead.

 

iii) Authorised the advertisement of a notice in accordance with the Road Traffic

Regulation Act 1984, the effect of which will be to implement the proposed changes

to the pedestrian zone, revoke any existing traffic orders necessary to implement the

change, and, subject to no objections being upheld, that the order be made;

 

iv) Authorised delegation of authority to the Area Highway Manager in consultation

with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman of the Local Committee and the local divisional

member to resolve any objections received in connection with the proposal.

 

v) Agreed that funding from the “Stage 3 Road Safety Audits/Accessibility

Improvements/Small safety and improvement schemes/signs and road markings”

allocation within the Integrated Transport Schemes budget be used for the Traffic

Regulation Order.

 

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:

To enable permanent changes to be made to the operation of the pedestrian zone

within Church Street/High Street, Leatherhead.