Decisions

The Local Committee (Reigate & Banstead) agreed:

(i)                    The committee’s delegated community safety budget of £3,000 for 2018/19 be retained by the Community Partnership Team, on behalf of the Local/Joint Committee, and that the Community Safety Partnership and/or other local organisations be invited to submit proposals for funding that meet the criteria and principles set out at paragraph 2.4 of this report.

(ii)                   Authority be delegated to the Community Safety Manager, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the local committee, to authorise the expenditure of the community safety budget in accordance with the criteria and principles stated at paragraph 2.4 of this report.

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

(iv)                   The committee approves the terms of reference and membership of the task groups and appointments to outside bodies, as detailed at paragraphs 2.8 and annex 1 of this report.

The Local Committee (Mole Valley) agreed:

(i)                    The committee’s delegated community safety budget of £3,000 for 2018/19 be retained by the Community Partnership Team, on behalf of the Local Committee, and that the East Surrey Community Safety Partnership and/or other local organisations be invited to submit proposals for funding that meet the criteria and principles set out at paragraph 2.4 of this report.

(ii)                   Authority be delegated to the Community Safety Manager, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the local committee, to authorise the expenditure of the community safety budget in accordance with the criteria and principles stated at paragraph 2.4 of this report.

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

(iv)                   The committee approves the membership of the task groups and appointments to outside bodies, as detailed at paragraph 2.8 and annex 1 of this report.

That the response, attached to this decision sheet as Appendix 1, be approved.

RESOLVED:

That the following be approved:

1.    The £32m capital carry forward requests as detailed in Annex 1 to the submitted report.

2.    In addition to the £5m invested during 2017/18, a further investment in 2018/19 of £7m and then a further £8m in 2019/20 to improve the condition of the highways network.

3.    That the Chief Executive conduct a review of the capital programme to ensure alignment with the council’s strategy.

To note that:

4.    The Corporate Leadership Team had reviewed the savings areas identified for 2018/19 with particular focus on those where there is the lowest confidence level of achievability.  

5.    The business cases for the flexible use of capital receipts to support the 2018/19 budget had been reviewed by the Investment Panel.

6.    There were continuing indications of significant budget pressures in Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) greater than the assumptions in the Medium Term Financial Plan, which presented a risk to the overall financial position.

Reasons for Decisions:

To confirm the level of capital carry forward requests from 2017/18 and to provide an early, high level assessment and update of the financial position faced by the Council for 2018/19 for Cabinet to note, approve and action as necessary.

[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Corporate Overview Select Committee]

RESOLVED:

1.    To host the Prudential RideLondon-Surrey event in 2020 using a route similar to the previous years to be delivered by the current delivery company, the London-Surrey Cycle Partnership (LSCP) under a one year extension to the current contract.

2.    To continue to collaborate with the Greater London Authority, Transport for London and their delivery partners, to allow planning for events up to 2026, was agreed in principle. Approval of hosting events from 2021 to 2026 would be sought from Cabinet, following consultation.

Reasons for Decision:

There was a need for both Surrey and London, as the hosting areas, to agree or not to the hosting of the event to be delivered by the LSCP for 2020. This was to allow LSCP to approach the professional cycle teams to open discussions for the London-Surrey Classic. There was a pressing need for this decision because the contract with LSCP expired in 2019 and there was a need to allow them to represent the event in discussions. In addition the Summer of 2020 was a busy period in the sporting calendar due to the 2020 Olympics and Tour de France, and as such there was a need to secure the professional teams for the event.

There was a need for in principle agreement to host the event until 2026 to allow officers to undertake early discussions about possible events beyond 2020 subject to hosting being agreed.

[The decision on this item can be called in by the Environment Select Committee]

RESOLVED:

1.    That a call off contract be awarded to CDS for two years from 1 August 2018 with the option to extend for two periods of one year. Over the maximum term of the call off contract (4 years), the anticipated value was £1.5m (approximately £375,000 per annum).

2.    That the Council would work with CDS over the life of the call off contract to look at ways to standardise, rationalise and aggregate the Council’s printing requirements, to reduce costs. In some areas the Council would also look to reduce and remove elements of the printed business stationery.

Reasons for Decision:

The current contract was due to expire on 31 July 2018.  As there was an ongoing need to deliver these services, a new call off contract had been procured through a national framework.

A thorough evaluation process had identified awarding the call off contract to CDS would provide the Council with the best value for money.

[The decisions on this item can be called in by the Corporate Overview Select Committee]

RESOLVED:

1.    That the award of a flexible contract to Rosenbauer UK Ltd, which enabled up to 30 fire appliances to be purchased over a 10-year period, but had no minimum commitment, was approved.

2.    That the purchase of two fire appliances from Rosenbauer UK Ltd now, with the purchase of additional appliances subject to Cabinet approval of a detailed business case was authorised.

3.    To request that the Cabinet Member write to MPs and all Members of the Council to highlight that Surrey will be the first authority in the country to trial an electric fire appliance towards the end of the year.

Reasons for Decisions:

The SFRS fire appliance fleet requires a planned investment programme for service delivery to remain ensured and cost effective. 

A full tender process compliant with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and Procurement Standing Orders for the purchase of fire appliances has been completed. A tender offer which provides the best value for money was selected. Rosenbauer UK Ltd offered the best value for money in a competitive tender as recommended on the basis set out in the Part 2 report.

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

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

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

RESOLVED:

That the decisions taken by Cabinet Members / Investment Board since the last meeting as set out in Annex 1 to the submitted report were noted.

Reason for Decision:

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

A question was received from the Chairman of Children and Education Select Committee’s Performance Member Reference Group regarding Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services.  This and the response was published as a supplement to the agenda.

There was one public question from Mr John Thornley.  This and the Cabinet Member response were published as a supplement to the agenda.

There was one question from Mrs Hazel Watson.  This and the Cabinet Member response were published as a supplement to the agenda.