MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CABINET HELD ON 30 JANUARY ...

page 1 of 23 minutes of the meeting of the cabinet held on 30 january 2018 at 2.00 pm at ashcombe suite, county hall, kingston upon thames, surrey kt1 2dn..

File type: PDF

File size: 507,73 KB

File name: Public minutes Tuesday 30-Jan-2018 14.00 Cabinet.pdf

Page
1

of
23

MINUTES OF THE MEETI
NG OF THE
CABINET

HELD
ON
30 JANUARY 2018

AT
2.00 PM

AT
ASHCOMBE SUITE, COUN
TY HALL, KINGSTON UP
ON THAMES,
SURREY KT1 2DN
.

These minutes are subject to confirmation by the Cabinet at its next meeting.

Members
:

*Mr David Hodge (Chairman)

*Mr Mike Goodman

*Mr John Furey (Vice
-
Chairman
)

*Mrs Mary Lewis

*Mrs Helyn Clack

*Mr Colin Kemp

*Mrs Clare Curran

*Mr Tim Oliver

*Mr Mel Few

*Ms Denise Turner
-
Stewart

* = Present

Members in attendance:

Mr Jonathan Essex

Dr Zully Grant
-
Duff

Mrs Kay Hammond

Mr David Harmer

Mr Nick Harrison

Mr

Graham Knight

Mrs Rachael Lake

Mrs Sinead Mooney

Ms Charlotte Morley

Dr Andrew Povey

Mrs Hazel Watson

PART ONE

IN PUBLIC

1/18

APOLOGIES

FOR

ABSENCE

[
Item
1
]

No apologies were received.

2/18

MINUTES

OF

PREVIOUS

MEETING:

[
It
em
2
]

3/18

DECLARATIONS

OF

INTEREST

[
Item
3
]

None received.

4/18

PROCEDURAL

MATTERS

[Item
4
]

1

MEMBERS'

QUESTIONS

[Item
4a
]

There were none.

Page
2

of
23

5/18

PUBLIC

QUESTIONS

[
Item
4b
]

There were four questions received from members of the public. The
questions and responses can be found at Appendix 1.

Members of the public asked the following supplementary questions:

Mr Beaman asked for reassurance fr
om the Cabinet Member for Highways,
that traffic from outside the county was also being considered as part of the
consultation. The Cabinet Member replied that the business case would be
based on the criteria set by the Department for Transport but that he

was
aware of the issues in Farnham and would keep these in mind.

Ms Blake referred to the Secretary of State’s recent comments regarding
designing a scheme to preserve the countryside with further details to be
provided in a paper in the spring. She aske
d the Cabinet whether they agreed
that they should reject the Pay and Conserve proposal until after the details of
this scheme have been decided.

Mr Oliver stated that he felt that the works to the car park sites in the Pay and
Conserve proposal would pre
vent or impede access to the countryside and
asked that the Cabinet review this in line with the spirit of the law. For his
second supplementary question he asked how the Council would know that
the scale of the car parking charges was reasonable without h
aving seen the
final business plan for the Surrey Wildlife Trust.

Ms Brown referred to the consultation that had been conducted on the Pay
and Conserve proposals and asked what the purpose of this had been if the
views expressed within the results were n
ot reflected in the proposals put
forward. She also asked what the cost, including officer time, of running the
consultation had been.

The Leader stated that the points raised would be dealt with under the Pay
and Conserve item on the agenda (item 14).

6/18

PETITIONS

[
Item
4c
]

None received.

7/18

REPRESENTATIONS

RECEIVED

ON

REPORTS

TO

BE

CONSIDERED

IN

PRIVATE

[
Item
4d
]

There were none.

8/18

REPORTS

FROM

SCRUTINY

BOARDS,

TASK

GROUPS,

LOCAL

COMMITTEES

AND

OTHER

COMMITTEES

OF

THE

COUNCIL

[
Item
5
]

A report was received from the Overview and Budget Scrutiny Committee
relating to item 10 on the agenda. A response to this can be found at
Appendix 2.

The Chairman of the Overview and Budget Scrutiny Committee introduced
the repor
t and thanked finance officers for producing comprehensive
paperwork. She went onto say that the response the Cabinet had provided
only referred to the budgetary issues and that it was generic with no
Page
3

of
23

comments made to the work that the Select Committee had

undertaken at its
last meeting. She requested that in future she would like individual Cabinet
Members to respond to the recommendations relating to their portfolio area
and asked that a further report be provided on these in the future.

The Leader resp
onded to the comments by stating that the budget papers
were the best he had ever seen and a lot of effort had gone into producing
information for Members. He confirmed that his response was on behalf of the
Cabinet and that the current situation was to ag
ree a budget envelope and
further work would need to be done with select committees to produce the
Medium Term Financial Plan.

9/18

SCHOOL

ORGANISATION

PLAN

2018

-

2027

[
Item
6
]

The Cabinet Member for Education introduced the report and set o
ut that was
asking the Cabinet to consider the Surrey School Organisation Plan covering
the academic years from September 2018
-

2027 for publication.

principles underpinning sc
hool organisation in Surrey. It highlighted the likely
potential changes in school organisation that may be required in order to meet
the statutory duty to provide sufficient places.

It was explained that the
Council use a piece of software to undertake forecasting and that the plan is
produced using historical and future data.

Members were informed that the Council had

created over 16,000 extra
school places over the last five years

and still need to provide many more and
that government funding fell significantly short of the amount needed to create
those places.

The Deputy Leader confirmed his support for the plan and thanked officers for
the work that had been done.

RESOLVED:

That the School Organisation Plan 2018
-

2027 is approved for
recommendation to Council to determine its publication.

Reasons for Decisions

The School Organisation Plan is a key document used by schools and
education stakeholders in considering long te
rm plans. It is necessary to
review the plan to ensure that the best and most up to date information is
published for use in this planning process.

10/18

ADMISSION

ARRANGEMENTS

FOR

COMMUNITY

AND

VOLUNTARY

CONTROLLED

SCHOOLS

AND

COORDINATED

SCHEM
ES

FOR

SEPTEMBER

2019

[
Item
7
]

The Cabinet Member for Education explained that each year, Surrey County
Council is responsible for processing approximately 29,000 applications for a
school place from Surrey residents and coordinates offers for over 350
s
chools. The admission arrangements for each school determine which
Page
4

of
23

children can be offered a place and Surrey’s coordinated admissions scheme
ensures that, as far as possible, no child receives an offer at more than one
school.

It was explained that Sur
admission arrangements for its community and voluntary controlled schools
and the coordinated admission schemes. Academies, foundation, free, trust
and voluntary aided schools have responsibility for setti
ng their own
admission arrangements and therefore their admission arrangements were
not covered in the report.

Members were informed that there were seven recommendations within the
report for endorsement and following statutory consultation on Surrey’s
a
dmission arrangements for September 2019, Cabinet was asked to consider
County Council on admission arrangements for Surrey’s community and
voluntary controlled infant, junior, primary an
d secondary schools and the
coordinated schemes that would apply to all schools for September 2019.

The report covered the following areas in relation to school admissions:



Cranmere Primary, Elmbridge


Recommendation 1



William Cobbett Primary, Waverley



Recommendation 2



The Dawnay School, Mole Valley


Recommendation 3



Reigate Priory School, Reigate & Banstead


Recommendation 4



Published Admission Numbers for other community and voluntary
controlled schools


Recommendation 5



Admission arrangements fo
r which no change is proposed


Recommendation 6



Primary and secondary coordinated admission schemes that will apply to
all schools for 2019


Recommendation 7

Members queried what the situation was with regards to academies and how
this would impact on f
orecast planning and were informed that this was done
by negotiation and through maintaining good relationships with all the schools
in the family of Surrey schools. Officers were commended for the detailed
work that they had done.

Cabinet Members commen
ted on the amount of work undertaken and that the
coordinated system was important for providing clarity and assurance for
parents.

RESOLVED:

It is recommended that Cabinet make the following recommendations to the
County Council:

Recommendation 1

That

the published admissions number for Reception at Cranmere Primary
School is decreased from 90 to 60 for September 2019.

Reasons for Decision



It is supported by the Headteacher and Governing Body of the school,
albeit they would have preferred a reduction

in PAN to 30



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

Page
5

of
23



It would help support other local schools in maintaining pupil numbers



It would help the school plan its classes and resources



It would have no impact on child
ren who are currently on roll at the
school

Recommendation 2

That the published admissions number for Reception at William Cobbett
Primary School is decreased from 40 to 30 for September 2019.

Reasons for Decision



It is supported by the Headteacher and G
overning Body of the school



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



It would help support other local schools in maintaining pupil numbers



It would make organisation of the school more effective



It would make appe
als easier to defend under Infant Class Size
legislation



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

Recommendation 3

That a feeder link is introduced to The Dawnay School from Polesden Lacey
Infant School at Year 3 for
September 2019, as follows:

a.

Looked after and previously looked after children

b.

Exceptional social/medical need

c.

Siblings

d.

Children attending Polesden Lacey Infant School

e.

Children for whom The Dawnay School is the nearest school to their
home address

f.

Any othe
r children

Reasons for Decision



There was overall support for this change



It is supported by Governors at Polesden Lacey and The Dawnay
schools



It would align the arrangements for The Dawnay School with Eastwick
Junior School

so that both are seen as dest
ination schools for children
attending Polesden Lacey Infant School



It would provide continuity and a clearer transition for parents, children



It would maximise the opportunity for families to keep children
at
schools with agreed links



It is consistent with Surrey’s planning principles set out in the School
Organisation Plan



Eligibility to transport is not linked to the admission criteria of a school
and as such attendance at The Dawnay School would not confe
r an
automatic right to transport to Polesden Lacey Infant
School

Recommendation 4

That a feeder link is introduced to Reigate Priory School from Dovers Green
and Holmesdale Community infant schools on a tiered basis for September
2019, as follows:

a.

Looked

after and previously looked after children

Page
6

of
23

b.

Exceptional social/medical need

c.

Siblings for whom Reigate Priory School is the nearest to their home
address

d.

Children attending either Dovers Green or Holmesdale Community
infant schools for whom Reigate Priory

School is the nearest to their
home address

e.

Other siblings

f.

Other children attending either Dovers Green or Holmesdale
Community infant schools

g.

Any other children

Reasons for Decision



There was overall support for this change



It is supported by the Hea
dteacher and Governors at Reigate Priory
School and Dovers Green and Holmesdale Community infant schools



It would introduce a feeder link for
Dovers Green and Holmesdale
Community infant schools
where currently none exist



It would provide continuity and a

clearer transition for parents, children



It would maximise the opportunity for families to keep children at
schools with agreed links



Children would be less likely to be offered a place from other local
pri
mary schools, thus preventing unnecessary movement between
schools and creating more stability in the area



It is consistent with Surrey’s planning principles set out in the School
Organisation Plan



Eligibility to transport is not linked to the admission cr
iteria of a school
and as such attendance at Dovers Green and Holmesdale Community
infant schools would not confer an automatic right to transport to
Reigate Priory School

Recommendation 5

That the Published Admission Numbers (PAN) for September 2019 for
all
other community and voluntary controlled schools are determined as they are

i)

Oakwood School


increase in Year 7 PAN from 270 to 300

Reasons for Decision



Oakwood School is increas
ing its intake to
respond to the need to
create more school places



Any increase to PAN would help meet parental preference



All other PANs remain as determined for 2018 which enables parents
to have some historical benchmark by which to make informed
decisi
ons about their school preferences



The School Commissioning team supports the PANs

Recommendation 6

That the aspects of Surrey’s admission arrangements for community and
voluntary controlled schools for September 2019, for which no change is
proposed, ar

Reasons for Decision



The existing arrangements are working well



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

Page
7

of
23



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 reduces travel and supports Surrey’s
sustainability policies



C
hanges highlighted in bold in sections 8 a) i), 11, 12, 13, and 15 of
Enclosure 1 which have not otherwise been referenced in this report,
have been made to add clarity to the admission arrangements



Changes to the schools which will not be taken in to acc
ount in the
1, have been determined by the definition set out in paragraph 12 of
Enclosure 1

NB Changes to PAN that are highlighted in bold in Appendix 1 of Enclosure 1
are referenced in
Recommendations 1, 2 and 5

Recommendation 7

That the primary and secondary coordinated admission schemes that will

Reasons for Decision



The coordinated schemes for 2019 are essentially

the same as
2018 with dates updated



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



The coordinated schemes are working well



Changes highlighted in bold in Enclosure 2 add clarity and are in

line
with the schemes proposed by other local authorities participating in
the Pan London coordinated admissions process

11/18

RE
-
COMMISSIONING

SUPPORTED

ACCOMMODATION

FOR

YOUNG

PEOPLE

IN

SURREY

[
Item
8
]

The Cabinet Member for Children inform
ed Members that the purpose of the
Supported Accommodation commission was to ensure that sufficient high
their needs, enable them to be safe and to achieve positive outcomes in
rel
ation to independent living, health, social wellbeing, education and
employment. She said that the Council was committed to supporting young
people at every stage in their lives and provide safe and secure homes. She
went on to outline the groups of young
people that this commission sought to
help.

It was explained that this enabled Surrey County Council to fulfil its statutory
duties in this area and was seeking to ensure that young people are able to
remain in county and live near to their support networ
ks.

Cabinet Members were informed that the Council had not had to place any
young people in bed and breakfast accommodation for over a year and this
was seen as a significant achievement.

The current supported accommodation framework would end on 31 Marc
h
2018 and work has been undertaken in partnership to look at the needs of
young people and work with them to plan for their future. The Cabinet
Member referred Members to the Equalities Impact Assessment and stated
Page
8

of
23

that there were no negative factors iden
tified in having a commissioned
service.

The Cabinet Member for Health said that she was very moved by the report
and that she had reviewed the needs analysis and felt that it was very
important to speak money in this area to support children through dif
ficult
times.

The Cabinet Member for Education referred to looked after children and the
importance of giving them the best start to adult life.

The Leader summarised by saying that he was extremely pleased that bed
and breakfast accommodation had not
been used and that this was a credit to
the service and the officer involved. He went onto say that there were a
significant number of young people in Surrey that required this support and
the Council was committed to doing everything it can to help them.

RESOLVED:

It was agreed that:

1.

Cabinet approves the use of a Dynamic Purchasing System to
commission and award contracts for up to 13.4 million of Supported
Accommodation provision for young people in Surrey from April 2018
to March 2022.

2.

The providers

as listed in the Part 2 Annex of the submitted report are
awarded a place on the new DPS as they have passed the Invitation
to Tender (ITT) evaluation process, whilst recognising that further
organisations will be able to apply throughout the duration of
the DPS.

Reasons for Decisions

A Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) under the Light Touch Regime has



It

enables robust control of the quality and cost of supported
accommodation services for you
ng people;



It
provides flexibility: this approach attracts a larger range of suppliers
and allows providers to enter / exit from the list without having to re
-
open frameworks, which can be legally challenging and bureaucratic;



It is responsive. It will en
able us to ensure that the service providers
who can meet the emergent needs of young people, especially those
who are experiencing the greatest challenges, are able to join the list
throughout the length of the commission;



It demonstrates that we have li
stened to feedback and suggestions
which was considered to be overly complicated. The approach was
also too restrictive and led to spot purchasing with organisations that
were not on the Fram
ework as it was considered that only they were
able to meet the needs of vulnerable young people.

Page
9

of
23

12/18

CHERTSEY

HIGH

SCHOOL,

RUNNYMEDE

-

ALL
-
WEATHER

PITCH

[
Item
9
]

The Cabinet Member for Education informed Members that Chertsey High
School was

a new 4 form of entry (120 places per year 600 places in total)
Secondary School opened as part of the Free School Programme. She went
on to say that the Council had provided the site of the former Runnymede
Centre for the new school, with the Department
of Education (DFE) providing
the capital build costs and that an all
-
weather pitch was tied to the whole
project.

Members were told that the school had the potential to rise to 900 places over
time in line with demographic need and that the school opened

in September
2017 for 120 year 7 pupils.

In order to establish the school the Council had undertaken detailed
conversations with the current occupier of the sports ground at the site, Abby
Rangers Football Club. To achieve joint use of the area for the
new school
and the existing community sports club the Council had proposed to joint fund
with the DFE the installation of an all
-
weather sports pitch. This paper
provided the Business Case for the relevant contribution towards that facility
for Community a
nd School use.

She summarised by saying that the provision and potential future expansion
of the school was enabling Surrey County Council to meet the existing and
forecast demand for secondary school places in Runnymede borough.

Cabinet Members comment
ed that they felt that the business case that was
good value for money and an excellent example of partnership working.

The Leader concluded the discussion on this item by informing Cabinet
Members that the Ride London
-
Surrey event had also contributed t
owards the
project.

RESOLVED:

That, subject to the agreement of the detailed financial information of the
business case for the contribution of relevant sums towards the const
ruction
of an all weather sports pitch at Chertsey High School.

Reasons for Decisions

The proposal supports the Authority’s statutory obligation to provide sufficient
school places to meet the needs of the population in Runnymede Borough
enabling the pro
vision of Year 7 places when and where they are needed.

13/18

REVENUE

AND

CAPITAL

BUDGET

2018/19

TO

2020/21,

CORPORATE

STRATEGY

AND

KEY

FINANCIAL

STRATEGIES

[
Item
10
]

The Leader introduced the report and began by saying that it contained some
g
ood news and some disappointments. He went on to say that the Council
was very pleased to be selected to be a part of the business rates pilot and
this demonstrated the good work undertaken between the districts and
Page
10

of
23

boroughs and the county council. Members

were informed that the change in
the way that the council can use its capital receipts was also positive as these
can now be used for transformation.

It was felt that linking social care to health care was a very positive move and
it would be important
for local government to contribute to the green paper on
this when it was available.

The review of fairer funding was discussed and it was felt that this could take
another two years. This meant that the funding gap needed to be plugged and
Members were
disappointed that transition funding would not be continuing.

The Leader informed the Cabinet that in the next year Surrey residents would
pay 26m to subsidise services in other areas of the country and that he
would continue to lobby the Secretary of S
tate for fairer funding for Surrey.

He highlighted that Surrey had over 1000 adults with learning disabilities and
that the government had reduced the funding provided to support them. He
also said that Surrey also has the third highest number of unaccom
panied
asylum seeking children in the country.

Members were told that since 2010 the Government had taken 200m and
that since that time the Council had saved 540m annually.

c
hoice but to put up council tax and therefore the proposal would be to
increase it by 3% for adult social care and for 3% for core funding. This would
equate to an additional 1.53 per week for a band D property in 2018/19.

The Chairman of the Audit and
Governance Committee addressed the
Cabinet to confirm his support for the revised Treasury Management Strategy
following an in depth review of this at the previous Audit and Governance
Committee meeting and that he was happy to recommend this to council fo
r
approval on 6 February.

Cabinet Members confirmed their support for the paper and provided
comments on demand increases and pressure on services outstripping the
income that the council could raise. They thanked officers for providing a clear
and under
standable report.

It was agreed that paragraph 104 of the submitted report regarding Local
Highways Funding and Member Allocations should be a formal
recommendation to be agreed by the Cabinet and this then became
recommendation 21.

After the debate the

Chairman called the recommendations, which included
the council tax precept proposals, and the vote was taken.

The following members voted for:

Mr David Hodge CBE, Mr John Furey, Mrs Helyn Clack, Mrs Clare Curran, Mr
Mel Few, Mr Mike Goodman, Mr Colin K
emp, Mrs Mary Lewis, Mr Tim Oliver
and Ms Denise Turner
-
Stewart.

There were no votes against and no abstentions.

Page
11

of
23

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet makes the following recommendations to the Full County
Council on 6

February

2018:

Cabinet recommendations to Full C
ounty Council to note the following

1.

The Director of Finance’s statutory conclusions that the council’s budget
is balanced for 2018/19 and is developing a major transformation
become sustainable over the medium to long term (Annex 1 of the
submitted report).

2.

Increase the level of the general coun
cil tax by 2.99% (paragraphs

101
and 102 of the submitted report).

3.

Increase council tax by a further 3% for the adult social care precept,
which will provide a further 20m to support the growth in demand for
services (paragraph

102 of the submitted report
).

4.

which represents a 5.99% up
-
lift. This is a rise of 1.53 a week from
2017/18’s precept of £1,331.55.

5.

Approve the County Council’s £1,705m gross revenue expenditure
budget for 2018/19 (T
able

9 of the submitted report).

6.

Approve the application of up to 15m capital receipts to fund the
revenue costs associated with transformation projects (paragraphs

34 to
37 and Appendix 3 of the submitted report)

7.

Approve use of up to 24m of earmarked re
serves to support the
revenue budget (paragraph

109 of the submitted report).

8.

Approve 316m three year capital programme, with 139m capital
investment in 2018/19 (paragraph

124 and Appendix 7 of the submitted
report).

9.

Agree to support only capital schemes

that do not require borrowing,
unless the scheme has a compelling business case developed that
demonstrates best value and a sustainable basis for funding borrowing
costs (paragraph

135 of the submitted report).

10.

Note that the detailed programme of scheme
s will be agreed ahead of

Page
12

of
23

11.

Require a robust business case to be prepared (and taken to the
Investment Panel for review) before committing expenditure for the use
of:



all revenue ‘invest to save’ propos
als, and



capital schemes (paragraph

120 of the submitted report).

12.

To help ensure the council achieves its savings programme, require the
Chief Executive and the Director of Finance to:



continue to ensure delivery of existing MTFP efficiencies and service
reductions for the remaining years of the MTFP 2018
-
21; and



continue to ensure services monitor their demand and cost pressures
and develop plans to mitigate the impact of those pressures
(paragraph

95 of the submitted report).

13.

Require the Chief Executive
and the Director of Finance to lead the
development of a transformation programme to move the council to a
sustainable position in 2019/20.

recommendations to Full County Council on the revenue
and capital

14.

Approve the refreshed Corporate Strategy for 2018/19 that Cabinet has
endorsed (paragraphs 18 to 24 and Appendix 1 of the submitted report).

15.

Approve the refreshed Financial Strategy for 2018/19 (paragraphs 30 to
32 and Appendix 2 of the submitted
report).

16.

Approve the Capital Strategy for 2018
-
22 (paragraphs 117 and 118 of
the submitted report)

17.

Approve the Flexible Use of Capital Receipts Strategy for 2018/19
(paragraphs 34 to 37 of the submitted report).

r
ecommendations to Full County Council

18.

Approve, with immediate effect, the Treasury Management Strategy for
2018/19 (Annex 2 of the submitted report), which includes:



the investment strategy for short term cash balances;



the borrowing strategy for funding

the capital programme;



the treasury management policy (Appendix 10 of the submitted report);

Page
13

of
23



the prudential indicators (Appendix 11 of the submitted report);



the treasury management scheme of delegation (Appendix 12 of the
submitted report);



the minimum r
evenue provision policy (Appendix 13 of the submitted
report).

That the following decisions have been approved by Cabinet

19.

budget for review by the council’s Scrutiny function, ahead of a
pproval
by Cabinet on 27 March 2018 when the final MTFP 2018
-
21 will be
presented.

20.

That the draft MTFP for the financial years 2018
-
21 be approved, which
includes:



to approve the Total Schools Budget of 505.8m (paragraphs 110 to
115 of the submitted repor
t);



to approve overall cash limits for individual services for the 2018/19
budget (Table

9 of the submitted report).

21.

That Cabinet approved allocation of a part of the additional funding from
the additional 1% increase in council tax, and a change to the f
unding
for the Members Allocations to provide the following to support
Members’ work in their local communities (paragraphs 104 and 105 of
the submitted report):



a new Member Local Highways Fund;



a Revenue Highways Fund shared among Local Committees; and



revised Members Community Allocation

Reasons for Decisions

Full County Council will meet on 6

February

the council tax precept for 2018/19.
County Council to consider at its meeting on
6 February 2018.

14/18

MONTHLY

BUDGET

MONITORING

REPORT

[
Item
11
]

31December 2017 (month nine of 2017/18).

He stated that in
t for 2018/19 in the
face of significant rising demand pressures, particularly in social care; falling
Government funding and continuing restraint on the ability to raise funds
locally. To balance 2017/18’s budget the council had to make plans to deliver
Page
14

of
23

a
n unprecedented 104m of savings and that this significant challenge for the
council came on top of already making over 450m savings since 2010.

agreed plans for 95m savings, wi
after nine months of the financial year, services had already achieved 65m
of savings with another 13m on track for delivery, and 1m faced potential
barriers.

The Leader went on to state that at this stage,

16m savings were now
thought to be unachievable in this year. The council’s 2017/18 budget
included significant demand and cost pressures, mostly in social care and in
the first nine months of the year, demand had increased above that forecast
even a sho
rt time ago.

He said that the combined impact of delivering lower savings than planned
and demand rising faster than anticipated forecast a year end overspend of
£11m for 2017/18. This was an £8m improvement on last month’s forecast
position mainly due

to specific actions Orbis had taken to stop or reschedule
work to deliver savings in 2017/18 and from identifying further reductions in
interest payable.

This action in reducing the overall spending in 2017/18 was important
because the Council would n
eed to meet any overspends from its reserves.
He referred Members to the 2018/19 budget report and stated that the
Council plans to use £24m reserves to balance next year’s budget which left
the reserves at minimum safe levels.

It was reported that servi
ces had already taken action as part of the recovery
plan to reduce costs and bring the forecast overspend down. However, all
services needed to continue to take all appropriate action to manage
spending within available resources by keeping costs down, ma
naging
vacancies, optimising income and being aware of the current financial
position before committing additional future expenditure.

Other Cabinet Members were given the opportunity to highlight key points and
issues from their portfolios.

RESOLVED:

That the Cabinet noted the following:

1.

The forecast revenue budget outturn for 2017/18 was 11m overspend
(Annex

1, paragraphs

1 and 8

to

43 of the submitted report). This
included:

9m savings to be identified,

16m savings considered unachievable in 2
017/18,

13m service demand and cost pressures

less

27m underspends, additional savings and income.

2.

1, paragraphs

44 to 46 of
the submitted report) could add 8m to the forecast overspend,
including: 7m in
Children, Schools & Families and 1m in Adult Social
Care.

Page
15

of
23

3.

Forecast planned savings for 2017/18 total 79m against 95m agreed
savings and 104m target (Annex

1, paragraph

47 of the submitted
report).

4.

All services continue to take all appropriate action to

keep costs down
and optimise income (e.g. minimising spending, managing vacancies

5.

The Section 151 Officer’s commentary and the Monitoring Officer’s
Legal Implications commentary in paragraphs 16 to 19 of the submitted
report, stat
e that the council has a duty to ensure its expenditure does
not exceed resources available and move towards a sustainable budget
for future years.

The Cabinet approved the following:

6.

Reprofiling of 356,000 capital underspends on Superfast Broadband
proj
ect from 2017/18 across 2018/19 to 2020/21 (Annex

1,
paragraph

63 of the submitted report).

Reasons for Decisions

This report is presented to comply with the agreed policy of providing a
as
necessary.

15/18

LEADERSHIP

RISK

REGISTER

[
Item
12
]

The Cabinet Member for Property and Business Services introduced the
report and informed Members that this was a quarterly update and presented
the Leadership risk register as at 10 January

2018. He confirmed that the
register was reviewed monthly and explained that there had been a few minor
changes this month relating to safeguarding and new ways of working.

The Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport stated that he felt that
the doc
ument has improved over the years and that it was a good example of
a working document.

RESOLVED:

That
the content of the Surrey County Council Leadership risk register (Annex
1 of the submitted report) be noted and the control actions put in place by t
he
Statutory Responsibilities Network be endorsed by the Cabinet.

Reasons for Decisions

To enable the
Cabinet

to keep Surrey County Council’s strategic risks under
review and to ensure that appropriate action is being taken to mitigate risks to
a tolerab
le level in the most effective way.

16/18

CONVERTING

STREET

LIGHTS

TO

LED

[
Item
13
]

The Cabinet Member for Highways informed Members that the Council
currently spent 3.5 million each year on energy for street lighting. Recent
Page
16

of
23

projections indi
cated energy costs for street lighting would rise by between
5% and 14% over the next 10 years which could mean the annual cost
increasing to nearly 15 million in that time and as high as 55 million per
year in 20 years if prices rose by 14% each year. H
e went onto say that the
Council had been looking into LED options for the 89,000 streetlights across
the county and would be considering what new technologies are available.
Members were informed that a 25 year agreement had been put in place in
2010 and
that this would need to be revised in order to replace the street
lights.

It was explained that by investing approximately 18.5 million over 3 years to
convert the council’s 89,000 street lights to LED it would reduce their
consumption by around 60% sav
ing approximately 2 million per year (at
today’s prices).

The Cabinet Member for Property and Business Services commended the
report and stated that it was a very good idea with new and improved
technology and stressed the importance of being innovative
in order to attract
funding to support the project and work with the PFI partner to ensure that the
solution was right.

Members commented on how this would contribute to a reduction in
emissions and this was welcomed.

RESOLVED:

That the Cabinet:

Appro
ves

in principal the conversion of the Council’s street lighting assets to
LED and delegates to the Head of Highways and Transport, in consultation
with the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport, the authority to issue a
change notice under the Street
Lighting PFI contract to enable the
development of

a detailed proposal.

Take a decision on whether to proceed based on

a final detailed business
case, including a technical solution and implementation programme, in
Autumn 2018.

Reasons for Decisions

Ene
rgy price inflation is increasing at a significant rate (5%
-
14%) and to
ensure lights are operational when needed, there is little opportunity for the
Council to control or reduce its energy costs.

LED technology in street lighting has matured significant
ly in recent years
while the costs have reduced. Many Highway Authorities have either
embarked on an LED conversion programme or are in the process of planning
to commence one within the next 2
-
3 years.

Converting to LED will reduce energy consumption by
60% delivering 2
million per year energy savings at today’s prices as well as reducing carbon
impact by 6200 tonnes and avoiding the Carbon Reduction Commitment tax
otherwise payable on the avoided consumption.

Page
17

of
23

In addition to converting to LED street lig
hting and upgrading the Central
Management System, Officers will be able to explore additional innovations
now being used or being developed for use with street lighting such as:



Motion sensor controls to turn lights on in residential areas when
people or
vehicles approach and, off once they have passed



Providing real
-
time traffic movement data to help understand and ease
congestion



The potential for these innovations may be in direct relation to stree
t lighting
(e.g. motion sensor controls) or in providing a communications network for
other areas of the Council (and extending to partners in District and Borough
Councils) to connect equipment to improve the services and outcomes they
deliver.

Further
more, these innovations may present grant funding opportunities
through central Government departments and the Local Enterprise
Partnerships (LEPs) which would reduce the borrowing requirement for the
Council.

The PFI contract allows for changes to the s
pecification and service. As
explained in paragraphs 18
-
22, once a change notice is issued the process of
identifying an appropriate solution to meet the Council’s needs begins which
is expected to take 6
-
8 months to explore and agree before being present
ed
back to Cabinet for approval, hence the reason for the 2 stage Cabinet
approval.

17/18

PAY

&

CONSERVE,

CAR

PARK

CHARGING

ON

THE

COUNTRYSIDE

ESTATE

[
Item
14
]

The Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport began by addressing the
comments ma
de under the public questions item in relation to comments
He informed Members that the council had now responded to over 400
questions in relation to Newlands Corner and the Pay
and Conserve proposal.

He explained that the proposals to introduce car parking charges was
necessary to ensure that income was coming into the council to protect and
enhance the countryside. He went onto say that Kent, Hampshire, Essex and
the National
Trust introduced car parking charges many years ago.

He thanked those that had responded to the consultation that had been held
as it had helped officers understand the estate. He confirmed that any income
that would come out of the car parking charges w
ould be ring fenced for the
countryside and that this was covered under the relevant Local Government
Acts.

The Environment and Infrastructure Select Committee were also thanked for
the work that they had done to contribute to the proposals and as a resu
lt
officers were looking at putting in cycle racks at the sites.

The Cabinet Member for Children confirmed that she had visited two of the
car parks scheduled to have charging implemented and stated that as a
motorist, she expected to have to pay to park

wherever she travels both in her
own division and in other areas of the country. She said that 87% of Surrey
Page
18

of
23

residents lived in urban areas and all of these people were currently having to
pay for the upkeep of the countryside estate and that charging wou
ld be in
line with organisations such as the National Trust.

The Cabinet Member for Education queried how much the annual parking
permit would be and where this would be obtainable. She commented that it
was important for the car parks to be maintained s
o that access was easy,
particularly for those in wheelchairs. Members were informed that the annual
cost would be 60 and that this equated to 16p per day. The hourly cost was
1.30 and blue badge holders could park for free.

Members stated that due to
financial pressures and increases in the number
of vulnerable people in Surrey that required support there were difficult
ensure that the countryside was maintained.

The Cabinet Memb
er summarised by confirming that the council had the legal
powers to impose car parking. He informed Members that there were ongoing
discussions with districts and boroughs regarding enforcement of parking
charges and that as a result of the charging propo
sals there would be further
work to do to ensure potential vehicle displacement was addressed.

It was confirmed that the paragraph referencing in recommendation 3 was
incorrect in the submitted report and this was revised to say paragraph 21 and
then agr
eed.

RESOLVED:

The Cabinet agreed that:

1.

Charging is introduced at 15 car parks across the 5 busiest sites as

2.

Income from car park charging is ring
-
fenced for the benefit of the
Surrey Country
side Estate.

3.

report and thereafter forms part of the annual review process for fees
and charges.

Reasons for Decisions

In order to ensure a secure future for the Countryside Estate in the
stewardship of the County Council and Surrey Wildlife Trust, a steady
revenue stream is critical. SWT are working with the County Council to
develop a range of opportunities to produce that income and help to protect
and enhance the Countryside Estate.

T
he Countryside Estate is greatly valued by the public, however it is coming
and enhance the countryside for the future is to make the Estate self
-
funding
declining public sector budgets. Paying for
parking is an accepted cost of going to the countryside, demonstrated by the
many sites that charge and are still very busy.

Page
19

of
23

Without funding, the countryside will become more inaccessible, overgrown
and littere
d. All car parks on the countryside estate need regular litter
collection, management of trees and other vegetation, upkeep of signs and
surfacing and car park resurfacing. Income from car park charges can help
meet these costs and improve the biodiversi
ty, landscape and access to this

The results of the consultation show us that the public would prefer not to pay
to use the car parks however there is recognition that without a reliable

the quality of the estate
and in access to the estate. Of the payment options available, cash would be
the most acceptable to the public. However there are high operational costs
and risks, for example theft and vandalism are more common where cash is
popular payment option was by card (some 95% of adults in the UK now have
bank cards).

Many countrysi
de car parks in Surrey and other rural areas make charges.
Following financial assessment, the analysis of the Pay and Conserve Public
Consultation and recommendations from the Environment and Infrastructure
Select Committee, it is felt that the most appr
opriate way of generating the
necessary income is to introduce charging at the 5 busiest sites with card
-
only
Pay and Display machines plus the option to pay by mobile phone or to
purchase an annual parking permit. The cost of an annual permit is 60 this

equates to a daily cost of 16p.

18/18

HIGHWAY

ENVIRONMENTAL

MAINTENANCE

AGENCY

AGREEMENTS

[
Item
15
]

The Cabinet Member for Highways stated that the County Council had
operated agency agreements with ten of the Surrey District / Borough
Counci
ls and one consortium of Parish Councils, to undertake environmental
maintenance. This included the management and maintenance of highway
grass verges, routine weed control and some hedges and for Woking only this
had also included highway trees.

Due t
o the financial pressures facing the County Council, there was a need to
reduce expenditure for highway environmental maintenance and discussions
had been held with the Districts and Boroughs as to the best method of
achieving this.

It was explained that
authorisation was sought to enter into agency
agreements as detailed within this report, which would reflect the lower level
of funding and associated service provision.

The Cabinet Member for Communities commended the report and said that it
was a good

example of collaboration and partnership working.

RESOLVED:

The Cabinet agreed that:

1.

Authority be given for the Head of Highways & Transport, in
consultation with the Cabinet Member for Highways to enter into
Page
20

of
23

formal agency agreements with the District

and Borough Councils to
undertake highway environmental maintenance works.

2.

Funding levels, at the reduced rates be maintained for the duration of
the initial four year agency agreements, with annual adjustment for
inflation.

3.

Where no agreement can be made

with a District or Borough, the
County Council will directly manage highways environmental
maintenance for that area.

Reasons for Decisions

Agency agreements need to be established to ensure that the County Council
can continue working with Districts and

Boroughs so they can provide
highway environmental maintenance activities on behalf of the County
Council.

19/18

OPERATION

OF

ON
-
STREET

CIVIL

PARKING

ENFORCEMENT

[
Item
16
]

The Cabinet Member for Highways introduced the report by explaining t
hat
the Council currently discharged the responsibility for parking enforcement to
the district and borough councils. He went onto say that work had been
Council would manage the future

enforcement and administration of Civil
Parking Enforcement (CPE) within Surrey. He went onto say that the report
recommended reducing the number of parking enforcement agencies from
nine to four, with boroughs and districts grouped into clusters in the S
outh
-
West, North
-
West, East and North East of the County. It was explained that
in the report however the North
-

He summarised by sta
ting that the report recommended entering into five
-
year on
-
street parking enforcement agency agreements with lead District and
Borough authorities who would manage these clusters. In the event that any
cluster was not ready to start operating from April 2
018, it recommended
entering into two
-
year agreements to allow time for any problems to be
resolved, or for alternative arrangements to be put in place.

Members confirmed their support for the proposal and stated that they
thanked officers and the distri
cts and boroughs for the work that had been
undertaken and they urged the Cabinet Member and officers to resolve the
issue in the North
-
East cluster.

RESOLVED:

That the County Council enters into new Civil Parking Enforcement
arrangements from 1 April
2018 as follows:

1.

either;

a.

Five
-
year agency agreements be introduced with each identified lead
authority where a cluster is ready to be implemented,

Page
21

of
23

b.

Two
-
year agency agreements be introduced with individual
borough/district councils where a cluster is not r
eady to be
implemented,

in line with the terms specified within this report, including the split of
any surplus as detailed in paragraph 18 of the submitted report.

2.

the Head of Highways and Transport, in consultation with the Cabinet
Member for Highways,

necessary temporary arrangements, and implement agreements.

3.

Local or Joint Committees continue to have an oversight and monitoring
role for on
-
street parking enforcement within their area.

Reasons for Decis
ions

To ensure the County Council effectively, efficiently and consistently manages
on
-
street parking in Surrey, so that the economy of our town centres is
enhanced and congestion is reduced, to the benefit of our residents and
businesses.

20/18

LEADER

/

DEPUTY

LEADER

/

CABINET

MEMBER

DECISIONS

TAKEN

SINCE

THE

LAST

CABINET

MEETING

[
Item
17
]

the last meeting of the Cabinet. Members were given the opportunity to
comment on
them.

RESOLVED:

That the Cabinet note the decisions taken by Cabinet Members since the last
meeting as set out in Annex 1 of the submitted report.

Reasons for Decisions

To inform the Cabinet of decisions taken by Cabinet Members / Investment
Board unde
r delegated authority.

21/18

EXCLUSION

OF

THE

PUBLIC

[
Item
18
]

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.

22/18

RE
-
COMMISSIONING

SUPPORTED

ACCOMMODATION

FOR

YOUNG

PEOPLE

IN

SURREY

[
Item
19
]

The Part 2 report contained in
formation which was exempt from Access to
Information requirements by virtue of paragraph 3


Information relating to the
financial or business affairs of any particular person (including commercially
sensitive information to the bidding companies).

Page
22

of
23

The i
nformation contained in this report may not be published or circulated
beyond this report and will remain sensitive for the length of the contract.

RESOLVED:

on the DPS commenci
threshold (50%) in the ITT evaluation process.

Reasons for Decisions

This will enable Surrey County Council to purchase services on a spot basis
from these organisations. Providers accepted onto the DPS will

be invited to
bid for block contracts through mini
-
competitions in February 2018.

23/18

CHERTSEY

HIGH

SCHOOL,

RUNNYMEDE

-

ALL
-
WEATHER

PITCH

[
Item
20
]

This Part 2 report contained information which was exempt from Access to
Information requirem
ents by virtue of paragraph 3


Information relating to the
financial or business affairs of any particular person (including commercially
sensitive information to the bidding companies).

The information contained within may not be published or circulated

beyond
this report and will remain sensitive until the contract has been awarded.

RESOLVED:

It was agreed that:

1.

The business case for the project to contribute towards the cost of an all
-
weather pitch at this new secondary free school that will provide

600
additional school places, at a total cost as set out in the submitted report
be approved.

2.

The arrangements by which a variation of up to 10% of the total value
may be agreed by the Deputy Chief Executive and Strategic Director for
Children, Schools an
d Families in consultation with the Cabinet Member
and the Leader of the Council be agreed.

3.

That the authority to approve the award of contracts for works be
delegated to

the Chief Proper
ty Officer in consultation with the Leader of
the Council, Cabinet Member for Education, Head of Procurement and
Section 151 Officer when a

competitive tender is procured through

the
new Orbis Construction Framework.

Reasons for Decisions

The proposal del
ivers and supports the Authority’s statutory obligation to
provide necessary school places to meet the needs of the population in
Runnymede Borough.

Page
23

of
23

24/18

PROPERTY

TRANSACTIONS

-

DISPOSAL

[
Item
21
]

The Cabinet Member for Property and Business
Services outlined the
disposal plans and confirmed that a full consultation had been undertaken
with all council services to confirm that this site is not required for use by the
Council.

The Part 2 report contained information which was exempt from Acces
s to
Information requirements by virtue of paragraph 3


Information relating to the
financial or business affairs of any particular person (including commercially
sensitive information to the bidding companies).

RESOLVED:

That, following a marketing exe
rcise, a property no longer considered suited
to ongoing service delivery nor capable of generating significant income be
disposed of.

Reasons for Decisions

The property is no longer considered suited to ongoing service delivery, nor
capable of generatin
g significant income. The capital receipt from the sale will
contribute to the funding sources available to the council in support of its
delivery of services to its residents.

25/18

PUBLICITY

FOR

PART

2

ITEMS

[
Item
22
]

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

Meeting closed at 5.05pm

_
________________________

Chairman

Item 4b

CABINET


30 January 2018

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

Public

Questions

Question

1
:

Mr David Beaman


Farnham Town Councillor, Castle Ward

On 23rd December the Department of Transport launched a 12 week

consultation exercise
on which roads to include in new
Major Road

for projects of up to 100 million for upgrades and

improvements. All the main roads serving
Farnham potentially qualify and will SCC be using this opportunity to bid for funding for a
relief road to b
ypass Farnham to reduce congestion, improve air quality and road safety?

Reply:

established based on quantitative and qualitative criteria including traffic flow, linki
ng
economic centres, ensuring a coherent network and access to/resilience of the Strategic
Road Network (SRN).

The investment decisions are based on five objectives including
reducing congestion, supporting economic growth and housing delivery, supporting

all road
users and the Strategic Road Network. We will be assessing all our roads against these
criteria, including the roads around Farnham, and submitting evidence on which roads within

Mr Colin
Kemp

Cabinet Member for Highways

30 January 2018

Question 2:
Ms Sally Blake

The Cabinet is being asked to approve the introduction of car park charges of 1.30 an hour
(max 5) at 15 countryside car parks at Chobham, Whitmoor, Rodborough, Witley

and
Ockham Commons, and Norbury Park.

The paper presented by Cllr Goodman indicates under proposed Option 5 (with payment by
card and phone only) an average total revenue of 448,000 pa, with average expenditure
(presumably to ‘run the parking scheme’) of

247,000 pa, and average net revenue
(presumably to ‘conserve the countryside’) of £201,000 pa. These are averages over 15
years.

What is the Council’s policy in approving this proposal, based on these figures, relating
specifically to the following:



Pres
ently there are 446,000 cars visiting these car parks each year. Your own
consultation, where people were not even told the proposed high level of the
charges, showed 54% of people would avoid coming in future and 16% would come
less often. The average tot
al revenue of 448,000 pa looks extraordinarily high.



The financial impact on your social care budget, by reducing access to the
countryside for the elderly and less well
-
off, has not been assessed and included in
Item 4b

the figures. Substantial expert evidence

has been provided to support
the negative
impact of reduced public access to green spaces and the natural environment.



The cost of ‘running the parking scheme’ and the amount going to ‘conserve the
countryside’ must be considered separately as they are
only permitted under two
separate Acts of Parliament. The parking charges must be ‘reasonable’ and must not
make a profit. The charges to ‘conserve the countryside’ must, over a number of
years, equate to the amount being spent on that service. The propose
d charges are
extremely high for natural countryside car parks with no facilities and may not be
considered reasonable.



Your own figures show that only 201,000 pa, 45% of the total revenue, would be
going towards ‘conserving the countryside’. This amoun
t could be considerably lower
if the total revenue is less, as the cost of ‘running the parking scheme’ will be fixed.
The value of carrying out this project at all, particularly as your consultation results
showed 75% public opposition, must be very quest
ionable.

Reply
:

Th
is proposal is put forward on a basis that
the investment would allow the charging scheme
to generate enough income to cover the borrowing costs, cover the operating cost and
help

improve
,

maintain and enhance the countryside sites.

It is important that the car parks are maintained so that they remain
avail
able

to the
public to
access them for health and wellbeing.

There may have been a misunderstanding here, because the charges are for parking a
nd
t
here is no proposal to make separ
ate charges for maintenance of the countryside estate.

The parking charges are not set to generate a surplus.

It should be noted that, since the
parking here is ancillary to the countryside service, the ‘cost of the service’ for these
purposes is

the cos
t of providing the countryside service, and not just the parking. Although
the income will make a contribution to the cost of maintaining the countryside estate, it is not
expected to exceed the costs of provision of the service. Charges at other car parki
ng sites
the proposals are reasonable, which is in line with the legislation.

Mr Mike Goodman

Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport

30 January 2018

Question 3
:
Mr John Oliver

Mr Chairman, Cabinet Members have received a copy of my correspondence concerning
legal issues relating to the placing of parking charge infrastructure, and introducing charges,
at the Pay and Conserve sites.

I am not alone in

believing that the infrastructure needs
support this.

Cllr Goodman has not set out the Council’s legal arguments to support not
making an application for consent


in

fact his paper gives no mention to this contentious
issue whatsoever.

Even Lord Gardiner, Parliamentary Under
S
ecretary of State for Rural
Affairs, gave no support to Cllr Goodman’s approach to him to have the PINS guidance
Item 4b

relaxed.

example of a policy paper failing to set out the legal background
to proposals.

Do you agree that Cllr Goodman should be asked to fully investigate, with the Council’s legal
team, the need to apply for consent and provide the Cabinet with a full and prop
er
explanation of the legal position before a decision is made on his proposals and, if not, why
not?

Reply
:

The correspondence with DEFRA that you refer to confirmed that there are no plans to
make any changes to the current legislation in respect of co
nsent for works which might
prevent or impede access to commons.

In addition, it confirmed that it is for the person proposing to carry out works on common
land to come to a view on whether those works would impede access to the common. If that
person considers that they do not, there would be no need, on the face of it
, to apply for
consent.

The Council’s view is that an application is not necessary in these circumstances because
the work involved in installing pay and display equipment at the car parks is intended to
facilitate the maintenance of the car parks and th
e common to an appropriate standard and
thus access to the common, particularly for those visiting from further afield.

In addition,

if

the works are so small and
or
of such short duration that they do not impede
access

then we do not consider an applica
tion necessary
. Both criteria are used by the
Planning Inspectorate in drawing up the list of works which they consider to fall outside the
exhaustive and we consider that it
is a guide.

Mr Mike Goodman

Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport

30 January 2018

Question 4:
Mr John Oliver

Mr Chairman the equalities impact assessment accompanying the policy paper ‘Pay and
Conserve, car park charging on the Countryside
Estate’ states “This is on the basis that the
t a

reasonable level in comparison to other countryside
sites”.

Section 43 of the Countryside Act 1968 states that charges should be “reasonable”,
not “reasonable in comparison t
o other countryside sites”.

the cost of providing the service and not to generate surpluses.

“Reasonable” should be
viewed in that context and not on what th
e market can stand, and certainly not in comparison
with other, commercially
-
orientated, organisations.

Do you agree, therefore, that Cllr Goodman and Mr Russell should be asked to revisit the
scale of charges based on what the legislation intends, rath
er than on what others charge
and, if not, why not?

Reply
:

I
have answered this point in my reply to question 2, above.

Item 4b

Mr Mike Goodman

Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport

30 January 2018

Question 5: Ms Julie Brown

The proposed parking
charge, but this is in fact, made up of two legally separate charges; one for the countryside
management and the other for parking.

They should be discussed and shown separately in
the policy
proposal for the benefit of Cabinet members.

The charge for countryside
management can only be made if the receiver of the service agrees to it.

Given that it is well known that many people visit sites, but stay in the car park for a variety
of reasons, f
they will not need to access the countryside.

Could you please confirm:



What the charge would be for each of the two services



How the receivers of the services will be told t
his and how they will agree it with the
council



People will be able to turn down the countryside management charge and pay only
the parking charge if they stay in the car park

In addition, the accompanying paragraph 14 of the policy proposal states, "SCC a
nd SWT
will use some of the income to improve access by cycle or foot to sites where appropriate.

In addition, public transport access is also being look
ed

at as an option".

Please could you
explain:



What authority the Council has to raise surpluses from

charging for the management
of the Countryside Estate, supposedly to be ring
-
fenced, and to use them on different
services, i.e. the highway service and the public transport service



What steps are under way to look at the provision of public transport, wh
ich sites
does this involve, when will this consideration be reported upon and to whom and
when and how will the public be told about it?

Reply
:

I have explained, in my answer to question 2 above, that there is no proposal for two
separate charges. By parking and paying the charges, a visitor will have agreed to the
provision of the service.

o the

countryside sites by foot and
o
n

bike via the existing rights of way network or possible with some upgrading of that
network and providing bike stand
s
where appropriate.

With public transport we will explore the possibility of providing stopping p
oints on existing
public transport routes.

Mr Mike Goodman

Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport

30 January 2018

I

CABINET RESPONSE TO

OVERVIEW

AND BUDGET SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

FINAL BUDGET RECOMME
NDATIONS

(
Co
nsidered by the
Overview and

Budget Scrutiny Committee on 26

January
2018
)

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
:

Corporate Services Select Committee

a)

There should be a
clear five
-
year strategy in place to deliver savings through
improved energy efficiency across the whole of the Council’s estate, including
an awareness campaign to influence staff behaviour in relation to lighting and
heating, replacement of existing ligh
ting with LED bulbs, installation of passive
infrared detectors, and effective management of energy contracts.

b)

The Select Committee was informed that relati
vely little of the existing 4.2
M
invest
-
to
-
save reserve had been used to date to deliver the savin
gs so far in
Orbis. Consideration should be given to whether the objectives of Orbis could
be achieved without spending all of the allocated reserve, allowing this money
to be used to reduce the budget shortfall in 2018/2019.

c)

The Audit & Governance Commit
tee to be asked to review the existing
procurement governance arrangements, to ensure that contracts are
implemented in a timely manner and managed in an efficient and cost
-
effective
way.

d)

Additional resources to be provided in Property Services to enable
a separation
between those officers supporting maintenance of the Council’s existing
property portfolio and those identifying new opportunities for investments which
support modern service delivery: this will ensure that projects in other services
which wi
ll achieve savings and/or relieve service pressure can be progressed in
a more timely manner.

e)

The policy of using capital investment to achieve revenue savings by bringing
services back in
-
house (for example SEN and extra care housing) should be
prioritised.

Adults and Health Select Committee

f)

The Council to work with healthcare partners to reduce the number of disputed
Continuing Healthcare Cases particularly those that are not with Surrey’s six
CCGs, to enable resources spent on administering
these cases can be put
back into the frontline.

g)

Increased priority to be given to the provision of Extra Care services, in order to
achieve a significant improvement in the level of delivery.

h)

The Adult Social Care Directorate develop robust digital and a
ssistive
technology strategies in order to reduce demand on the service in the short and
medium term.

i)

Proposals to increase charges for the provision of adult social care services to
be supported; this to be done in a sustainable way to ensure that it doe
sn’t lead
to more individuals being unable to pay for the costs of their care.

j)

Cabinet continues to argue the case for fairer funding with Central Government
in respect of Surrey’s Public Health allocation.

k)

o the delivery of Public
Health services to ensure that they reach those most in need of support.

l)

those initiatives that can be shadowed funded through the Public Health budge
t
and is alert to the danger of the shadow
-
taken out of Public Health that would be better spent on the delivery of services
actively commissioned by Public Health.

m)

Officers investigate opportunities for collaborating

with the Voluntary,
Community and Faith Sector in the planning and delivery of services
commissioned by Public Health.

Communities

Select Committee

n)

Encourages the Library Service to progress its development of community
supported libraries.

o)

Recommends
that the Library Service undertakes appropriate public
consultation regarding future changes to libraries in early 2018.

p)

Recommends that Surrey Fire and Rescue Service investigates using a portion
of its overtime budget to employ permanent, full
-
time staf
f to mitigate risks
related staff resilience.

q)

Encourages a more proactive approach to collaborating with East and West
Sussex fire authorities as detailed in Surrey Fire & Rescue Service’s Public
Safety Plan to deliver on potential savings that can be ach
ieved through
effective collaboration.

Cross Service

r)

A Cabinet Member is given responsibility for the delivery of the transformation
projects outlined in the Revenue and Capital Budget for 2018/19 to 2017/18
complemented by a similar role for a specific O
fficer.

s)

The Council’s travel policy to be reviewed and updated as necessary to ensure
that it supports the aim of minimising costs by:



Influencing staff behaviour (for example, encouraging the use of video
conferencing, discouraging unnecessary travel an
d identifying whether
lower cost alternatives are available), and



Encouraging services to review operational arrangements (for example
the frequency and level of attendance by fire crews in response to
automatic alarms).

RESPONSE
:

The cabinet would like

in reviewing the savings for the financial year.

8/19 the council
needs to use

reserves, as further savings beyond the 66m identified are not
considered achievable in 2018/19. As a part of future years’ budget planning the
cabinet will look to replenish these reserves as a part of a strategy to ensure a

The strategy to develop and ensure sustainable services and finances will include a
major programme of transformation on how we deliver services to our residents. The
cabinet recognise that to achieve such a change, the council canno
t act alone. It will
work even more closely with residents and our partners, whether they be district and
borough councils, health, police and importantly, the voluntary, community and faith
organisations across Surrey to achieve this transformation. It wi
ll be challenging but
discussions on taking a more place
-
based approach are progressing well.

I hope
that the scrutiny committees will also play an active part in looking at how and where
we need to transform to meet residents’ needs

Since 2010 the counc
il, under this administration, has saved a total of 540m. Most
of this has been through improving efficiencies and the way we deliver services.
Although efficiencies are increasingly hard to find, we will still search for them,
wherever they are in our or
value for our residents.

Mr David Hodge CBE

Leader of the Council

30

January

2018

Related Article

  • ˇˆ - IIT Kanpur
    Read more
  • Partnership in practice making conservation work at Bezà
    Read more
  • 象オンラインセミナー Webinar シリーズ 9 には多くの方にお申込みをいただきありがとうございました 今 10
    Read more
  • The Age Of Insight The Quest To Understand The Unconscious
    Read more
  • D 2019 年4 27 2019 年5月6日 月 - sala-water sala jp
    Read more
  • V B NET TUTORIAL - cours-gratuit com
    Read more
  • AMÉNAGEMENT CADRE DE VIE ET PRATIQUE DE L ACTIVITÉ
    Read more
  • 平成 29 年度 学校経営計画及び学校評価学校経営計画及び学校評価 111
    Read more
  • Pengembangan Program SAS IML - stat ipb ac id
    Read more
  • KOMPETENSI 1 MENGINTERPRETASIKAN PERPINDAHAN TITIK APUNG
    Read more
  • Felszerelts g - Suzuki Baleno
    Read more
  • EU Merger Control Thresholds - Linklaters
    Read more
  • Jurnal MIPA - UNNES JOURNAL
    Read more
  • f PUTUSAN Nomor 6 PUU-XVI 2018 DEMI KEADILAN BERDASARKAN
    Read more
  • APT-3カタログ-20091016 - phoenix-dent co jp
    Read more
  • PANNEAUX TECBOR - mercortecresa com
    Read more
  • CALENDRIER RANDONNEES 2019 - sc66cyclo ffvelo fr
    Read more
  • On Campus Chapter5 - all-todai com
    Read more
  • 第1日目 2月11日 月 祝 - med-gakkai org
    Read more
  • RÉGLEMENTATION - E R P - formacces com
    Read more
  • マニュアル Nero Recode
    Read more
  • ジクロロメタン 127 No CH Cl H C No 138o-ジクロロベンゼン
    Read more
  • Intereste - youth daybreakcola org
    Read more
  • El manantial I - HACER
    Read more
  • 3 HEINOLD WOOL RABBIT PELLETS - O H Kruse Grain Milling
    Read more
  • LCK 307 Lagerhinweis Houdbaarheid - stepsystems de
    Read more
  • VOL3 1 Product Information - cms takara co kr
    Read more
  • Demande de concession - webcimetiere net
    Read more
  • www kidsweb
    Read more
  • www oxis org
    Read more
  • Chapitre 1 Communication entre les organes et
    Read more
  • 1 ゼオライトとはなにか - landbell jp
    Read more
  • The Universe Has Your Back A 52 Card Deck Télécharger Lire
    Read more
  • PEMINANGAN ADAT KAILI DALAM TINJAUAN FIKIH DALAM KOMPILASI
    Read more
  • OH HO RSi OH Si R HO OH HO - division csj jp
    Read more
  • 日 火 10 00 12 00 - kagoshima-miraikan jp
    Read more
  • あらゆるオフィスに最適な一脚を 57 400
    Read more
  • VanGinkelJ J Murre-vandenBergH L VanLintT M Van Ginkel
    Read more
  • Bilanz PK 2007 DEUTSCH final - uniqagroup com
    Read more
  • du barrage de Guerlédan - pontivy-communaute bzh
    Read more

© 2014-2019 ava-cdkn.co. All rights reserved