(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Cabinet, 16/07/2019 14:00

1

Cabinet

Date & time Place Contact Chief Executive Tuesday, 16 July 2019 at 2.00 pm

Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN

Vicky Hibbert or Angela GuestRoom 122, County HallTel 020 8541 9229 or 020 8541 9075

[email protected] or [email protected]

Joanna Killian

Cabinet Members: Mr Mel Few, Mr Matt Furniss, Mr Mike Goodman, Dr Zully Grant-Duff, Mrs Julie Iles, Mr Colin Kemp, Mrs Mary Lewis, Mrs Sinead Mooney, Mr Tim Oliver and Ms Denise Turner-Stewart

Deputy Cabinet Members: Mrs Natalie Bramhall, Miss Alison Griffiths, Mr Cameron McIntosh and Mr Wyatt Ramsdale,

If you would like a copy of this agenda or the attached papers in another format, e.g. large print or braille, or another language please either call 020 8541 9122, write to Democratic Services, Room 122, County Hall, Penrhyn Road, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN, Minicom 020 8541 9698, fax 020 8541 9009, or email [email protected] or [email protected].

This meeting will be held in public. If you would like to attend and you have any special requirements, please contact Vicky Hibbert or Angela Guest on 020 8541 9229 or 020 8541 9075.

Note: This meeting may be filmed for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council's internet site - at the start of the meeting the Chairman will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being filmed. The images and sound recording may be used for training purposes within the Council.

Generally the public seating areas are not filmed. However by entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings for webcasting and/or training purposes.

If you have any queries regarding this, please contact the representative of Legal and Democratic Services at the meeting.

We’re on Twitter: @SCCdemocracy

2

AGENDA

1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

2 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: (25 JUNE 2019)

The minutes will be available in the meeting room half an hour before the start of the meeting.

3 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

All Members present are required to declare, at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter

(i) Any disclosable pecuniary interests and / or

(ii) Other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this meeting

NOTES: Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item

where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest

As well as an interest of the Member, this includes any interest, of which the Member is aware, that relates to the Member’s spouse or civil partner (or any person with whom the Member is living as a spouse or civil partner)

Members with a significant personal interest may participate in the discussion and vote on that matter unless that interest could be reasonably regarded as prejudicial.

4 PROCEDURAL MATTERS

a Members' Questions

The deadline for Member’s questions is 12pm four working days before the meeting (10 July 2019).

b Public Questions

The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (9 July 2019).

c Petitions

The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and a petition of 1111 signatories has been received regarding “Cancel the proposed cuts to Surrey Fire and Rescue Service in Runnymede”.

d Representations received on reports to be considered in private

To consider any representations received in relation why part of the meeting relating to a report circulated in Part 2 of the agenda should be open to the public.

3

5 REPORTS FROM SELECT COMMITTEES , TASK GROUPS, LOCAL COMMITTEES AND OTHER COMMITTEES OF THE COUNCIL

6 LEADER / DEPUTY LEADER / CABINET MEMBER DECISIONS/ INVESTMENT BOARD TAKEN SINCE THE LAST CABINET MEETING

To note any delegated decisions taken by the Leader, Deputy Leader, Cabinet Members and Investment Board since the last meeting of the Cabinet.

(Pages 1 - 6)

7 SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND DISABILITY (SEND) TRAVEL ASSISTANCE

All councils have statutory responsibilities related to home to school transport. Surrey County Council is proposing to review and ensure its SEND travel assistance policy enables the Council to continue to deliver its statutory responsibilities, improves outcomes for children and young people with SEND and controls costs.

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

(Pages 7 - 14)

8 COMMISSIONING OF SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEED OR DISABILITY PLACEMENTS FROM SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES IN THE NON MAINTAINED INDEPENDENT SECTOR

This report sets out recommendations arising from work on options for the commissioning arrangements for placement of learners with special education needs in independent, Non Maintained Independent Sector (NMIs), schools and colleges. These placements are currently spot purchased. The proposals in this report do not apply to maintained schools in Surrey. The report outlines the approach the Council is taking to work regionally with other local authorities to develop more cost effective ways of placing children in specialist placements.

NB: Part 2 Annex at item 23.


(Pages 15 - 24)

9 PROPOSAL TO CHARGE MAINTAINED SCHOOLS FOR THE COST OF CONVERSION TO BECOME AN ACADEMY SCHOOL

There are costs for the Department for Education (DfE), maintained schools and their maintaining authorities when a school converts to become an academy. Schools are given a grant to contribute to their costs but local authorities get no financial support.Local authorities must either bear the full cost of the work they undertake by law to facilitate transfers of status, or charge the converting school the costs, which they are entitled to do. Cabinet is asked to consider these issues and the recommendation to charge.


(Pages 25 - 30)

4

10 LIBRARIES AND CULTURAL SERVICES TRANSFORMATION

Surrey County Council is developing a new strategy for libraries and cultural services and is proposing a second round of public consultation over the autumn to determine an effective and sustainable delivery model for Surrey’s libraries and cultural services. This report sets out requirements for the proposed consultation and preparations needed to ensure all sections of the community are able to fully participate.


(Pages 31 - 130)

11 CREATION OF A NEW SPECIALIST CENTRE AT WORPLESDON PRIMARY SCHOOL IN PARTNERSHIP WITH FREEMANTLES SCHOOL PROVIDING 21 PLACES FOR PUPILS WITH HIGH COMMUNICATION AND INTERACTION NEEDS

To agree the proposal for a new specialist centre to be developed at Worplesdon Primary School. This would create places for primary pupils with an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) and who have Communication and Interaction Needs (COIN) in Surrey. The specialist centre will be based at Worplesdon Primary School and operated in partnership with Freemantles School.

NB Part 2 Annex at Item 24.


(Pages 131 - 134)

12 PROPOSAL TO ENTER INTO A LOCAL EDUCATION PARTNERSHIP WITH SCHOOLS ALLIANCE FOR EXCELLENCE

This report seeks Cabinet approval for the Council to be a partner in a new, not-for-profit company, which is to be called the Schools Alliance for Excellence (SAfE). This is a partnership – between schools, both maintained schools and academies, the Surrey Teaching Schools Network (STSN), the Dioceses operating in Surrey and Surrey County Council to continue to improve the quality of education in Surrey.

NB: Part 2 Annex at item 25.


(Pages 135 - 150)

13 CHILDREN'S IMPROVEMENT UPDATE

This report provides Cabinet with an update on the delivery of Surrey’s Children’s Improvement Plan, the findings from the Commissioner’s interim review and the recent Ofsted Monitoring Visit and Annual Conversation. A progress update is also provided here on the service restructure and transformation work to implement and embed the new model for Surrey’s Children’s Services.


(Pages 151 - 204)

5

14 APPROVAL FOR SURREY TO JOIN THE REGIONAL ADOPTION AGENCY

This report seeks approval for Surrey County Council to enter into an agreement to establish a Regional Adoption Agency (RAA) with three other local authorities, Brighton and Hove City Council, East and West Sussex County Councils.


(Pages 205 - 232)

15 PROVIDING COUNCIL TAX RELIEF FOR SURREY'S CARE LEAVERS

The Cabinet is being asked to agree in principal to support care leavers by paying the Surrey County Council proportion of Council Tax (around 75% of the total amount of Council Tax), for those care leavers living by themselves (independent living) or sharing with others with some support (semi-independent living).


(Pages 233 - 240)

16 ADULT SOCIAL CARE ACCOMMODATION WITH CARE AND SUPPORT STRATEGY FOR EXTRA CARE HOUSING FOR OLDER PEOPLE AND INDEPENDENT LIVING SCHEMES FOR ADULTS WITH A LEARNING DISABILITY AND/OR AUTISM

This paper sets out SCC’s strategy to deliver accommodation with care and support by 2030 that will enable people to access the right health and social care at the right time in the right place, with appropriate housing for residents that helps them to remain independent, achieve their potential and ensures nobody is left behind.

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

(Pages 241 - 290)

17 HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE FUND - FUNDING ALLOCATION OF £95 MILLION TO WOKING TOWN CENTRE

The Housing Infrastructure Fund is a £5.5 billion government capital grant programme launched in summer 2017 to help to deliver up to 300,000 new homes in England in response to the national shortage of good quality accessible housing. The county council in conjunction with Woking Borough Council submitted a bid to the Housing Infrastructure Fund in the second round of bidding submissions on 3 December 2018. On behalf of Surrey County Council, Woking Borough Council led on all aspects and fully funded the bid. Following a comprehensive and detailed due diligence process by government this bid has now been approved.

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

(Pages 291 - 320)

18 CONSULTATION RESPONSE TO THE TRANSPORT FOR THE SOUTH EAST PROPOSAL TO GOVERNMENT

This report sets out the County Councils position and basis for agreement to a draft proposal to Government agreed by the Transport for the South

(Pages 321 - 350)

6

East (TfSE) Shadow Partnership Board in December 2018 setting out the powers that TfSE wishes to acquire should it be offered statutory status in the future.


19 TOWN CENTRE HIGHWAY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS

The County Council, as the Highway Authority has a statutory duty to maintain highway maintainable at the public expense in Surrey. The network is maintained to comply with its statutory obligation to ensure the safety of highway users. District and Borough Councils invest in their town centres and have local priorities, which may include bespoke or expensive materials. If a District or Borough Council chooses to enter into a “Town Centre Highway Management Agreement” with the County Council, it will give them the ability to control an agreed defined area to higher locally determined standards.


(Pages 351 - 356)

20 MONTHLY BUDGET MONITORING REPORT

This report summarises the most significant issues for the Council’s 2019/20 financial position as at 31 May 2019 for revenue and capital budgets. Annex1 provides further details on service budgets, expenditure to date and year-end forecast.

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

(Pages 357 - 364)

21 CONTRACT FOR REACTIVE AND CYCLICAL MAINTENANCE OF SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL MAINTAINED BUILDINGS IN THE SURREY WEST AREA

On 26 March 2019, Cabinet approved the award of contracts for Building Maintenance and Statutory Building Maintenance & Responsive Building Repairs under the tender for Hard Facilities Management. Although included in the same tender exercise, the request for approval did not include the requirement for Building Fabric Maintenance in the West of Surrey area as the bids received did not provide value for money within the budget available. The decision was made to re-tender this service as a stand-alone requirement.


(Pages 365 - 374)

22 EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC

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.

7

P A R T T W O - I N P R I V A T E

23 COMMISSIONING OF SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEED OR DISABILITY PLACEMENTS FROM SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES IN THE NON MAINTAINED INDEPENDENT SECTOR

This Part 2 annex contains information which is 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).


(Pages 375 - 378)

24 CREATION OF A NEW SPECIALIST CENTRE AT WORPLESDON PRIMARY SCHOOL IN PARTNERSHIP WITH FREEMANTLES SCHOOL PROVIDING 21 PLACES FOR PUPILS WITH HIGH COMMUNICATION AND INTERACTION NEEDS



(Pages 379 - 384)

25 PROPOSAL TO ENTER INTO A LOCAL EDUCATION PARTNERSHIP WITH SCHOOLS ALLIANCE FOR EXCELLENCE



(Pages 385 - 388)

26 DISPOSAL OF THE FORMER MERSTHAM LIBRARY, WELDON WAY, MERSTHAM



(Pages 389 - 426)

8

27 PUBLICITY FOR PART 2 ITEMS

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

Joanna KillianChief Executive

Monday, 8 July 2019

9

QUESTIONS, PETITIONS AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS

The Cabinet will consider questions submitted by Members of the Council, members of the public who are electors of the Surrey County Council area and petitions containing 100 or more signatures relating to a matter within its terms of reference, in line with the procedures set out in Surrey County Council’s Constitution.

Please note:1. Members of the public can submit one written question to the meeting. Questions

should relate to general policy and not to detail. Questions are asked and answered in public and so cannot relate to “confidential” or “exempt” matters (for example, personal or financial details of an individual – for further advice please contact the committee manager listed on the front page of this agenda).

2. The number of public questions which can be asked at a meeting may not exceed six. Questions which are received after the first six will be held over to the following meeting or dealt with in writing at the Chairman’s discretion.

3. Questions will be taken in the order in which they are received.4. Questions will be asked and answered without discussion. The Chairman or

Cabinet Members may decline to answer a question, provide a written reply or nominate another Member to answer the question.

5. Following the initial reply, one supplementary question may be asked by the questioner. The Chairman or Cabinet Members may decline to answer a supplementary question.

MOBILE TECHNOLOGY AND FILMING – ACCEPTABLE USE

Those attending for the purpose of reporting on the meeting may use social media or mobile devices in silent mode to send electronic messages about the progress of the public parts of the meeting. To support this, County Hall has wifi available for visitors – please ask at reception for details.

Anyone is permitted to film, record or take photographs at council meetings. Please liaise with the council officer listed in the agenda prior to the start of the meeting so that those attending the meeting can be made aware of any filming taking place.

Use of mobile devices, including for the purpose of recording or filming a meeting, is subject to no interruptions, distractions or interference being caused to the PA or Induction Loop systems, or any general disturbance to proceedings. The Chairman may ask for mobile devices to be switched off in these circumstances.

It is requested that if you are not using your mobile device for any of the activities outlined above, it be switched off or placed in silent mode during the meeting to prevent interruptions and interference with PA and Induction Loop systems.

Thank you for your co-operation

This page is intentionally left blank

SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL

CABINET

DATE: 16 JULY 2019

REPORT OF: N/A

LEAD OFFICER: JOANNA KILLIAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE

SUBJECT: LEADER/DEPUTY LEADER/CABINET MEMBER DECISIONS/ INVESTMENT BOARD DECISIONS TAKEN SINCE THE LAST CABINET MEETING

SUMMARY OF ISSUE:

To note the delegated decisions taken since the last meeting of the Cabinet.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

It is recommended that the Cabinet note the decisions taken by Cabinet Members / Investment Board since the last meeting as set out in Annex 1.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:

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

DETAILS:

1. The Leader has delegated responsibility for certain executive functions to the Deputy Leader and individual Cabinet Members, and reserved some functions to himself. These are set out in Table 2 in the Council’s Scheme of Delegation.

2. The Leader has also delegated authority to the Investment Board to approve property investment acquisitions, property investment management expenditure, property investment disposals and the provision of finance to its wholly owned property company, Halsey Garton Property Ltd.

3. Delegated decisions are scheduled to be taken on a monthly basis and will be reported to the next available Cabinet meeting for information.

4. Annex 1 lists the details of decisions taken by Cabinet Members since the last Cabinet meeting.

Contact Officer:Angela Guest, Democratic Services Officer, Tel: 020 8541 9075

Annexes:Annex 1 – List of Cabinet Member Decisions

Sources/background papers: Agenda and decision sheets from the Cabinet Member meetings (available on the Council’s website)

Page 1

6

Item 6

Annex 1

CABINET MEMBER DECISIONS JULY 2019

CABINET MEMBER FOR ALL-AGE LEARNING

1. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY FAIR ACCESS PROTOCOLS 2019/20

Details of decision

The Cabinet Member approved the proposed Primary and Secondary Fair Access Protocols for 2019/20.

Reasons for decision

The recommendation was agreed for the following reasons:

The local authority is required to have a Protocol in place in which all schools must participate

The proposed Protocols meet the requirements of the 2014 Department for Education School Admissions Code

The Protocol will ensure that children who are out of school can be placed in school quickly

The Protocol will ensure that no school is expected to admit more than their fair share of children with challenging behaviour or children previously excluded from other schools

(Decision taken by the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families – 1 July 2019)

2. APPROVAL OF MAINTAINED SCHOOLS’ DEFICIT

Details of decision

The following recommendations were agreed:

1. The level of balances held by Surrey maintained schools was noted.2. A licensed deficit was approved for Wey House School.


The recommendations were agreed in order to set the parameters within which Wey House School’s finances can be monitored.

(Decision taken by the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families – 1 July 2019)

Page 3

6

CABINET MEMBER FOR HIGHWAYS

3. PETITIONS

Details of decision

That the response, attached as Appendix 1, be approved.


To respond to the petition.

(Decision taken by the Cabinet Member for Highways – 2 July 2019)

Page 4

6

Appendix 1

RESPONSE TO PETITION REGARDING STREET LIGHTING IN CAPEL

For years, residents of Capel have been demanding installation of street lighting in Capel but the local authority hasn’t taken any steps to ensure street lights in the area.

Roads are dark and lack visibility post-sunset, especially when it’s raining and during winters. Street lights are important to reduce crime and ensure our safety, especially women and children.

Due to the spate of crime in the area recently, residents are tired of trying to reach out to local authorities, who take no action to ensure our safety.

Submitted by: Ms Natasha Forrest-DunnSignatures: 217

Response:

There is no statutory requirement on local authorities in the UK to provide street lighting. The Highways Act employers local authorities to light roads but does not place a duty to do so.

The street lights in Surrey are maintained through a PFI contract which runs until 2035. The contract included an investment period which saw the replacement of 70,000 lighting columns and the refurbishment of a further 19,000.

Aside from this initial investment, the County Council does not have any funding available to install additional street lighting. The budget is allocated to maintain the lighting that is currently installed.

In certain circumstance, it may be possible for groups (such as residents associations or parish councils) to install additional lighting. If they are in the public highway, it may be possible for the County Council to adopt these into the PFI providing all costs are covered by the third party.

If you are interested in pursuing the installation of additional street lighting, we can arrange for our service provider to prepare a quotation. It is also recommended that you get in contact with the local parish council.

Matt FurnissCabinet Member for Highways

Page 5

6


CABINET

DATE: 16 JULY 2019

REPORT OF: MRS JULIE ILES, CABINET MEMBER FOR ALL-AGE LEARNING

LEAD OFFICER: DAVE HILL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES, LIFELONG LEARNING AND CULTURE

SUBJECT: SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND DISABILITY (SEND) TRAVEL ASSISTANCE

SUMMARY OF ISSUE:

All councils have statutory responsibilities related to home to school transport. Surrey County Council is proposing to review and ensure its SEND travel assistance policy enables the Council to continue to deliver its statutory responsibilities, improves outcomes for children and young people with SEND and controls costs.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

It is recommended that Cabinet: 1. approves the design principles to support the delivery of the Council’s statutory

responsibilities for home to school transport for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (paragraph 9);

2. agrees that the Executive Director in consultation with the Cabinet Member finalises proposals for public consultation from September 2019;

3. delegates responsibility to the Cabinet Member in consultation with the Executive Director for reviewing the Council’s SEND travel assistance policy following public consultation in Autumn 2019, including with children and young people with SEND and their families.


There are significant areas of underperformance in relation to Surrey County Council’s delivery of its arrangements for home to school transport for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. Poor practice and culture are driving poor outcomes for children and young people and high costs. Delivery of the outcomes sought through the proposed design principles will benefit all Surrey residents by supporting the integration and independence of children and young people with SEND, promoting environmental sustainability and securing the efficient use of public resources.

Page 7

7

Item 7

DETAILS:

Home to School Transport: Statutory duties

1. Parents have a legal duty to ensure that their statutory school-aged children (5-16) attend school regularly and to make any necessary arrangements to ensure that they attend school.

2. Local authorities have a statutory duty to make suitable arrangements to provide free home to school transport for children of compulsory school age (aged 5-16) to the nearest suitable school for their home address who meet the qualifying distance criteria which are:

– 2 miles or more for children below the age of eight– 3 miles or more for children aged eight and above

3. This duty applies to all children whether they have special educational needs or a disability or not. However, for those children who cannot reasonably be expected to walk to school accompanied by an adult because of their special needs or disability, they are entitled to free school transport regardless of the distance they live from school.

SEND Travel Assistance in Surrey

4. Most local authorities in the country have moved to a ‘statutorily compliant’ home to school transport service. Surrey County Council continues to provide significant discretionary provision for children with SEND. This includes some free provision for pre-school children and post-16 young people with SEND, and significant bespoke provision for children and young people of all ages 0-25.

5. The Council spends nearly £700,000 on transporting pre-school age children, a further £5 million transporting young people over the age of 16 to college or school and over £11 million transporting children with SEND in a taxi on their own or with an adult passenger assistant. The Council is currently spending nearly 50% more on SEND transport than it did in 2013/14. The Council faces a potential overspend in 2019/20 on the SEND Transport budget of £4 million. This year on year increase is financially unsustainable.

Financial year Annual spend £’000

2013/14 £22,2532017/18 £28,0622019/20 £33,260

6. As a consequence of this, Surrey is a significant outlier in terms of spend on SEND travel assistance, which was confirmed by independent analysis and benchmarking earlier this year. In 2017/18, Surrey spent £91.50 per 0-17 year old on SEND transport for children under 16, compared to £31.40 in Hertfordshire and £38.10 in Essex, counties of similar populations, demographics and geographies.

7. Hidden in this is the high number of children and young people who travel significant distances on their own in a taxi, often well into young adulthood. This does not promote independence and preparation for adulthood, nor is it inclusive. The Council

Page 8

7

is currently delivering a service that fosters dependency and isolation for many children and young people with SEND.

8. Key features of the current policy, practice and culture that underpin poor outcomes for children and young people and high comparative costs are:

Significant historic levels of discretionary spend –beyond the statutory requirements and by comparison with other authorities

Independent Travel Training only recently developed School and parental expectations of solo routes and passenger assistants rather

than options that promote independence and integration of children and young people

Settings determining travel arrangements and timings Practice that is not coherent and consistent in determining ‘exceptional

circumstances’ A need for more robust annual review process for children and young people as

to travel provision or continued eligibility Council budget and expenditure responsibilities not aligned

Proposed design principles for SEND Travel Assistance

9. In order to foster consistency of practice and equity of provision of SEND travel assistance, Cabinet is asked to consider and agree a set of design principles that will underpin a public consultation with residents in Autumn 2019, including with children and young people with SEND and their families. The consultation will propose a range of policy options and will inform a refresh of the Council’s SEND Travel Assistance policy.

10. The proposed design principles are:

Social integration of children and young people whatever their needs Independence for children and young people with SEND Promotion of parental responsibility to make any necessary arrangements to

ensure their children attend school School responsibility to collaborate with the council on SEN transport and for the

behaviour of children outside the school premises Equity Environmentally sustainable transport Efficient use of public resources

11. Cabinet is asked to agree that the Executive Director in consultation with the Cabinet Member finalises proposals for public consultation from September 2019 anddelegate responsibility to the Cabinet Member in consultation with the Executive Director for reviewing and refreshing the Council’s SEND Travel Assistance policy following public consultation in Autumn 2019. Subject to Cabinet member approval, the new policy will be published in early 2020.

Page 9

7

12. The timetable is set out below:

Date Action16 July 2019 Cabinet to consider and agree design principles to inform a 12

week consultation on a range of proposals regarding the Council’s SEND travel assistance policy and provision; delegate responsibility to Cabinet Member for reviewing the policy following consultation.

July – August 2019 Executive Director to develop and finalise proposals for public consultation, in consultation with the Cabinet Member.

September - December 2019

12 week public consultation on proposals for policy change.

January 2020 Cabinet Member considers results of consultation, agrees policy options and instructs officers to write a new SEND travel assistance policy in light of agreed changes (Cabinet Member decision).

February 2020 Cabinet Member, in consultation with Executive Director, agrees new policy, policy published and implemented.

September 2020 Policy changes take effect for academic year 2020/21.

CONSULTATION:

13. A twelve week public consultation will take place from September 2019 on proposals to refresh the Council’s SEND Travel Assistance policy. These proposals will be underpinned by a set of design principles agreed by Cabinet.

14. During the consultation period, there will be significant engagement with children and young people with SEND to understand their experiences of travel and transport to educational settings, their aspirations for independence and integration and what supports them to arrive safely, on time and ready to learn. Residents will be engaged through a series of public meetings in three locations in the County, scheduled for the morning, afternoon and evening; settings will be engaged through Phase Council meetings in the Autumn.

RISK MANAGEMENT AND IMPLICATIONS:

15. The consultation process will need to be carefully managed to ensure a wide range of residents are able to contribute their views, including children and young people with SEND and their families and the professionals who work with them. Multiple channels will be used to promote the consultation such as digital, through schools and settings and through representative groups of children and families.

16. There is a significant risk to the Council of not being able to contain the escalating financial costs of providing SEND travel assistance beyond what is statutorily required.

. FINANCIAL AND VALUE FOR MONEY IMPLICATIONS

17. In January 2019, independent analysts conducted a review of SEND travel assistance for the Council that demonstrated that the Council is an outlier with regard to provision of transport for non-statutory school aged children and young people with SEND, those in pre-school and post 16 year olds. The benchmarking confirmed that

Page 10

7

pre-school provision is very rarely provided by other local authorities, and of the local authorities that continue to provide transport for post 16 year old young people, all charge for this provision. The fees charged vary by local authority and are in line with the charges for home to school transport for young people without SEND.

18. The review also highlighted the significant provision of single route vehicles with one child or young person as passenger (in a taxi) across all ages and settings. It concluded that there were inefficiencies in the mode of provision which had value for money implications.

19. The following table sets out the estimated annual cost of SEND travel assistance, with approximately £5.7 million spent on discretionary provision for pre-school and post 16 year olds.

School phase Annual spendPre-school £684,712.52Primary £13,350,050.07Secondary £14,239,594.01Post-16 £4,986,008.58Grand total £33,260,370.19

20. In addition to reviewing the application of policy in discretionary ages of provision, it is essential to review the high costs of the mode of provision to ensure that the most effective commissioning, procedural and procurement processes are in place.

SECTION 151 OFFICER COMMENTARY

21. The financial challenges facing the Council remain very significant. This means that substantial savings continue to be required in order to deliver a balanced budget in the current year and a sustainable budget plan for future years, each of which are very important to enable the safe delivery of services to residents. Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture is undertaking a major transformation journey to improve services for children and families. This is a high priority service and is a key part of the improvement programme.

22. Expenditure in this area of £33.3 million per year is equivalent to approximately 5% of the yield from Council Tax. The Section 151 officer acknowledges that this initiative will ensure the effective delivery of the Council’s statutory responsibilities for home to school transport for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. It will also demonstrate effective public spending and the efficient use of public resources.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS – MONITORING OFFICER

23. This paper sets out the statutory framework that underpins the Council’s responsibility to provide home to school transport assistance.

24. At this point the Cabinet is only being asked to agree the basic design principles that will be used to formulate the proposed changes to the travel assistance policy. There are no legal implications that flow from that.

25. The scheme of delegation within the Council’s Constitution permits delegation of the agreement to changes in the Travel Assistance Policy for children and young people

Page 11

7

with education health and care plans to the Lead Cabinet Member. When that delegation is exercised, consideration will need to be given to the public consultation responses and the Equality Impact Assessment referred to in the paragraph below.

EQUALITIES AND DIVERSITY

26. The design principles to underpin proposals to refresh the Council’s SEND Travel Assistance policy are intended to foster the social integration, independence and preparation for adulthood of children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. These are positive impacts for these groups with protected characteristics, and promote equality of opportunity and good relations between children with SEND and those without.

27. The proposals for consultation in Autumn 2019 will be subject to a full Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) which will be published at the point of consultation. The EIA will be updated in light of the consultation responses received, and prior to any decision-making regarding the Council’s SEND Travel Assistance policy and published in full.

SAFEGUARDING RESPONSIBILITIES FOR VULNERABLE CHILDREN AND ADULTS:

28. The proposed design principles are intended to enable the Council to better meet its statutory requirements for travel assistance for children and young people with SEND.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY:

29. Promoting environmental sustainability is one of the proposed design principles for SEND travel assistance.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT:

1. Officers will publish a consultation document on proposals for SEND Travel Assistance for a 12 week public consultation from September 2019.

2. Engagement events to be organised as set out in this Cabinet paper during September – December 2019.

3. An analysis of the responses will inform a final set of proposals to be reflected in a refreshed Surrey County Council SEND Travel Assistance policy for consideration and decision-making by the Cabinet Member in early 2020.

4. Subject to decision-making, the SEND Travel Assistance policy to be published in early 2020 and communicated widely to children and young people with SEND and their families through the Surrey Local Offer, through schools and settings and directly with families.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contact Officer:

Mary Burguieres, Assistant Director, Systems and Transformation, 020 8541 9613

Page 12

7

Consulted:

Leader of the Council

Cabinet Member

Executive Director for Children, Families, Life Long Learning and Culture

Director of Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture

Annexes:

None

Sources/background papers:

Home to school travel and transport guidance: Statutory guidance for local authorities, July 2014, Department for Education

Post-16 transport and travel support to education and training: Statutory guidance for local authorities, January 2019, Department for Education

Education Act 1996

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 13

7


CABINET

DATE: 16 JULY 2019

REPORT OF: MS JULIE ILES, CABINET MEMBER FOR ALL-AGE LEARNING

LEAD OFFICER:

SHEILA NORRIS, STRATEGIC LEAD COMMISSIONING

SUBJECT: COMMISSIONING OF DAY AND RESIDENTIAL SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEED OR DISABILITY PLACEMENTS FROM SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES IN THE NON MAINTAINED INDEPENDENT SECTOR

SUMMARY OF ISSUE:

In Surrey, we are working towards meeting the majority of educational needs for children with a Special Educational Need or Disability (SEND) in one of Surrey's mainstream settings. However even with the pursuance of an inclusive approach there are still children who may be identified as needing support in a specialist setting, such as a Maintained Special School or a Non-Maintained or Independent School (NMI).

This report sets out recommendations arising from work on options for the commissioning arrangements for placement of learners with special education at NMIs. These placements are currently spot purchased. The proposals in this report do not apply to maintained schools in Surrey.

The report outlines the approach the Council is taking to work regionally with other local authorities to develop more cost effective ways of placing children in specialist placements. In 2019/20 the High Needs Block Funding is £148m, but there is significant pressure on the budget, as the overall spend in 2018/19 was £162.1m. NMI spend in 2018/19 was £49m. Working with West Sussex County Council the procurement process will help select quality providers in a way that offers Surrey Council transparency around costs and the ability to negotiate further on tailoring packages of care to individual children and young people.

The report sets out the benefits of the approach in the context of the wider programme of work we are undertaking to manage providers and costs in this sector. While a worthwhile step forward the new commissioning arrangements proposed will not on their own solve the challenges faced by the Council in having high numbers of children placed in NMI settings. This commissioning approach will support wider transformation approach for SEND to promote inclusion and build capacity in maintained educational settings to offer specialist places for children with SEND.

The procurement process will help us to select good quality providers in a way that gives Surrey County Council greater transparency on provider costs and the ability to negotiate packages of care tailored to meet the needs of individual children and young people.

Page 15

8

Item 8

The new procurement vehicle is at the stage where Cabinet approval is required in order to commence using the Children’s Placements and Other Support Services (CPOSS) Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) established by West Sussex County Council (WSCC), which will offer specialist educational day and residential places for children with SEND at non-maintained or independent schools and colleges.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

It is recommended that:

1. Cabinet approves Surrey County Council joining with WSCC to implement the CPOSS DPS contract for the provision of the placement of day and residential learners in independent schools and colleges from July 2019 until 31st March 2026.

2. The providers as listed in the Part 2 of this 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 join throughout the duration of the DPS if they pass the ITT.

3. Cabinet delegates its authority to implement the DPS and award all contracts, where a mini-competition tender procedure has been followed under the new DPS, to the Director of Education, Lifelong Leaning & Culture.


Working regionally with WSCC and using a DPS will achieve the following benefits:

By increasing market share, it will enhance Surrey’s position to influence and negotiate; share information around specialist educational. placements; address gaps in support and improve value for money

Provide a framework where there is transparency around price and service offer which support value for money commissioning within Surrey’s new Gateway for Resources team.

Support better quality of education and outcomes for children through collaborative contract management and monitoring.

Build up cost knowledge of the sector in a joined-up way with other local authorities so that Surrey achieves best value and is charged at a similar rate as neighbouring authorities.

Joint working with suppliers to ensure compliance with regulations and laws.

A better understanding of suppliers’ processes, which may foster collaboration and working together to reduce costs.

Standard templates for contracting thus reducing supplier time working out variances between forms and contracts when placing children.

DETAILS:

Background

1. A DPS is essentially a list of providers who meet set criteria and standards defined in a tendering process. Surrey County Council does not currently have a framework or DPS in place for SEND education placements, instead

Page 16

8

we have been spot purchasing these placements from NMI schools and colleges with insufficient information captured on fee breakdown or provision.

2. Establishing Frameworks/ DPSs for residential and day educational places has been met with some reluctance from the sector. Some educational settings prefer to negotiate on a pupil by pupil basis and/or want to use their own terms and conditions. Issues linked to transparency of costs and Council’s ability to pick elements they need from the support the setting offers is a challenge, as settings say that costs are often not negotiable and come as part of the holistic service they offer. Due to parental preference and demand for school places being able to meet SEND need, local authorities often have limited options when accessing NMIs or Specialist Post-16 Institutions (SPIs) for day and residential places. As a result Councils are often in a weakened position to negotiate. Working together regionally, Councils are attempting to use their collective purchasing power to influence the sector more effectively.

3. At the SEN2 return in January 2019, 12% of Surrey children with Education Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) were in NMI schools (934 students) or SPIs (75 students); this is about double the national average (6%) with the largest proportion of placements being for those with ASD. In Surrey, maintained special schools for those with ASD are at capacity, which partly explains why there is a high use of NMIs. Maintained provision near to other local authority borders often goes to children in these areas due to the geographical distance from their homes, which often results in Surrey children being placed in NMIs. A Sufficiency Programme of work is underway to develop Surrey’s maintained capacity but use of NMIs will likely remain high for a considerable time.

4. With no DPS in place there is little transparency as to how fees have been calculated by providers. Some providers have been able to put their fees up considerably year on year with little information on what baseline prices are or how fees have been calculated. This has been a significant barrier to the Council’s negotiations with providers.

5. Most NMIs have the majority of their revenue from 2 or 3 local authorities, mainly from Local Authority SEND Education placements: however we have little regional knowledge of provider outcomes, costs or risks; or use of regional buying power. Indeed costs for places are often negotiated on a place by place basis which can result in Local Authorities being charged differently based on market share and/or on strength of relationship.

6. Surrey has worked closely with WSCC to shape and define this DPS. The DPS remains continuously open to new joiners throughout the term of operation thus making it agile and able to respond to changing demand. There is no guarantee of business for any provider on the DPS and placements would be made in line with the admissions process, prioritising Good and Outstanding providers on the DPS.

7. WSCC were the first local authority to introduce a DPS for education and social care services five years ago and this is now their primary mechanism for commissioning SEND placements. The development was supported by DfE innovation funding to help develop a regional approach. As well as WSCC this DPS was used by Bristol City Council, South Gloucestershire Council, North Somerset Council, Bath & North East Somerset Council and Wiltshire Council. LAs saw the benefit of decreased spot purchases, greater transparency of funding and being able to regionally shape the market. The DPS expired at the end of February 2019.

Page 17

8

8. WSCC joined together with SCC and other local authorities in the region (including Bath & North East Somerset Council, Brighton & Hove City Council, Bristol City Council, Portsmouth City Council, Gloucestershire County Council, South Gloucestershire Council, Wiltshire County Council and Southampton City Council) to develop the new CPOSS. Surrey County Council worked with our local authority partners to help shape this DPS with the following objectives:

a. Better protection for children by ensuring adequate contract terms are in place for every placement, and protection for the Council from provider disputes due to consistent contract terms, outcomes and service standards.

b. Provide Councils and Commissioners with a strategic procurement solution that supports the Council’s aim to ensure children and young people with SEND achieve their full potential through the right interventions at the right time, with a capable market of providers.

c. Clarity for placement panel decision makers and SEND placement teams regarding supplier pricing, discounts, performance and risk.

d. One central dynamic preferred supplier list of NMI schools within Surrey and other areas where placements can be made.

e. A competitive and transparent process to ensure better value for money by ensuring all suitable providers are invited to bid, and being able to compare offers.

f. Information sharing on safeguarding and monitoring with WSCC and other authorities to get early sight of issues, avoid duplication and wasted time.

g. Ongoing partnership relationship developed to problem-solve together and approach the market jointly, with a consistent message. SCC currently share at least 42 common providers with WSCC.

9. Using a DPS in this sector is still in its infancy and whilst Surrey is committed to working with NMIs to gain their increased buy in to working transparently, at the time of going live the providers on the DPS constituted about 10% of its current spend. New providers are being added to the DPS and as a priority, Surrey Commissioners are planning to hold a range of engagement activities with its providers in order to significantly increase the number of providers on the DPS.

10. This DPS requires providers to be open and transparent on their costs. It clearly defines what services are included in a ‘core’ fee and the fee charged for any additions above this ‘core’ provision.

11. Any proposed fees submitted to the DPS represent a maximum and therefore provide a starting point for negotiations.

12. This DPS also ensures that the County Council purchases these placements in compliance with The Public Contract Regulations 2015 and the County Councils’ Procurement standing Orders.

Page 18

8

13. The Model

The DPS consist of 4 Lots. The Lots have sub-categories as follows.

DPS Category DPS Sub-Category

1. Schools a) Residential schools

b) Day schools

c) Children’s Homes with education (settings dual registered as schools and children’s homes)

d) Residential short breaks for SEND

*Sub categories (a) and (d) will cover placements for children SEND and Children with Disabilities (CWD)

2. Specialist Provision Institutions (Colleges)

None

3. Independent Fostering Agencies (IFA)

None

4. Children’s Residential

None

(Children’s Homes covering placements for LAC and CWD)

Overview of the Procurement Strategy

14. Based on feedback on current purchases of SEND provisions it was necessary to identify appropriate procurement approach.

The following route to market options were considered:

Option 1: Become a named partner and commit to working with WSCC on developing a new DPS for SEND placements

Option 2: Do nothing / continue as isOption 3: Set up a Surrey-only DPS for SEND placementsOption 4: Collaborate with SCC Adult Social Care and Public Health directorate on a joint DPSOption 5: Become a named partner on another Local Authority’s DPS

Option 1 has been identified as the best approach for this area of commissioning based on the analysis of the information available and on the recommendation of the Sourcing Governance Board for the reasons outlined below:

It enables robust control of the quality and cost of SEND Placements.

Page 19

8

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.

Collaborating with WSCC and other DPS partner LAs would provide an opportunity to develop an ongoing regional partnership.

Supports collaboration on provider inspections, safeguarding and performance with DPS partner LAs (we have approximately 40 shared providers with WSCC, significantly larger than overlap with SCC ASC).

SCC will have more leverage in the market and be part of a process that has consistency in terms, outcomes and standards. As a DPS doesn’t guarantee volume, this allows flexibility to meet changing demand.

15. WSCC ran a full, open tender process from 16 November 2018. This was run under the Light Touch Regime and was compliant with Public Contract Regulations 2015 and the Council’s Procurement Standing Orders. The approach was endorsed by Surrey County Council’s Sourcing Government Board on 3 July 2018. The contract opportunity was advertised in the Official Journal of the European Journal (OJEU). The opportunity was also advertised on Contracts Finder and the SE Shared Services portal.

16. During the procurement process WSCC received 15 bids to deliver SEND Placements. Interest was expressed for each of the available lots. It is recommended that all 15 Providers are awarded a place on the DPS as they passed the Invitation to Tender evaluation. Full details of the results of the bid evaluation process are included in the Part 2 report.

17. Tender evaluations were carried out by a panel from WSCC. In consultation with West Sussex, SCC Commissioning and Procurement reviewed the pricing submissions of their existing schools to ensure compliance and value for money.

18. The DPS has now been established and shall continue for an initial period of 3 years commencing 1st April 2019 and include an option to extend such term by a further period of not more than 4 years (expiring no later than 31st March 2026).The Council will keep the DPS open to allow new providers to join at any time, including those that were unsuccessful the first time around.

19. For local authorities to use the DPS, local authorities are required to enter into a partnership agreement with WSCC which sets out the contractual relationship between the LAs. The Agreement states that each partner local authority will enter into their own Service Contracts for individual placements with the selected provider and that the Agreement is not a contract for the supply of goods and services.

20. Following Organisational process and structure changes, the Service is now in a position to make full use of the DPS from August 2019.

21. Responsibility to award contracts for individual placements made by calling-off from the DPS will be given to respective budget holders.

22. Implementation of the DPS will be aligned to the creation and establishment of a new Gateway to Resources team responsible for identifying Children’s placements. The new team is part of plans to strengthen our commissioning arrangements including, review and authorisation of any spot purchasing, to ensure this represents good value for money.

Page 20

8

CONSULTATION:

23. Consultation has been undertaken with:

Other Local Authorities expecting to access the DPS. Discussions on the DPS have been held with our largest providers All NMI providers have been invited to engagement events (last held

in May 2018) to seek views on joining a DPS.


24. One of the risks of a DPS is that providers choose not to join and continue to operate on a spot purchase arrangement as they are aware that due to demand and/or parental preference they will still be needed by local authorities to provide day and residential places. This will be mitigated by regional conversations with the sector to convey the importance of transparency around providing high quality, cost effective places for children. Councils will also have a role in liaising with parents to assure them that we have robust processes in place to reflect this. Where specialist educational need can be met via the DPS the Council would work with parents to state this as the placing preference on the Education Health and Care Plan. This will also provide a compelling narrative for providers to join the DPS.

25. Another risk is that some providers might see it as an opportunity to submit higher pricing than SCC currently pay them. This was mitigated in the development of the DPSs through a number of measures, including a detailed breakdown of fees, data integrity checks, comparisons of current fees versus new fees, and freedom for each LA to negotiate its own discounts with providers independently. Each Authority will also pursue its own fee management process (in terms of managing annual inflationary uplifts). This means that cost control will continue in Surrey as it does now and we will not be constrained by the DPS in relation to any plans to negotiate with providers for improved deals. Furthermore before taking the decision to ask for Cabinet’s approval to join the DPS some cost analysis work has been undertaken to ensure that commissioners have a level of assurance around it delivering value for money.

26. The DPS Agreement includes a termination clause whereby either party may terminate the agreement for convenience with 3 months’ notice without penalty.

27. All recommended tenderers successfully completed satisfactory financial checks as well as checks on competency in delivery of similar contracts at the pre-qualification stage.

28. The following key risks associated with the contract have been identified, along with mitigation activities:

Risk Description Mitigation Activity

Demand may grow for services resulting in increased costs for SCC

There has been an annual increase in demand for services. The DPS established maximum process for provision to help control the unit cost.

Poor quality of service and service does not deliver required outcomes.

Strong contract management and quarterly contract review meetings will mitigate the risk of a poor quality service.

Failure to meet the service outcomes and objectives will enable Surrey County Council to

Page 21

8

restrict payment based on performance and ultimately terminate the contract if performance does not improve.

Current placements - Spend on existing placements will be maintained with the current Provider. However if this Provider is successful in joining the DPS, they will automatically transfer on to the DPS’s T&C’s excluding costs.

Prices submitted to the DPS increases cost of new placements

The fees for new placements under spot purchase arrangements are already trending upwards. Work has already been done though setting market expectations and requiring greater fee transparency to mitigate the risk of higher fees.

The fees submitted to the DPS represent maximum prices. Baseline fees that are transparent and comparable between providers will support ongoing market engagement with providers to negotiate and provide better value for money.

Financial and Value for Money Implications

29. There is no fee for Surrey County Council to join the DPS.

30. The overall value of the call off contracts Surrey may award under the CPOSS DPS over seven years is £315,000,000

31. Spend on existing packages will continue and existing packages will be maintained with the current provider. It should be noted that if a provider who currently provides spot placements bids to be part of the DPS and is successful, the DPS terms and conditions set out that all of their existing placements will transfer on to the new DPS terms and conditions excluding costs; existing placement fees will stay the same for the duration of the placement. Thus, the annual spend that goes through the DPS may be lower than the estimated baseline cost for SEND placements at NMI schools.

32. Demand pressures in future years could also cause this estimated baseline cost to increase and so too could inflationary increases. With regards to inflationary increases, SCC has agreed with WSCC that it will reserve the right to follow its own process for fee management during the life of the DPS (and this included reserving the right to maintain 0% uplift). Within the contract, Schedule 7 – Fee Management Process will state that each authority will maintain its own fee management process and that any annual uplifts will be subject to decision at an authority level, not collective level.

33. At present there is a lot of pressure on SEND budgets in 2019/2020 and significant savings need to be delivered. The SCC Transformation for SEND indicates an ambition to implement commissioning changes to reduce placement costs further. This DPS approach, with no commitment of spend or volumes, offers the greatest degree of flexibility and may allow us to facilitate these budget pressures. If during the life of the DPS, SCC determines that this model is not supporting us to meet budget pressures, SCC can cease to be a partner and put a new model in place, if that is determined to be a preferred course of action in the future.

Page 22

8

34. This DPS will not prevent SCC from having discount agreements in place with providers, which would support us in meeting some of the expected cost savings. It is expected that the DPS pricing schedule would support establishing these agreements. There is also potential scope to re-negotiate fees with NMIs following the tender for the existing packages we have in place which could also bring annual spend down and contribute to meeting savings targets for SCC. This fee review sits out of scope of this project, but is being addressed by colleagues in CSF Commissioning with support from Procurement.

35. We are working with the sector to ensure that a greater number of providers join the DPS. We will undertake a programme of market engagement with other local authorities using the DPS to have our providers join. At present those who have joined the DPS represent just over 10% of our current spend on these placements. As a result joining the DPS will not mean that spot purchasing will cease as a result of entering this contracting arrangement. Parental choice also impacts on the Council’s ability to solely commission via this procurement vehicle.

Section 151 Officer Commentary

36. The Council is facing a very serious financial situation, whereby there are substantial savings to be achieved to establish a balanced budget with regard to expenditure funded from the High Needs Block of the Dedicated Schools Grant. Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture is on a major transformation journey to improve services for children and families. This is a high priority service and is a key part of the improvement programme.

37. The Section 151 Officer (Chief Finance Officer) supports the initiative to place more structure and control over the procurement of places for learners with special education needs in independent, Non Maintained Independent Sector (NMIs), schools and colleges. However it is of some concern that the number of providers in this second generation DPS is still limited. Around 10% of the current placements are with providers appointed to the framework.

38. Subject to the needs of the child the development of the framework to include a larger number of cost-effective placements from settings providing Good.or Outstanding provision will enable the Council to ensure it can meet parental preference subject to the efficient use of resources.

39. Until such time as the framework is fully developed, Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture will need to put in place appropriate controls to ensure that the spot-purchasing of placements is commissioned in a manner consistent with best practice and contract managed appropriately. Consideration needs to be given to regularising current spot-purchasing arrangements.

Legal Implications – Monitoring Officer

40. The Council must have a robust, transparent and legally compliant procurement process in place to commission day and residential education placements at independent or non-maintained schools and colleges for children and young people up to the age of 25. Orbis Public Law has been consulted throughout the establishment of the DPS to ensure it is legally compliant.

Page 23

8

Equalities and Diversity

41. The DPS is a procurement vehicle that will adjust the procurement process, but no direct impact on delivered service provision is expected. Therefore there are no expected EIA implications.

42. TUPE will not apply at any part of this Procurement as our approach is to honour all existing placements made through the current spot purchasing method (i.e. current placements will remain with their current provider per the agreed rates and length).

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT:

43. The timetable for implementation is as follows:

Action Date West Sussex DPS Commencement Date Monday 1st April 2019

Surrey Cabinet decision to join West Sussex DPS Tuesday 16th July

Contact Officer:Prue TimmsTitle: Procurement SpecialistTel: 0208 541 8774Email: [email protected]

Consulted:Details of who has been consulted on the issue (including officers, members, public, stakeholders, partners, etc).

Annexes:Confidential Part 2

Sources/background papers:All background papers used in the writing of the report should be listed, as required by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.

Page 24

8


CABINET

DATE: 16 JULY 2019


LEAD OFFICER: DAVE HILL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES, LIFELONG LEARNING AND CULTURE

SUBJECT: PROPOSAL TO CHARGE MAINTAINED SCHOOLS FOR THE COSTS OF CONVERSION TO BECOME AN ACADEMY SCHOOL

SUMMARY OF ISSUE: There are costs for the Department for Education (DfE), maintained schools and their maintaining authorities when a school converts to become an academy. Schools are given a grant to contribute to their costs but local authorities get no financial support.

Local authorities must either bear the full cost of the work they undertake by law to facilitate transfers of status, or charge the converting school the costs, which they are entitled to do. Cabinet is asked to consider these issues and the recommendation to charge.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Cabinet should approve:1 Charging schools for the costs to the council on an ‘averaged’ basis.2 A charge of £6,000 for a community or voluntary controlled school, £5,000 for a

voluntary aided school (which does not require HR service input); £4,000 for foundation or trust schools (which do not require human resource or property service input); and charges to be negotiated on a case by case basis for private finance initiative (PFI) schools.

3 The delegation of the authority to review the charge annually by the cabinet member for all-age learning.

4 The annual consideration of charges, taking account of any inflation or deflation in the specific areas of work, is delegated to the executive director and that Surrey County council’s constitution is amended to allow the scheme of delegation to reflect this.

5 Charges to be levied for any new school formally requesting to convert to academy status (upon receipt of approval from the DfE) from 1 September 2019

Page 25

9

Item 9

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:The costs nationally of schools converting to become academy trusts (or becoming a part of an existing trust) are high. The House of Commons committee of public accounts estimated in its report, published in July 2018 and entitled ‘Converting schools to academies’, that the cost to the government of conversions had been £745,000,000 since 2010.

The committee noted that the full cost of conversion, including spending by schools and local authorities, is unclear. Surrey County Council, unlike many other top-tier councils in England, has not adopted a policy of charging for the costs it bears relating to such transfers. This currently means that the burden is shifted from general taxation to the council tax payer in Surrey. It also has an effect on the resources available for other council priorities.

For these reasons, it is proposed to charge schools, on the basis set out in recommendations above, for the costs to the council of conversions, on an averaged basis.

DETAILS:Background1. The Academies Act, 2010 received Royal assent on 27 July 2010. It gives all maintained

schools the opportunity to become academies, which are independent of local authority control. They are able to set their own pay and conditions for staff, and are able to buy in private services, including buying back services from the local authority should they so wish.

2. All academies established by the secretary of state enter into a contract (the funding agreement) with a charitable company, which is often referred to as the academy trust. The funding agreement provides the framework within which the academy must operate, and a draft model funding agreement for head teachers and governors is available from the DfE.

3. The process of converting to an academy involves the following key stages:

the school makes an expression of interest to the DfE, which confirms that it is acceptable and giving authority for the process to start;

employment and HR procedures including all consultation under the TUPE Regulations, 2006 with staff and unions commence prior to the conversion (upon the conversion, all employees of the converting schools, employed immediately before the conversion, will have their contracts of employment transferred to the new academy - except the head teacher of a sponsored academy);

approval of the application by the secretary of state starts the legal process of conversion;

land and employee transfer processes commence, and all other relevant issues – for example, changing all banking, insurance and service suppliers arrangements to the trust; and

finally, the secretary of state grants approval of the trust, with a closing date for the closure of the school and an opening date for the academy school, through the signing of a funding agreement.

4. The conversion process has a cost. This will vary from school to school, depending on, for example, the number of staff, whether land transfer is complex, and any contractual issues, including those arising from schools with private finance initiative (PFI) funded projects. A brief search showed the following charges levied by a range of councils.

Page 26

9

Council Charging levelStaffordshire CC £6,000 – flat fee for all conversions – estimated cost is £12,300Portsmouth city council £5,000 – with the provision for extra charges if costs exceed thisSwindon BC £5,000 – capped (Norfolk CC and Medway BC also have this cap)Blackburn with Darwen £5,000 to £6,500 for primaries, £6,000 to £7,500 for secondariesPlymouth city council £7,000 – flat contribution

5. Parliament’s committee of public accounts noted that: Local authorities can incur significant costs when schools become academies,

which affects their capacity to support their remaining maintained schools. The department does not collect data on the costs incurred by local authorities in supporting the conversion process.

A survey by the Local Government Association suggests that the average cost to local authorities, in terms of staff time and spending on things such as legal fees, has been between £6,400 and £8,400 for each maintained school that becomes an academy. Some local authorities have chosen to charge schools fees to recover these costs; evidence suggest the charges may range from £2,500 to £20,000 per school.

6. Work undertaken by Surrey County Council officers has estimated the cost to the council to be on average £6,909 for a community or voluntary controlled school, £5,813 for a voluntary aided school (which does not require HR service input); £4,422 for foundation or trust schools (which do not require human resource or property service input); and charges to be negotiated on a case by case basis for PFI schools. These estimates form the basis for charging, which have been pitched at a level that cannot be interpreted as income-generating.

7. The workload associated with each academy conversion will vary according to the complexity of the conversion. However, it is significant and the council requires additional resources to ensure that the increased workload associated with the academy transfer process is undertaken in a reasonable timescale, as well as ensuring that the council’s liabilities are transferred appropriately to the new academy.

Forming the academy 8. Academy conversions usually take about three months, but may take longer, depending

on the complexity of the situation and how quickly the transfer of staff, assets and land can be negotiated between the council and the school. The DfE has issued model documentation, which is intended to make the process more straightforward.

9. When entering into an academy conversion, schools receive a grant from the DfE of £25,000 towards their conversion costs, or £35,000 if the school concerned is subject to private finance initiative (PFI) funding. Local authorities receive no direct funding to cover the costs linked to academy conversions; however, there is a great deal of officer time required to ensure smooth transfer arrangements are undertaken within a reasonable timeframe. Therefore, many local authorities now levy a charge on schools for this work. The charges made by a sample of LAs is shown above under paragraph 4.

Legal agreements required 10. There are two main aspects to an academy transfer agreement between the local

authority and the school. These are the commercial transfer agreement (CTA) and the land ownership documentation.

Page 27

9

Commercial transfer agreement 11. The CTA is the agreement dealing with the transfer of assets and liabilities from the

governors of the old school or schools to the new academy or academies. It has the local authority as an extra party and the DfE requires a converting school to try to agree terms with the local authority.

12. Depending on circumstances, the final settlement of the CTA can be a much more time consuming exercise than the other documentation. The agreement ensure all liabilities transfer; including contracts and any loans by the council to the school.

Land ownership 13. When the secretary of state for education signs the funding agreement, an order will be

made in relation to land ownership. Depending on the pre-conversion category of school, the secretary of state will either require relevant freeholds to be transferred, or require that the freehold owner of the school or schools (the local authority) grants the new academy 125 year leases of the land.

Local authority costs incurred 14. The academy conversion process requires extra resource, for which the school is given

an allocation towards transfer costs (see paragraph 9 above). To mitigate the costs falling to the council, the report recommends a charge on the converting school, as set out in recommendation 2 of this report. The contributions will support the following work.

15. Legal and property: to act on behalf of the LA during the academy transfer process in order to finalise the CTA and the lease. This will involve purchasing external legal advice where insufficient internal capacity exists to manage the transfer workloads.

16. Finance officers have a wide range of tasks, as follows: assist in the closure of ‘old’ school accounts and determining the final schools

balance;

ensure required closure processes are completed, e.g. bank accounts, purchase cards, petty cash and outstanding income;

manage the finance related processes for the council when transacting with schools, academy trusts or the DfE;

provide financial advice relating to transfer arrangements; and

Verify of any financial aspects of transfer negotiations.

17. Human resources: the transfer of contracts of employment, historic terms and conditions and payroll transfers to comply with TUPE regulations.

18. Project management and co-ordination of the conversion process. This includes the initial response to the DfE, version agreements for CTA and final sign off, school meetings and liaison with the DfE and external solicitors.

19. The work and costs involved are significant for a standard transfer but much increased in transfers involving PFI agreements or where there are complex land use issues, hence the additional charge allowed for in recommendation 2.

20. It is proposed to operate the new charges for any conversion commencing after the cabinet has approved them.

Page 28

9

CONSULTATION:21. Surrey’s Schools Forum was informed about the proposal on 12 June 2019 and

discussed the principles for charging. No objections were raised and it was acknowledged that a grant was received by schools for conversion.

RISK MANAGEMENT AND IMPLICATIONS:22. There is a risk of a maintained school objecting to the charge. However the government

has made clear that LAs are entitled to levy reasonable charges for the cost of the work, and the council can cease work if a school’s governors refuse to pay, and take the money from the school’s budget if it refuses to pay at the end of the process.

Finance and value for money implications: 23. An exercise was undertaken in 2017 to establish the costs to the council of schools

converting to academy status. The total cost for community and voluntary controlled schools was £6,909; for voluntary-aided schools (where there are no human resources costs, since the council does not employ the staff) it was £5,813; and for foundation schools (where the council does not employ staff, nor own the land) it was £4,442.

24. The proposed charges of £6,000, £5,000 and £4,000 for community and voluntary controlled, voluntary aided and foundation schools respectively did not cover the full cost of conversions in 2017. Staff costs have increased by over four per cent since then.

25. The table below shows the number of conversions by school type In the 2018/19 financial year, and projects the cost (using the 2017/18 financial year cost base) and the projected income. The final column shows the total net cost in the 2020/21 financial year (which would be the first full financial year of charging if agreed by cabinet) based on the number of conversions in the financial year 2018/19.

School type Conversion cost

Total cost Total projected income 2020/21

Total net cost 2020/21

Community / VC £6,909 (19) £131,271 £114,000 £17,271

VA £5,813 (2) £11,626 £10,000 £1,626

Foundation £4,422 (1) £4,422 £4,000 £422

total £147,319 £128,000 £19,319

26. In summary, there is still a net cost to the council of conversions in each category, and a total projected net cost (assuming the number of conversions stated) of £19,319. While there is still a net cost, it is £128,000 less than the cost to the council in 2018/19. Accounting for an estimated five per cent increase in costs between 2017/18 and 2020/21, the net cost, assuming the same number and type of conversions, will be about £27,000. The gross cost to the council would therefore be about £155,000, with the net cost of approximately £27,000. While there might be some cost efficiencies applied, there is no chance of the Council profiting from conversions.

Section 151 Officer commentary

27. The council is facing a very serious financial situation, whereby there are still substantial savings to be delivered to achieve a balanced budget in the current year and a sustainable budget plan for future years. Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture is on a major transformation journey to improve services for children and families. This involves reviewing all areas of expenditure and considering whether it complies with the council’s priorities.

Page 29

9

28. The purpose of the report is to establish a charging scheme to recover costs from schools that choose to academies. Such schools already obtain a grant of £25,000 and whilst it is considered not sufficient for a school to cover all costs it is intended to incentivise them to be cost-effective in their transition. On the other hand local authorities also incur costs and receive no additional support for doing so. As such it is entirely appropriate to consider as charging scheme whereby the council receives a contribution to its costs for supporting the academisation process. Extensive analysis of previous transfer confirms that the proposed charging scheme is appropriate to recover costs and does not seek to make a profit. These charges will need to be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that they keep in line with the actual costs incurred by the council.

Legal implications – monitoring officer

29. In coming to a decision on this issue the Cabinet needs to take account of all relevant matters. The weight to be given to each of the relevant matters is for the Cabinet to decide. Relevant matters in this context will include the statutory requirements on the council arising from the Academies Act, 2010, policy considerations, the medium term financial plan, the council’s fiduciary duty, and any relevant risks including any damage to reputation and relationships with converting schools.

30. The council owes a fiduciary duty to its council tax payers, analogous to that owed by trustees responsible for looking after property belonging to other people. Accordingly, in deciding to spend money a local authority must take account of the interests of council taxpayers who have contributed to the cincome and balance those interests against those who benefit from the expenditure. It will also need to act in a prudent way having regard to the short and long term consequences of the decision.

Equalities and diversity:31. The proposal relates to the charging of schools for work required of the council for which

the school gets a direct government grant. Therefore there will be no differential impact on any group with protected characteristics.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

Should cabinet approve the recommendations, schools that commence the process of conversion into a trust, or joining a trust, will be charged as per the recommendations.

Contact officer: Liz Mills, Director of Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture

Consulted: There has been internal consultation with the Cabinet Member for All-Age Learning

Sources / background papers: Parliament’s committee of public accounts report: converting schools to academies inquiry, 11 July 2018;

Various media articles, council committee reports on charging schools for academy conversions

Page 30

9


CABINET

DATE: 16 JULY 2019

REPORT OF: MRS JULIE ILES, CABINET MEMBER FOR ALL-AGE LEARNINGLEAD OFFICER: LIZ MILLS DIRECTOR EDUCATION, LIFELONG LEARNING AND

CULTURE

SUBJECT: LIBRARIES AND CULTURAL SERVICES TRANSFORMATION SUMMARY OF ISSUE:

Surrey County Council is developing a new strategy for libraries and cultural services and is proposing a second round of public consultation over the autumn to determine an effective and sustainable delivery model for Surrey’s libraries and cultural services.

Our ambition is to meet the library and cultural needs of everyone who lives and works in Surrey, by inspiring, connecting and sharing ideas and information. Best practice tells us that modern libraries and cultural services are actively engaging with their communities, are working in partnership and are delivering a dynamic programme of events. Across Surrey libraries and cultural services there are examples of good public engagement, partnership working and programming to meet local need. We will be seeking to build on current good practice in the service and best practice examples from the UK, America and Europe in the new strategy.

This second round of consultation will set out detailed proposals for the future delivery model for libraries and cultural services building on the findings of first round of public consultation carried out between October 2018 and January 2019 and the five strategic principles (set out in para 1) that will shape the future strategy for the services.

This report sets out requirements for the proposed consultation and preparations needed to ensure all sections of the community are able to fully participate.

RECOMMENDATIONS:


1. Agreement is given to prepare the second stage consultation on detailed proposals for a new service model for libraries and cultural services as outlined.

2. As per the scheme of delegation, the decision to go out to public consultation is taken by the Executive Director in consultation with the Portfolio Holder.

3. That the Executive Director in consultation with the Portfolio Holder finalise the consultation proposals


Agreeing to these recommendations means the council can proceed to develop a future model for libraries and cultural services in Surrey, subject to consultation and a detailed equality impact assessment, that reflects modern expectations, is fit for purpose and

Page 31

10

Item 10

provides and enables opportunities for everyone to learn, access information, acquire new skills, increase literacy and be involved in their communities.

DETAILS:

1. Surrey County Council is developing a new draft strategy for libraries and cultural services. Initial public consultation took place between 30 October 2018 and 4 January 2019. As agreed by Cabinet on 29 January 2019, the following principles will form the basis of the future strategy for the services:

Strategic principles: Libraries and cultural services provide and enable opportunities for everyone to learn,

access information, acquire new skills, literacy and be involved in their communities. There will be a focus on the wellbeing and strengthening of communities, particularly

the most vulnerable, to enable them to be resilient, providing touch points and safe spaces.

Libraries and cultural services are most effective and efficient when they work in partnership with the public, voluntary, community and private sectors, including through the creation of shared spaces creating a model of financial sustainability.

New technologies, including digital, enable libraries and cultural services to reach new audiences, and existing audiences in new ways, and offer 24/7 access.

Volunteers are crucial community advocates and assets in libraries and cultural services who also gain valuable skills and relationships through the work they do

2. Traditionally responses to similar consultations draw the largest number of returns from current service users. Our aim is to reach as many sections of the community as possible, including current and non-users of library and cultural services as we wish to create a service model that will meet all communities’ needs and is sustainable for future generations. In order to do this we will be developing with partners an extensive communications and engagement strategy. This will include meetings and themed workshops with key stakeholder groups such as Community Partnered Libraries, Friends of Libraries, arts and cultural organisations, library users, schools, health, Citizens Advice Bureau, Department for Work and Pensions and Job Centre Plus amongst others.

3. We will continue to work with district and borough councils who are keen to support the consultation process and we will be working with partners to develop detailed proposals ready for consultation in the autumn, including with Local/Joint Committee Chairs.

4. In shaping our future proposals we will draw on best practice from elsewhere both from within the UK, America and Europe so that our proposals for Surrey reflect the latest thinking and technology to support residents changing needs and aspirations. We will also continue to gain advice and support from professional, advisory and regulatory bodies including but not exclusive to; Chartered Institute of Library Information Professionals, Department for Culture Media and Sport including the recommendations of the Library Taskforce.

5. In preparing for consultation we will produce a detailed needs assessment and set out in our proposals how we propose to meet our statutory duties through a new service model.

Page 32

10

CONSULTATION:

6. Initial consultation was carried out between October 2108 and January 2019 in which residents and service users were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the principles set out in the main body of this report and whether they were likely to be affected positively or negatively by each principle. They were also asked for ideas and comments relating to each of the five principles to provide a qualitative response to the consultation.

7. Full analysis of the findings from the round one consultation reported to Cabinet on the 29 January are contained in Annex 1. The headlines from the feedback were:

A majority of respondents agreed with each of the five strategic principles Respondents were positive about the relevance and role of libraries and culture in

the community Respondents liked the idea of co-located services and shared spaces, e.g. cafes

and libraries located together Libraries and cultural services should have both universal and targeted service

offers. Those targeted could include children, older people and vulnerable groups, such as those who are socially isolated

There were concerns about the future of the libraries network, particularly regarding the number of libraries. They also commented that while it was valuable to have volunteers in place, they were not a substitute for the expertise of paid staff

While there was support for using new technologies to more effectively deliver services, this should not lose sight of the core offer provided by libraries and cultural services, e.g. access to books.

8. Results from the round one consultation indicate that targeted work will be needed to engage effectively with children and young people. We are currently working with staff, key stakeholders and a range of groups and organisations who are able to extend our reach and connect with sections of the community underrepresented in responses to the first round of consultation. We will also complete a detailed Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) that will guide the formation of our proposals and future strategy


9. There are risks that will need to be managed through the programme governance in relation to ensuring that the consultation is as extensive and inclusive as possible so that all sections of the community have the opportunity to engage in the consultation and that all voices are heard.

10. It is clear from the consultation analysis and the EIA from the first round of consultation that children and young people were less engaged in the process. For the proposed second round on detailed proposals the process will be designed to ensure that the views of this particular demographic are captured.

FINANCIAL AND VALUE FOR MONEY IMPLICATIONS

11. The cost of the consultation will be found from within the agreed transformation budget. One of the desired outcomes of the proposed new model for Libraries and Cultural Services is to bring the net spend on these services in line with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) County Council average within the council’s Medium Term Financial Plan. At £12.04 per head of population the council’s library

Page 33

10

service is more expensive than our statistical neighbours spend of £10.22 (2017/18 actuals).

12. The Financial Strategy as approved by Cabinet in January 2019 has been modelled on achieving this over a phased period although it is recognised that detailed plans on how to do this will be subject to public consultation.


13. The council is facing a very serious financial situation, whereby there are still substantial savings to be delivered to achieve a balanced budget in the current year and a sustainable budget plan for future years. Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture is on a major transformation journey to improve services for residents, children and families. The transformation of Libraries and Cultural Services is a key part of the improvement programme.


14. Local authorities have a statutory duty under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 ‘to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons' in the area that want to make use of it (section 7). At present there are no specific proposals for changes to the provision. Any change to the provision of this service will need to be the subject of full consultation and EIA in accordance with the council’s duties to do so.


15. The findings and actions from a detailed equality impact assessment need to be carefully considered to inform any future proposals.

16. The EIA in Annex 2 from the first round of consultation identified that there are potentially positive impacts for all groups from a future service model, based on the five strategic principles, that provides libraries and cultural services through a new digital platform and shared spaces. The most significant negative impact on all groups is potential reductions of libraries and cultural services in stand-alone buildings in a future service model.

17. There may also be impacts on service users who may struggle to get access, or have the skills to use, an enhanced digital platform proposed as part of a future libraries and cultural services offer. Should we proceed with this model in the future, to mitigate these we plan to ensure there is geographical spread across the county through enhanced digital services and libraries and cultural services in community settings.

18. We also plan to undertake targeted consultation with those groups who may experience physical barriers to participation such as older people, people with physical mobility challenges and rural communities.

19. In addition, we recognise there were low numbers of responses from children and young people to the first round of consultation when compared to the proportion of them who are users of libraries and cultural services, we will continue to carry out further targeted engagement with this group to build a stronger evidence base on potential impact of any proposals . There will also be potential impacts on staff arising from a future service model. We will fully include staff in the design of the new service model and engagement through focus groups has commenced. We will consult formally with all staff where proposals require changes in any staffing structures.

Page 34

10

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT:

Documentation for the second stage consultation as described will be prepared for sign off by the Executive Director and Portfolio Holder with the aim of launching this phase of consultation in September 2019. A detailed consultation plan will be developed to enable input from all sections of the community. The findings of the second stage consultation will be reported to Cabinet when complete.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contact Officer:

Liz Mills, Director of Education Lifelong Learning and Culture (0208 541 7608).

Consulted:

District and Borough Chief Officers and Leaders

Cabinet Members

Annexes:

Annex 1: Libraries and Cultural Services Consultation Report, January 2019

Annex 2: Libraries and Cultural Services Equality Impact Assessment, January 2019


All background papers used in the writing of the report should be listed, as required by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.

A copy of any background papers which have not previously been published should be supplied to Democratic Services with your draft report.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 35

10

1

ANNEX 1

Libraries and Cultural Services TransformationStrategy Consultation

Consultation Analysis – January 2019

Page 37

10

2

1 Introduction

Surrey County Council has developed a new draft strategy for libraries and cultural services which consists of the following five strategic principles that could shape the future of libraries and cultural services in Surrey.

1. Libraries and cultural services provide and enable opportunities for everyone to learn, access information, acquire new skills, improve literacy and be involved in their communities.

2. There is a focus on the wellbeing and strengthening of communities, particularly the most vulnerable, to enable them to be resilient.

3. Libraries and cultural services are most effective and efficient when they work in partnership with the public, voluntary, community and private sectors, including through the creation of shared spaces.

4. New technologies, including digital, enable libraries and cultural services to reach new audiences, and existing audiences in new ways, and offer 24/7 access.

5. Volunteers are crucial community advocates and assets in libraries and cultural services, who also gain valuable skills and relationships through the work they do.

These principles have been subject to a public consultation carried out between 30 Oct 2018 and 04 Jan 2019. This report summaries the methods and finding of the quantitative and qualitative responses to the consultation. 7,901 survey responses have been received providing quantitative responses, including 432 which used an Easy Read version. Of the 7,901 responses, slightly over 50% provided qualitative comments.

2 Summary

Feedback from Residents

From a quantitative perspective, 7,901 people responded to the consultation. Asked about each of the five strategic principles, of those who expressed a view the proportion who either strongly agreed or agreed with each principle was 65% or more. . This ranged from 97% strongly agreeing or agreeing with the first principle (opportunities to learn), to 75% strongly agreeing or agreeing with the fifth principle (role of volunteers), to 66% strongly agreeing or agreeing with the second principle (wellbeing and strengthening of communities).

This is highly encouraging and shows that the proposed principles put forward that could shape the future of libraries and cultural services in Surrey are very well supported by people who took the trouble to respond to the survey.

There was also a level of disagreement to all of the principles. For three of the principles, the number of respondents either disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with the principle fell between 8 and 13%. Less than 2% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the first principle

Page 38

10

3

(opportunities to learn), but more significantly, 16% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the second principle (targeting the wellbeing and strengthening of communities, particularly the most vulnerable). This corresponds with some of the qualitative feedback presented by respondents who felt that libraries and cultural services should target particular communities but should still continue to be a universal service for all.

However the overwhelming majority of respondents were supporting of all the principles which provides a strong blueprint for developing detailed proposals for the second public consultation.

Just over 50% of respondents to the consultation provided qualitative feedback which has provided the council with a huge amount of information and ideas for taking libraries and cultural services forward into the future. To help analyse the data and to also cross reference with the other consultations which have been undertaken, the information collected has been grouped under the following themes. Each theme was then broken down further as shown below which allowed a thorough analysis of all the responses to be covered and all views taken into account:

Strengthening communities: Shared spaces - comments relating to libraries and cultural services being located and

integrated with other services in the same building. Community involvement - suggestions around libraries and cultural services working with

local groups or individuals. Access for all - comments relating to the universality of library and cultural services. Vulnerable people - comments relating to user who are vulnerable or who struggle to use

services. Wellbeing – comments relating to libraries and cultural services supporting people’s

wellbeing. Learning – comments relating to the learning opportunities provided by libraries and cultural

services. Children - comments specifically relating to children & families’ use of services. Cultural Services – comments relating specifically to the value of cultural services, rather

than libraries

Resource constraints: Consolidation – comments relating to closing libraries in the context of concentrating

resources to provide a better service for residents No changes to existing services – comments relating to a desire for existing library and

cultural services to be unchanged and remain as they are Staff – comments relating to the role of paid SCC libraries staff Book stock – comments relating to the book stock in Surrey libraries Libraries are redundant – comments relating to the idea that libraries no longer needed in

today’s society

Working together Volunteering – comments relating to the use of volunteers in the service

Page 39

10

4

Partnerships – suggestions around working with external partners – e.g. health, charities, district and borough councils businesses and shops etc.

Perceptions of the organisation Surrey County Council – Comments about Surrey Country Council generally. The consultation process – comments on the consultation process.

Innovation Digital – lots of comments on the use of new technology as a positive but also some

concerns for people who did not have access to new technologies. Improvements – general comments relating to improvements that could be made to

services. Marketing – comments relating to promotion of services, or making residents/ service users

more aware.

The story in summary of the qualitative responses picked up on the following key themes:

People were hugely positive about the relevance and role of libraries and cultural services in the community.

People like shared spaces – Frequently mentioned ideas were cafes, children’s centres, information hubs, general support for co-located services and partners. People evidently understand the concept of hubs and sharing spaces.

People felt that that libraries and cultural services should target particular communities but tempering this were comments made that libraries and cultural services should continue to be a universal service for all.

There was a general support for the idea of libraries supporting the well-being of residents, particularly that of children, the elderly and other vulnerable people including the unemployed, socially isolated, new mothers and those residents who have little or no contact with other council services.

People like supporting and using volunteers within libraries and cultural services but there were concerns that volunteers should not replace paid staff and there was support given to the expertise provided by staff.

On digital services there was lots of support and comments supporting new technologies and the use of it, but also concerns raised that doing everything digitally was not the only answer. Particularly libraries should still be about books and library and cultural spaces should be about meeting people, combatting isolation, studying, accessing cultural activities and strengthening communities generally.

There were a considerable amount of comments that this consultation would eventually lead to a consolidation of resources and a future network with fewer libraries, with localised comments expressed around the closing of particular libraries, thus increasing isolation and access to services.

One of the questions in the consultation asked respondents to indicate which library or cultural building they use, if any. For this question, the number of responses relating to each building have

Page 40

10

5

been compared to usage data to assess whether respondent figures are generally proportionate. Reponses do appear to be broadly proportionate, with one exception. Responses from users of Dittons library in Thames Ditton were comparable in number to libraries of similar size until mid-December. At this point, the number of responses from users of this library increased to a number which could be expected from a large library in a main town, such as Woking or Guildford. This is believed to be in response to a local leaflet campaign to 'Save Dittons Library', in the belief that the library is under threat, despite this consultation being purely around strategic principles with no specific proposals for this or any other library. The tone of the qualitative comments from users of this library change around this time from generic comments to very specific comments about Dittons library, with a plea not to close it. The percentage of Dittons respondents who left qualitative comments was just over 50% of responses (the same as the all consultation responses) and the quantitative responses from this area do not appear to be impacted by the local campaign.

Page 41

10

6

Feedback from Partners

The consultation has been open to the general public. The council has also directly contacted number of partner organisations to raise awareness of consultation with a link to the online questionnaire. These include, but are not limited to:

Surrey District and Borough local authorities Local Committees All SCC schools Action for Carers Age Concern Age UK Alzheimer’s Society Children’s Centres Disability Access Networks Further Education colleges Hospitals National Autistic Society NHS Surrey Community Action Surrey Youth Parliament University of Surrey Other Voluntary Groups and Charities

In addition, 13 drop-in sessions have been held in each of the borough/ district council areas across the county. These have allowed local people to ask questions regarding the strategy and the questionnaire.

There have been several written responses from partner organisations to the County Council regarding consultations held between 30 October 2018 and 04 January 2019. Please see Annex 2 for a summary of comments relating to the libraries and cultural services consultation.

Page 42

10

7

3 Methods

‘Surrey Says’, an online consultation tool, has been used to host the consultation survey, allowing residents to complete the survey online and also allowing the analysis tools of Surrey Says to be used to analyse responses including an easy to read version. Hard copies of the consultation have been available in libraries and through the council’s contact centre with freepost envelopes. Completed hard copies have then been entered onto Surrey Says by staff in the service.

Through the consultation, residents and users of the services have been asked whether they agree/ disagree on the principles and, whether, with each principle there will be a positive or negative impact on themselves. This has been done quantitatively through a tick box exercise. They have also been asked for their ideas and comments by written response on the survey form. This qualitative information has been read and analysed by staff in the service using the ‘tagging’ tools on Surrey Says.

To ensure there has been a systematic approach to the analytical work of the qualitative information, a shared thematic framework has been co-designed by a research expert in the analytics team in the Children, Schools and Families Directorate with officers working on different transformation projects across the Council. Specifically, there has been a shared agreement in how to analyse specific data within an agreed set of themes.

Page 43

10

8

3.1 Demographics

An overview of the equalities monitoring information captured in the consultation responses is summarised below. For full datasets, please see Annex 1.

Age 40% of respondents are 45 – 64 year olds 23% of respondents are 25 – 44 year olds 22% of respondents are 65 – 74 year olds 9% of respondents are 75 and over 1% of respondents are 18 - 24 year olds 0.43% of respondents are under 18

Gender 63% of respondents are female 31% of respondents are male The remainder prefer not to say or have not answered

Employments Status 30% of respondents are retired 29% of respondents are in full-time employment (30 hours or more per week) 16% of respondents are in part-time employment (less than 30 hours per week)

Ethnicity 81% of respondents are White British 7% of respondents preferred not to say 6% of respondents are White any other background 3% of respondents are BME

Health and disability 83% of respondents say their day-to-day activities are not limited because of a

health problem or disability which has lasted or is expected to last at least 12 months 9% of respondents say their day-to-day activities are limited a little because of a

health problem or disability which has lasted or is expected to last at least 12 months

Caring for Others 70% of respondents say they do not look after, or give help or support to family

members, friends, neighbours, or others because of either: long-term physical or mental ill health/disability and/or problems related to old age

19% of respondents say they do look after, or give help or support to family members, friends, neighbours, or others because of either: long-term physical or

Page 44

10

9

mental ill health/disability and/or problems related to old age for 1 – 19 hours a week

Religion 50% of respondents are Christian 29% have stated they have no religion 15% have stated they prefer not to say

An Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) is being maintained as a live working document throughout the development of the libraries and cultural services transformation programme to assess the impact on protected characteristics.

Page 45

10

10

4 Quantitative analysis

In a quantitative exercise, residents and users of the services have been asked the following with regards to the five proposed strategic principles shown in section 1 above:

• Do they agree or disagree with each principle, using the following scale:

Strongly Agree

Agree Neither agree or disagree

Disagree Strongly disagree

I have no opinion

• What impact would each principle have on them, using the following scale:

Highly positive

Positive No impact Negative Highly negative

Not sure

There have been 7,901 quantitative survey responses on Surrey Says.

In summary:

Over 65% of respondents either agree or strongly agree with all of the principles.

Between 8% and 13% of respondents either disagree or strongly disagree with three of the principles.

Only less than 2% either disagree or strongly disagree with the first principle (opportunities to learn) and 16% either disagree or strongly disagree with the second principle (targeting the wellbeing and strengthening of communities, particularly the most vulnerable).

Full quantitative responses to ‘support for’ and ‘impact of’ each of the five strategic principles in the consultation is summarised below. The highest and second highest number of responses are highlighted:

Page 46

10

11

Question 1.1 & 1.2To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following principle:Libraries and cultural services provide and enable opportunities for everyone to learn, access information, acquire new skills, improve literacy and be involved in their communities.

Option Number of respondents Percentage of respondentsStrongly agree 6,616 83.74Agree 1,054 13.34Neither agree nor disagree 89 1.13Disagree 53 1.13Strongly disagree 30 0.38No opinion 7 0.09Not Answered 52 0.66

What impact would this principle have on you?

Option Number of respondents Percentage of respondentsHighly positive 4,359 55.17Positive 2,804 35.49No impact 448 5.67Negative 53 0.67Highly negative 46 0.58Not sure 117 1.48Not Answered 74 0.94

Page 47

10

12

Question 1.3 & 1.4To what extent do you agree or disagree with the principle that:Given restricted funding, libraries and other cultural resources should be targeted to the wellbeing and strengthening of communities, particularly the most vulnerable, to enable them to be resilient.

Option Number of respondents Percentage of respondentsStrongly agree 2,713 34.34Agree 2,529 32.01Neither agree nor disagree 1,190 15.06Disagree 838 10.61Strongly disagree 429 5.43No opinion 113 1.43Not Answered 89 1.13


Option Number of respondents Percentage of respondentsHighly positive 1,663 21.05Positive 2,246 28.43No impact 1,848 23.39Negative 986 12.48Highly negative 372 4.71Not sure 665 8.42Not Answered 121 1.53

Page 48

10

13

Question 1.5 & 1.6To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following principle:Libraries and cultural services are most effective and efficient when they work in partnership with the public, voluntary and community and private sectors, including through the creation of shared spaces.




Page 49

10

14

Question 1.7 & 1.8To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following principle:New technologies, including digital, enable libraries and cultural services to reach new audiences, and existing audiences in new ways, and offer 24/7 access.

Option Number of respondents Percentage of respondentsStrongly agree 2,954 37.39Agree 3,388 42.88Neither agree nor disagree 763 9.66Disagree 461 5.83Strongly disagree 172 2.18No opinion 78 0.99Not Answered 85 1.08



Page 50

10

15

Question 1.9 & 1.10To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following principle:Volunteers are crucial community advocates and assets in libraries and cultural services, who also gain valuable skills and relationships through the work they do.




Page 51

10

16

Question 1.11 & 1.12To what extent do you agree or disagree with:The county council extending the use of volunteers to help in delivering and collecting books to our most vulnerable residents who wish to access library services?



Option Number of respondents Percentage of respondentsHighly positive 840 10.63Positive 1,411 17.86No impact 4,713 59.65Negative 279 3.53Highly negative 153 1.94Not sure 399 5.05Not Answered 106 1.34

Page 52

10

17

Question 4.1To what extent do you agree or disagree that this is an appropriate area for the county council to make savings?

Option Number of respondents Percentage of respondentsAgree 1,103 13.96Disagree 5,904 74.72Don't know 807 10.21Not Answered 87 1.10

Question Q4.2 To what extent do you agree or disagree that the savings should be made from other county council services?

Option Number of respondents Percentage of respondentsAgree 4,085 51.70Disagree 1,575 19.93Don't know 2,123 26.87Not Answered 118 1.49

Page 53

10

18

5 Qualitative analysis

Respondents were asked for their specific ideas on how these principles could be achieved and just over 50% of respondents have provided such feedback.

A shared thematic framework has been developed for all the recently completed council consultations around analysing the qualitative data. The themes included:

Strengthening communities

Resource constraints

Working together

Perceptions of the organisation

Innovation

Comments for each of these themes are now presented in sub themes. All comments received have been tagged in relation to these sub themes, allowing ideas and opinions to be analysed in a consistent way.

Most respondents have covered a range of themes in their commentary (i.e. individual comments have not just been about one thing) and within each sub theme presented, percentages are provided to show the percentage of comments which included comments on that sub theme.

Page 54

10

19

5.1 Strengthening communities

This theme is to do with how libraries and cultural services help to make stronger and more resilient communities. Written responses from survey respondents have been read and tagged with responses falling under the following sub-themes:

Shared spaces - comments relating to libraries and cultural services being located with other services. Please also see the related ‘partnerships’ sub-theme in the ‘Working Together’ theme..

Community involvement - suggestions around working with libraries and cultural services connecting to local groups or individuals. Please also see the related ‘partnerships’ sub-theme in the ‘Working Together’ theme..

Access for all - comments relating to the universality of library and cultural services.

Vulnerable people - comments relating to users who are vulnerable or who struggle to use or access libraries and cultural services.

Wellbeing – comments relating to libraries and cultural services supporting people’s wellbeing.

Learning – comments relating to the learning opportunities provided by libraries and cultural services.

Children - comments specifically relating to children & families’ use of libraries and cultural services.

Cultural Services – comments relating specifically to the value of cultural services, rather than libraries.

Theses sub-themes are summarised below, with key findings and example ‘quotes’ from respondents. To provide clarity, the comments have been set in a table format under the headings of ‘Enablers’ or Barriers’. This is the same for all the sub themes throughout this document

Page 55

10

20

Shared Spaces (Approximately 11% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme)

Enablers Barriers The concept of a ‘shared space’ did mean different things to different

people. For some it was as simple as a meeting room for community groups to meet, or an area for people to be social in, or hold community events. For others it was more about the location of the building being in a shared space, for example in an out of town shopping centre.

The vast majority of respondents were positive about the concept of libraries and cultural services being in ‘shared spaces’ or ‘community hubs’.

When people talked about ‘community hubs’ there did seem to be a bit more consistency in the type of space they were talking about. The most popular suggestion was that the building also contained a café or refreshments of some sort. Respondents felt that this would encourage people to stay longer in the library, and would enable community activities to take place there.

The next most popular suggestion was the libraries and or cultural services should be housed with children’s centre, in that they are often reaching the same people.

Closely followed by this were the responses that suggested that libraries and or cultural services should be housed with GPs or other health services.

Other suggestions were that libraries should be grouped in with other services, such as ‘adult education centres’, ‘council help desks’ (both county & and borough councils were suggested), ‘Post Offices’, ‘community centres’, ‘supermarkets’ and ‘commercial partners’.

Only a handful of respondents were negative about the concept of ‘shared spaces’ and those that were either were concerned about the closure of small local libraries, or the suitability of the shared space for all purposes. Those concerned that this would mean the closure of smaller local libraries, to create larger town ‘community hubs’ generally felt that closing smaller libraries would make access to the library more difficult for individuals who find travelling more of a challenge.

Some respondents, whilst generally positive about the concept of sharing spaces did express some concerns, often around how linked user groups would be within a shared facility, and also how suitable the spaces might be.

Those who were concerned about the suitability of the space, often felt that the space would not be physically suitable, for example noisier than libraries currently are, or that the facilities might not be suitable for all.

Some respondents were also concerned about the integrity of the library been compromised if it was shared with other services

Sample of comments made

‘The idea of sharing spaces is a good one, but only if the shared space is beneficial. Yes, moving another service into a library building would cut back on the need to pay for two buildings, but I think the services need to complement each other in order to show it as a success.’

Page 56

10

21


Enablers Barriers Some respondents talked about sharing spaces, for the benefit of the

council, rather than for the benefit of users, for example having desk space for staff from different departments in libraries.

One common suggestion, often in the context of if the local library was permanently closed, was that other spaces could be shared, to provide pick up points for books, or kiosks where books ordered.


‘Libraries should be a hub for the community. They should be warm, welcoming, and provide well equipped spaces to work, with power points, good light and Wi-Fi access, also some computers and printing and copying facilities. There should be toilets and refreshment options, ideally a cafe serving good wholesome food. Meeting rooms for hire would be a useful addition.’

‘Shared spaces could be more appealing to people who feel unable or willing to visit library only premises. Having access to cafes and other services may encourage more vulnerable to use the service and use the space more effectively.’

‘Maybe you could look at approaching local large or small retailers like supermarkets to give you a small library hub area where people can pick up their ordered books or return them, it may increase footfall to shops and be a more inclusive space for people to meet chat ,have a coffee and get books . You would save on the premise

‘The down side, is that if you in turn close smaller local libraries then those who are unable to travel or find it inconvenient will be left without access to these wonderful and often lifesaving services.’

‘I feel concerned that your focus on 'community' will lead to you turning library spaces into more of a badly-behaved children's playground than they already are or making the space so 'social' that it becomes too noisy and distracting to read or concentrate on serious study.’

‘I believe it's important that libraries remain as libraries, not become part of some sort of mixed service’

Page 57

10

22


Enablers Barriersoverheads and the retailers mat get increase footfall and profits on the coffee/ shops and people will go there, for the library hub and shoe in that store if they are there already ! Bit blue sky thinking but why not try it?’

Page 58

10

23

Community Involvement (Approximately 13% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme)Enablers Barriers Many comments linked very closely with those responses tagged with

‘shared spaces’. Respondents talked about libraries being a community venue, which could be used for a range of functions and activities – meeting spaces for community groups, talks & events, MP/Councillor surgeries, and local businesses using the space,

Often these suggestions were around using library spaces outside of opening hours.

Some respondents felt that local communities should be more actively involved in their local library, often suggesting that ‘Friends groups’ could support the running and promotion of the library within the local community.

Another common ‘community involvement’ theme was around the feeling that libraries were integral parts of their local communities. Also linked with this is the feeling that volunteering is a good way of involving the library in the local community, and also vice versa, in involving the local community in supporting the library. Libraries are seen as social spaces for the community to feel involved, with other users or with the staff & volunteers in the library

Sample comments made

‘I think that evening use of the facilities for things such as volunteer led coding clubs, language classes, etc. would be really valuable.’

There were limited responses rejecting the idea of ‘community involvement, and these either related to the use of volunteers, available services or the opening hours of the library:


‘Libraries that are too often closed are of little use to a community.’

Page 59

10

24

Community Involvement (Approximately 13% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme)Enablers Barriers

‘Link up community groups with the library services - churches, current meals at home provision, so that two roles could be fulfilled.’

‘I know you would have to pay for heating, lighting, etc. but I am sure Knaphill library could be used for groups who want to meet in the evenings, weekends etc. I used to live in London and attended a slimming group in a library during library opening hours. A keep fit class was held there after our group finished each week and this continued after the library had closed.’

‘By asking the local communities what they want from their library & what would make them visit more often. Also by linking libraries & other local community groups & organisations’

‘Is there an option to have a 'Friends of' type membership that would help support libraries specifically?’

‘Community use of libraries - more use should be made of libraries with organised events 'meet ups' for elderly residents to meet. Lot of social problems caused by loneliness.’

Page 60

10

25

Access for All (Approximately 8% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme)Enablers Barriers There were very positive comments about libraries and cultural

services being open to all members of the community. The age range was stressed, along with ethnicity, educational level and health, showing how these services are applicable to all at different points in their lives.

Further comments endorsed the same message, but explicitly stating that libraries were not just for the vulnerable or disadvantaged and they felt that it was a mistake to differentiate between groups of people.


‘Library are essential to community cohesiveness and social inclusion, so should be open access and welcoming to all.’

‘The library is of benefit to every grouping in society - all groups should have targeted provision, and no sector should be excluded. As soon as we target one sector over another we give the message that self-motivated education and literacy are only for particular people, and the community is poorer as a result.’

There were a very small number of comments which referred to libraries now being redundant, due to changing times and information technology.


‘I think with the digital age there is less demand for libraries. There is much more knowledge available online and no need to access libraries for this. Move with the times.’

Page 61

10

26

Vulnerable People (Approximately 11% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme)Enablers Barriers The majority of comments referring to vulnerable people were very

positive. They saw libraries as a unique location for vulnerable people to visit and to find a place for themselves in the community.

There were different perceptions of what a vulnerable person was – these included the elderly, children, housebound people, the unemployed, the homeless, isolated individuals, refugees, people with poor health and disabilities.

Digital technology was seen by some as positive in terms of keeping the vulnerable involved with services and opportunities to use the library.

Using volunteers to take books to the housebound was received favourably and others suggested various forms of mobile library service to people who couldn’t reach a static library.

Using the library as a safe space, a meeting place and a place to feel part of the community were common themes


‘Libraries play a part in addressing loneliness. They provide a safe place that can be visited alone, they provide intellectual stimulation and a distraction to loneliness, economic or other emotional hardship. They can change people’s lives, they can be the only person (sic) contact individuals of all ages have.’‘If you cut libraries, it's incredibly short-sighted. It will only cost much, much more in future to help educate, enlighten and uplift the most vulnerable in society. Pay a penny to the library now, or a pound to prison, etc. later.’

A smaller number of comments took a different slant and felt that although it was right that vulnerable people were supported, it wasn’t right for the service to focus on them as services should be for everyone and universal.

There was also the negative side of digital technology that many vulnerable people weren’t able, through skills or finances, to use the technology so would feel cut off and isolated further.

A very small number of people commented negatively on the use of libraries by homeless people.

There were comments on the travel aspect of a reduction of libraries, which would mean more travel for those who couldn’t afford it or are too vulnerable to use public transport to a town.

Sample of comments made‘I do agree that the vulnerable should be supported, but also feel that the library service is a great place for the whole community, not just the most vulnerable.’‘If it is seen too much as focused on the vulnerable and a place for all the homeless/jobless/mentally ill/ disabled to go to - then it will be less likely to be seen as meaningful to the whole community. It needs to help the vulnerable while being an active, vibrant place for the majority. This is an important part of libraries being able to support vulnerable populations - by including them in all aspects of community life, not by side-lining them.’

Page 62

10

27

Children (Approximately 14% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme)Enablers Barriers Almost all comments relating to children were positive about the need

for libraries and cultural services to provide for children. Often these comments were in the context of libraries and cultural services providing services of relevance to residents ‘young and old’. Many respondents also often talked about the positive benefits library and cultural services had on both themselves and their children.

Some comments explicitly talked about the benefit that Surrey Arts had on their children’s development, enabling them to access music lessons.

Some comments mentioned that libraries should build or improve links with other services and groups, such as children’s centres, school and playgroups to promote existing services and better reach children & families.


‘I had a baby 17months ago and rhyme Time at the library was quite literally a life saver for me and many other mum friends that I have met there during my maternity leave. I still take my daughter to rhyme time on a Saturday morning and she gets to choose some books after as I feel this is hugely beneficial to her development’

‘Surrey Arts provide really important music provision that is not available in ordinary school curriculum.’

‘Storytelling sessions for young children, already used in Surrey libraries, could be more actively promoted to the more vulnerable families and thence used as way in to other forms of support’

Whilst no respondents specifically said that cultural services should not be provided for children, a few felt that the balance of services was too skewed towards children, or that facilities could be altered so that children’s’ use of a library didn’t impact on other users.


‘I think the sole community emphasis has been about children and singing songs/reading circles - but this should be quieter, there are many alternatives for children's groups already, but disabled adults feel overlooked.’

‘Put doors on the children's section. It is far too noisy, some of us like to read! (I have children and say this). Rhyme-time - it is impossible to concentrate.’

Page 63

10

28

Wellbeing (Approximately 7% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme)Enablers Barriers Many comments relating to ‘wellbeing’ link with those mentioned

above under ‘vulnerable people’, ‘children’ and ‘access for all’. Users generally commented on the universality of library and cultural spaces, being for everyone, and also providing a safe, neutral space which had positive benefits on a resident’s wellbeing

Another common theme was that if libraries & cultural services were not available to support resident’s wellbeing, then this would have a knock on effect on other council services, and increase demand there.

Some comments, felt that libraries could do even more to support wellbeing.


‘The benefit of libraries to the community should not be underestimated. They provide contact with others to those people that may not see or speak to anyone else all day, they are a safe environment, and good for general wellbeing.’

‘A lot of people head for the library as a safe haven, whoever they are - it is a social service but not a recognised one!’

‘My library is a life line. Pleasant surroundings and staff. I live on a very low income and use the library at least four times a week, using all the facilities offered. I also love seeing the children groups in there, it makes me feel part of society’

‘Participation in cultural services like the arts and within libraries is known to improve wellbeing. By cutting these services it simply

There were no comments that directly suggested that libraries & cultural services do not support residents’ wellbeing.

There were some comments that have already been covered under access for all, where respondents talked about the libraries and cultural spaces being for everyone, not just specific groups of users.

Page 64

10

29

Wellbeing (Approximately 7% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme)Enablers Barriers

creates other problems and pressures on other so called essential services - thus helping no one.’

‘instead of viewing libraries as a stand-alone budget, try viewing them as part of a whole, recognising their contribution to education, adult and social welfare, children's wellbeing etc., then realise you need to be a bit more joined up in your thinking and funding.’

‘I think loneliness is one of the largest things which affect health and wellbeing. Libraries have always been a retreat to help with that. When on maternity leave I don't think I would have survived without library activities, such as rhyme-time. There also aren't enough activities in libraries on a weekend now.’

‘Libraries could become 'wellbeing hubs', if GP's are not interested - have district nurse working out of them, chiropodists etc. merge them with the local Centres for the Community / Day Centres.’

Page 65

10

30

Learning (Approximately 11% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme)Enablers Barriers

A good number of respondents commented on the role of libraries and cultural spaces as places of learning and self-development. Some highlighted that libraries and cultural services played an important role in literacy development and some mentioned the importance of libraries in educating children.

There were suggestions that there should be supporting the education sector by developing closer links with schools and children’s centres.

There were comments that the provision of computer classes and IT skills support was an important role in libraries and some also mentioned the importance of online learning services/courses.

Some respondents said they valued learning and development opportunities through groups, talks, workshops and not just books and also that libraries are valued for their quiet study spaces.

There were suggestions that libraries should be combined with other education services such as Adult Education Centres and colleges. Some suggested that libraries should hold resources to support existing Adult Education courses.


“Libraries are there to enable everyone access to reading materials - they should not be focused on only vulnerable people and they are not there as a tool of social engineering. They are places where everyone can go, they create a community heart and they encourage literacy across the board.”

There were no responses that specifically said libraries and cultural services should not have a learning role, or expressed an opinion that this role was not an important part of library and cultural services.

Page 66

10

31

Learning (Approximately 11% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme)Enablers Barriers

“I grew up in a family who did not have the money to buy books and I read huge numbers of books from my local library as a child and teenager. I believe this had a real impact on me and inspired a love of books and learning. I spent every Saturday studying in my local library during my A levels - the library was a hugely impressive building which I loved. I was the first person in my family to go to University and am now a teacher. I would like others to be given the same opportunity, whatever their financial situation.”

“The use of these services is usually embedded from a young age so I would like to see schools partnering with libraries and cultural services to provide spaces and resources to broaden the education on offer to children, and to enable them to have a better understanding of their local community.”

Page 67

10

32

Cultural Services (Approximately 8% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme)Enablers Barriers From the respondents who commented on cultural services other than

the libraries service, almost a third valued the music lesson service provided to children by Surrey Arts.

Some respondents felt that there was a benefit for different Cultural Services to work together, including being based in the same building.

The well-being and social impact of Cultural Services was highlighted and the social value of adult education and learning services was raised. Some responses commented on the importance of services provided by the Surrey History Centre, “heritage services” and of having an archive service.


“Participation in cultural services like the arts and within libraries is known to improve wellbeing. By cutting these services it simply creates other problems and pressures on other so called essential services - thus helping no one.”

“I do not think the arts and libraries should be targeted only to vulnerable groups, but should be considered an asset for all that is worth investing in. The cultural economy is huge and Surrey CC should be focussing investment in the arts in Surrey, which in term will generate income/ economic value. It is very short term to look at cutting funding and targeting.”

“I strongly believe that taking away the opportunity for children of all economic means and ability to learn music through Surrey Arts would be to the detriment of our children’s’ education and our community as a whole.”

A very small number of respondents commenting on cultural services felt that communities should fund their own cultural centres and that compared to other services (such as fire and social care) Cultural Services weren’t as important or that the adult education offer needed to be improved.


“There are plenty of community buildings that can be used as cultural centres. Let communities provide and fund their own.”

“Culture is a luxury that cannot be afforded now, those who want it should fund it themselves”

Page 68

10

33

5.2 Resources

This theme concerns respondents who have written about the different kinds of resources and constraints in providing and/or receiving a service. Written responses from survey respondents have been read and tagged with responses falling under the following sub-themes:

Consolidation – comments relating to closing libraries or cultural services in the context of concentrating resources to provide a better service for residents

No changes to existing services – comments relating to a desire for existing library and cultural services to be unchanged and remain as they are

Funding and income – comments relating to funding and income for libraries and cultural services

Staff – comments relating to the role of paid SCC libraries staff

Bookstock – comments relating to the book stock in Surrey libraries

Libraries are redundant – comments relating to the idea that libraries are no longer needed in today’s society

Page 69

10

34

Consolidation (Approximately 3% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme)Enablers Barriers Whilst the number of comments mentioning specifically the concept of

consolidation was quite low, respondent who mention this generally felt that underused libraries should be closed, and resources concentrated on the remaining libraries. Along with this, quite a few comments related to the feeling that in certain areas there were often a number of libraries in a small geographic area.

A handful of respondents took the approach of consolidating resources rather than consolidating the number of libraries or cultural buildings, of consolidating resources, for example through reducing opening hours or days in underused branches:


‘Looking at information provided consolidation of numbers of libraries should happen.’‘Close some of the less well performing libraries to concentrate resources/staff in those places that have the highest usage figures’‘Some small libraries could be amalgamated or moved into community spaces and savings made on book stock, but digital access is essential for job-seekers, travel cards and universal credit applicants.’‘Rather than closing branches, restricting opening days would be better’

Even those respondents who agreed with the concept of ‘consolidation’ often felt that additional resources might need to be used to ensure that users were not disadvantaged by the closure of a local library.

Key things they talked about were ensuring there was adequate public transport provision into the nearest large town, or that services could be delivered in alternative ways, for example through a mobile library service, community drop off points or use of volunteers.

Some of the respondents wholly disagreed with the idea of consolidating resources, wanted libraries to be kept local.

Sample of comments made‘In order to make the savings, I think the council should concentrate on the 'key' libraries. For example, I live in Ash Vale, and Ash and Frimley Green are my nearest Surrey libraries. But they are both too small and lack the facilities I would like. So, perhaps the opening hours of the smaller libraries should be reduced, as long as there is sufficient public transport for members of the public to easily access larger libraries.’‘Close CPLs, close class c libraries and offer a better service in fewer locations. bring back mobile libraries to cover areas affected by closures’‘There is a fine balance between closing libraries which are underused and restricting access to libraries for children who need that access’‘Far better to have a lot of small/medium sized libraries that people can get to, rather than a few large ones.’

Page 70

10

35

No change to Existing Services (Approximately 16% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme)Enablers Many of the respondents, whilst they didn’t wish libraries to move or

close, did agree with the other principles as a way to address funding issues:


‘By not closing any libraries these principles will have a solid base to be delivered from and show the libraries to maintain their important community role.’

Many of comments tagged with no change talked about specific libraries, which users felt were already well situated, and able to provide for resident’s needs

Some respondents felt very strongly that there should be no changes to libraries

Further comments talked more generally about the network of libraries across the county already been well spread across the county

Some comments were specific to other areas in Cultural Services:


‘Egham library is easy to access for local residents and offers additional use of the space particularly in regard to children's activities’

‘DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT CLOSING THE LIBRARIES.’

‘maintain current provision as the services are located where they are required’

‘Cultural services, such as the Surrey History Centre, are vital. You cannot understand the present or future without some knowledge of the past. My voluntary organisations' archives are stored there, as are many other organisations - what will happen to these?’

Page 71

10

36

Funding and Income (Approximately 25% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme)Enablers Barriers People were very vocal about funding and how money is being spent in

Surrey. The general feeling was that libraries and cultural services are underfunded and more money should be invested in them, not cut. There were various ideas of what can be done to improve funding and income.

Savings Hold books in offsite storage sites and make them available via

reservations. The buildings can then be sold or utilised for something else.

Concentrate on the core service of books and save money on the other ‘unnecessary’ things which are done

Close the under-used libraries and use the money to boost the remaining libraries

Sell off any SCC owned land which is not being used and disused buildings

Cut waste collections at weekends and on bank holidays Use local businesses for tenders Concentrate on spending which affects the many and not the few Streamline the council and its services Look to use more consortia arrangements with other local

authorities Petition central government for more funding Make savings on Surrey County Council’s PR and Communication

publications

Respondents were very passionate about funding and multiple comments talked about not cutting funding to libraries, keeping things as they are, increasing the funding and so on. A common theme was that cutting funds would store up trouble for later, as libraries play an important learning, social and cultural need in the community.

There was some anger expressed by respondents in that they pay their council tax which is increasing, but services are being cut. Elected members and senior managers were criticised for their high salaries, their expenses and their ‘perks’ and many people suggested these should be reduced.

There was a general feeling that libraries and cultural services were important and reducing funding was seen as a very negative, short-sighted thing to do. It was also felt that more transparency was needed so that people could see where how much was being spent across the county so could be more informed.


‘There is a lot of money wasted through ill thought through projects, bad project management and ineffective budgeting and frivolous expenses spending.’

‘£1m on libraries makes a far greater cultural impact than a new mini roundabout. Give people real comparisons when large long term

Page 72

10

37

Funding and Income (Approximately 25% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme)Enablers Barriers

Reduce the use of external consultants Means test concessionary travel and free school meals

Income Rent out space when libraries are closed or to hire space within

libraries to community groups, partners or private businesses. Work with partners to raise funds, particularly through funding

applications where partners can access grant funding not available to libraries on their own.

Introduce an annual membership fee, either for all, or for higher membership levels depending on services

Seek sponsorship for libraries Increase reservation charges, but advertise this service more Ask for financial donations to the library service and also second-

hand books for the book sales Charge for using computers in libraries Charge for events that are run Increase council tax, as long as the money is used for library

services Introduce a voluntary council tax top-up, or voluntary contributions Offer a second hand book scheme in libraries, run by a bookseller Charge SCC staff to park at work Rent out or sell County Hall


decisions that have the potential to negatively impact their community.’

Page 73

10

38

Funding and Income (Approximately 25% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme)Enablers Barriers

‘They [libraries] need to be properly funded to ensure the most vulnerable have access to the internet and resources. Sell council assets or raise council tax rather than cut proper paid staff.’

‘Got to "suck it in" and allow sponsorship of libraries, or indeed anything that will secure funding for the library service whilst minimising the impact on the public purse.’

Page 74

10

39

Staff (Approximately 10% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme)Enablers Barriers 113 of these comments were extremely positive about staff, whether

library or other cultural services such as music tutors and archaeologists, and strongly advocated the retention of ‘trained’, ‘professional’ and ‘skilled’ staff to run services. They felt that knowledgeable, experienced staff were essential and that services suffered without them. Additionally, they mentioned their ‘softer’ skills, such as making the library a welcoming place, providing support in the community and assisting all levels of society, mentioning especially the support needed for Universal Credit.

49 other comments supported the use of paid staff over volunteers, citing consistency, knowledge and commitment to the role as benefits, along with being the face of Surrey County Council.


‘Professional librarians and experienced, professionally supported library staff are integral to the success of community library services. In order for specific services, programmes and events to be created and delivered to vulnerable community groups, you must have professional staff in place.’

‘I do know that Libraries are about the only place where you can actually have contact with a member of SCC staff.’

9 comments were more negative about staff, saying that digital libraries would need less staffing; there were too many chiefs and not enough Indians; and that some libraries seemed overstaffed.


‘I would think that the basics of borrowing/return/shelving could easily be done by 1 person (especially as, these days, borrowing is self-serviced).’

Page 75

10

40

Book Stock (Approximately 7% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme)Enablers Barriers 18% of the 217 comments mentioning book stock emphasised the

importance of access to books for children. 25% felt that physical books (as opposed to e-books) were still

important. 2% specifically asked for physical book stock not to be reduced. However, only 1% specifically mentioned that books should be part of the core library service.

8% recognised the importance of access to library books for those who don’t have books at home.

12% indicated that the stock purchasing and management of library book stock could be improved, including age, variety and breadth of stock. However, 8% thought the current range and quality of book stock was good, including quality, variety, currency, and access to large print stock. 6% highlighted that they felt non-fiction book stock was important, and should not be neglected at the expense of fiction.

7% did not feel digital/e-books met the needs of the users – in terms of accessibility, quality and range of stock. On the other hand, 5% were positive about the use of e-books.

6% saw the value of library service stock supporting learning, including supporting schools resources, independent study and adult learning.

6% appreciated the ability to reserve book stock via the online catalogue.

3% of respondents highlighted the value of free access to library book stock.

3% highlighted the value of books for enjoyment 4% emphasised that they appreciated the ability to browse physical

books and the serendipity of finding something that interests them.

2% felt that the book fund could be reduced. Some who responded in this way stated that physical books are less relevant now, and therefore having less physical books is a good thing.1% suggested that to reduce costs book stock could be held in closed storage or offsite (discovered via an online catalogue instead) and delivered to individuals.


‘If estates costs are too high because of the size of collections, buildings could be partly repurposed to benefit the community building aspects (or indeed in support of the children's services consultation) and book holdings moved to offsite storage. This would need to be accompanied by a reduction or elimination of reservation fees for items held in storage. This mirrors university-style models of book recall and reservation. It would also need to be accompanied by better information about books themselves (e.g. integration with amazon's catalogue) to replace the ability to browse shelves. To be clear, I am not in favour of this (serendipitous browsing has been the source of many happy intellectual accidents for me over the years) but if cuts have to be made, this might be a way.’

Page 76

10

41

5% valued the opportunity to join book clubs, reading groups and book discovery as a social aspect.

3% recognised the value of book delivery to local points, including as part of the Library Direct service.

2% would welcome the re-introduction of mobile services for book delivery

2% highlighted the important of access to books for literacy development.

2% highlighted the value of books for well-being and self-help. 1% felt there was opportunity to provide further Access to books in non-library locations. Other comments about book stock included people’s “right to read”,

reservation fees and donations for books supporting funding/budgets, the importance of the inter-library loan service, and people being diverted to reading online rather than physical books.


‘Books provide a very important escape from the pressures of modern living, especially in high-density areas like Woking. In the same way, libraries are one of the very few public spaces that don't require payment to enter or utilise services. I'm very grateful for having such a nice library so close to where I live. I was unemployed for over a year, and I felt very cut-off from the world because it felt like everything required money. Not only was I able to read recently-released books thanks to the library (books that eventually helped me gain full-time employment), the library gave me a place

Page 77

10

42

outside of my home that I could exist in, which helped my mental health.’‘The books available for children in my local library follow popularity trends - e.g. lots of Rainbow Fairies, lots of David Walliams, lots of Diary of a Wimpy Kid - but if you are going to extend culture to those most vulnerable in society, you need to make sure that they can access children's classics and books that are recommended by schools - well written and interesting and exciting, not just the ones that the kids think they want to read. We always have to order books in from other libraries because you never have the ones my children want to read. You need to challenge yourselves to make available books that will challenge and excite children.’‘PLEASE do not cut back our local library service. Our six year old adopted daughter has developed a real love of reading. She borrows 20 books at a time and reads them all within a couple of weeks. Without a local library, how would we ever provide such books for her? There's no online substitute, and we can't travel long distances to other libraries.’

Page 78

10

43

Libraries are Redundant (Approximately 0.5% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme) There were some comments mentioning specifically the concept that ‘libraries are redundant’, they were generally all along the same lines. The

comments generally felt that libraries were unnecessary due to the availability of digital information and resources – the internet was often cited as a preferable source of information. Many of these comments appeared to come from non-library users, who didn’t feel that libraries as a concept had a place in today’s society.


‘I think Libraries are becoming redundant. The internet has taken over as there is a far less need to provide this service in times of heavy cutbacks. I would proposing closing a very large number and selling the sites for development.’

Page 79

10

44

5.3 Working together

This theme is to do with respondents commenting on how Surrey County Council works and communicates with our partners, agencies, users and others (e.g. volunteers). Written responses from survey respondents have been read and tagged with responses falling under the following sub-themes:

Volunteering – comment relating to the use of volunteers in the service Partnerships – suggestions around working with external partners – e.g. health charities, MPs or

businesses. Many of the ‘Partnerships’ comments link to those comments tagged under ‘Shared Spaces’ and ‘Community Involvement’..

Page 80

10

45

Volunteering (Approximately 23% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme)Enablers Barriers There were a lot of positive comments about volunteers, saying that

the council should encourage them and they were an asset to libraries and cultural services, particularly in specific roles such as digital support.

They also felt the volunteering opportunities should be advertised more as people weren’t aware that they could do this.

It was also seen as a benefit for younger people to increase their skills The idea of volunteers taking books to housebound people was seen as

a positive use of their time (though most were unaware that this was already done). Some people were volunteers themselves and said what a positive experience it had been.


‘Ask for more volunteers both to work in the libraries and also to help support those in the community who are unable to access the services themselves.’I am a volunteer in Bramley library and agree that an increase in volunteer opportunity is a very positive community activity‘Possible links with staff from local companies to encourage companies to allow people to offer hours of voluntary help as part of corporate social responsibility schemes’.‘Use the libraries for literacy classes, volunteers to take books to housebound residents’

A significant number of comments were not so supportive about using volunteers to support libraries and cultural services, saying that they should not be used to replace paid staff and that they had limited use due to their lack of knowledge and expertise.

Comments included the fact that it was difficult to recruit volunteers due to increased demand and also that volunteers generally came from the retired bracket.

The general negativity around using volunteers was that the council should provide paid staff and not rely on volunteers to deliver a service, particularly as volunteers could be unreliable and did not have to turn up for work if they chose not to.

The benefits of using volunteers in the Community Partnered Libraries was acknowledged and that these libraries may not be there without volunteers. Some people felt that volunteers could be used, but only if closing the library was the alternative.


‘the assumption that volunteers would do as good a job or better than the existing staff is just wrong and there are not enough volunteers.’‘Volunteers cannot take the place of a trained librarian. Information management and provision is a professional skill, requiring specific training and experience. volunteers should only be used for those activities not requiring such skills e.g. delivering and

Page 81

10

46

Volunteering (Approximately 23% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme)Enablers Barriers

collecting books, but not advising the public, unless they are trained’

Page 82

10

47

Partnerships (Approximately 8% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme)Enablers Barriers Respondents generally felt that much could be gained from

partnerships with outside organisations, particularly those who are trying to reach similar target audiences, or achieve mutual aims. These partnerships could benefit from increased promotion of services, sharing of resources and increased footfall from shared visitors.

Other comments relating to ‘Partnerships’ focussed on the raising of additional funding and income, through sponsorship or sharing spaces and resources.

Some of the comments relate to using partnerships to find and recruit volunteers to support library services.


‘Opening libraries to be havens for community should happen and especially working in partnership with charities trying to support vulnerable and others locally.’‘I suspect in some locations partnering with private business (e.g. having a library installed at a supermarket or with a coffee shop) would increase footfall for both businesses.’‘Got to "suck it in" and allow sponsorship of libraries, or indeed anything that will secure funding for the library service whilst minimising the impact on the public purse’.‘Link in with private companies who have a wealth of knowledge and skills in there staff and look at collaboration/ donating time from staff if you are going to expand on the pool of volunteers.’

A large number of respondents had quite strong views about types of partnerships which should be avoided, with a particularly common theme being that libraries should not work with the private sector.


‘We need to be careful about the types of partnerships we form both formally and informally (I would not agree with partnering with organisation such as banks),’‘The private sector doesn't have anything to do with public service EVER.’P

age 83

10

48

5.4 Perceptions of the organisation

The theme of perceptions was highlighted as there have been a number of respondents who have shared specific feedback on their thoughts about Surrey County Council as a whole (or the local authority), the consultations themselves and also of the cabinet. This theme includes both positive and negative comments.

Surrey County Council – comments about Surrey Country Council generally The consultation process – comments on the consultation process

Page 84

10

49

Surrey County Council (Approximately 8% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme)Enablers Barriers There were practically no positive comments about Surrey County

Council or the wider political context, except in relation to the staff themselves.


‘I have worked with councils and know how hard the executive staff work.’

‘I doubt that there is much slack in any part of the councils work to make savings after the Governments cuts.’

The overwhelming majority of comments spoke negatively about Surrey County Council. These negative comments covered the following areas:

Salaries - People strongly objected to the high salary levels of senior managers, particularly that of the Chief Executive, and felt that these should be cut to save money

Reduce the number of higher level managers - There was a strong feeling that the organisation was top heavy with senior managers and too many tiers of management, which needed to be streamlined.

Reduce elected members expenses - Members’ expenses featured prominently, with comments about how much was being claimed, the ‘perks’ that they had and so on. Mis-management of finances - There was much criticism of how money had been managed in the past and why money was still being spent on irrelevant or inappropriate things, when residents’ council tax was being increased. Many people questioned the procurement and contracts process, feeling that that was being badly managed.

Unitary/single tier authority - There were suggestions that creating a unitary authority and simplifying the way that Surrey is divided between County Council and Boroughs would be a positive move.

Council tax bandings - People queried the inequality behind this, feeling that property prices were no longer in line with the bandings and thus people were paying disproportionate amounts.

There were also negative comments about the wider political landscape

Page 85

10

50

Surrey County Council (Approximately 8% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme)Enablers Barriers

Government funding - People felt that the government was to blame for not providing appropriate levels of funding and that Surrey County Council and its residents should lobby them for more money

Criticism of the current party - Many people commented negatively about the present Conservative government and its MPs, specifically naming several of them, stating that it was the government’s responsibility to provide the solutions to the problems it had created.

Sample of the comments made

‘Surrey County Council has shown time and time again over the years its utter contempt for the cultural services, including music, arts and libraries, of the County’

Almost always, I'd look at possible savings to be made from IT infrastructure, councillors' expenses, council meetings (e.g. hire and maintenance) and the wages paid to senior managers or executives.’

‘Surrey’s Conservatives should be vociferous in their protests to central government about funding. Though I suppose that’ll never happen whilst they continue to put party unity before the needs of the county and its residents.’

Page 86

10

51

Consultation Process (Approximately 7% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme)Enablers Barriers There were practically no positive comments about the consultation

process itself, unless we accept the fact that people completing the survey indicates that they are happy with the process.

Sample of the comments made

‘I think it would be a good idea to consult groups of people, i.e. young people, children, parents, elderly, disabled to find out what they would like libraries to offer, and based upon the responses consider if changes can be implemented.’

‘I would welcome a wider debate about funding priorities. Why do you not hold open consultations (face to face)?’

Almost all of the comments about the consultation itself were negative comments. They felt that it was poorly worded and not in plain English and it was not clear what was being asked. They also felt that it was worded to skew results in the way of a particular outcome and it would have been more helpful to give specific ideas as to what changes were being proposed. Some people were quite angry at the perceived bias in the writing and the vagueness of what they were being asked to comment on. Commonly used words were ‘disgraceful’, ‘poorly worded’, ‘vague’, ‘unclear’, ‘leading’, ‘poorly designed’.

Sample of the comments used

‘This questionnaire is a disgrace, completely vague so you can twist answers to whatever outcome you desire. No straight forward questions like 'should we close libraries - yes or no.’

‘The strategy is full of jargon. Plain English please. What is a resilient community?’

‘Your principles are incredibly vague. How can anyone evaluate them unless we know more about what specific impacts each one would have? This consultation is very tricky and no doubt will only be used to support whatever strategy you decide you want to do anyway. It does not inspire trust or confidence.’

Page 87

10

52

5.5 Innovations

This theme is to do with respondents commenting on suggestions and ways to improve and enhance Surrey County Council’s approach to delivery of services. In particular, respondents were asked for their specific ideas that could help achieve the five principles presented. Written responses from survey respondents have been read and tagged with responses falling under the following sub-themes:

Improvements – general comments relating to improvements that could be made to the service Marketing – comments relating to promotion of services, or making residents/ service users

more aware Digital – Comments relating to the use of new technology

Theses sub-themes summarised below, with key findings and example commentary from respondents. These have been split into enablers and barriers.

Page 88

10

53

Improvements (Approximately 14% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme)Enablers Barriers People had a wide variety of positive ideas about how libraries and

cultural services could be improved, many of which were around the 5 shared principles. Shared spaces was seen as a positive move, whether this was encouraging other groups/partners/business to share library space, or for libraries to work with the community and create multi-activity hubs.

People felt that increased opening hours would be beneficial, though they needed to reflect the public’s preferences of when they would use the library or cultural service.

Sunday opening was specifically mentioned, as being a day when work people could use the library for their leisure time.

Others wanted to see the library and cultural services provide more events, to give libraries greater buzz socially and culturally and more of a learning feel. This could be a mixture of library-run events such as author talks, but also to involve external groups who would use the library to run events or classes. This could either be when the library was open, or on a closed day or during the evenings.

People also were very positive about the venues for Surrey Arts for music lessons. Others wanted to see better use of partnerships with businesses or other organisations.

A Sample of comments made‘Surrey Libraries should be more inspiring cultural hubs - they should engage with communities through cultural activities, they should learn from other libraries e.g. Jubilee Library in Brighton.’‘The more community focused we can be the better. Communities help shape our lives’.

People’s ideas were mainly positive rather than negative, but they did recognise the need for changes. Some suggested reducing opening hours, which would at least keep the libraries open, or closing during the day in order to open in the evening. A couple of comments suggested closing the Community Partnered Libraries to save money. Other comments were very positive about expanding digitally, but wanted to reduce the bookstock to compensate for this.

A sample of comments made

‘Maker spaces, spaces for community groups, support for start-ups would be positive activities as "shared spaces". Having libraries run by volunteers or by private companies I would see as a supremely negative development. Libraries having to perform activities such as hosting shops or filing tax returns or other council services would also be a negative development.’‘The library should be a local hub, a place of learning, relaxation and information, instead they are becoming robotic ghost ships.’

Page 89

10

54

Marketing (Approximately 4% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme)Enablers Barriers

People felt that outreach with local community groups and organisations such as schools, local care homes, children’s centres, GP surgeries and U3A would help make more people aware of what libraries have on offer.

There were suggestions that advertising for volunteers should be improved.

Some people saw the benefit of using leaflets and posters for promotion of services in non-library buildings with a few commentssuggesting improving town signage pointing to libraries.

There were suggestions that libraries needed to emphasise their uniqueness in their marketing and some also mentioned the promotion of the benefits of libraries was important.

There were comments that libraries should make better use of social media for marketing and promotion.

Some felt that it is only members of the library service who are aware of what’s on offer in libraries, and that more should be done to make non-members aware.

There were also comments suggesting that encouraging local groups, organisations and businesses to host events in libraries would encourage use and some also suggested using corporate organisations as sponsors.

Some said that libraries’ online resources, services and apps needed better promotion.


There were no barriers raised

Page 90

10

55

“Part of bringing these services to the communities that need them requires some targeted promotion to community centers, GP surgeries and borough councils immediately following this consultation. It is essential to make residents aware that these services exist. We fail to deliver value for money if we can't spend some money on informing residents of the library service they pay for. There is a public perception that libraries are dying and they certainly will if people think they already have”

“Raise awareness of library services by actively taking the info out to those who don't already know about their local library services. Text-based ads don't reach non-readers, who often still have the image of a library as a stern, learned, sshhh-filled alien space. Live face-to-face message delivery to these communities could be more effective.”

“Advertise on line services, especially the normally chargeable services that are provided free through the libraries”

Page 91

10

56

Digital (Approximately 14% of respondents included comments relating to this sub-theme)Enablers Barriers

The majority ofresponses relating to digital mentioned specifically that access to the internet in libraries was important for those who don’t have access elsewhere, including those from low income families and the elderly. There were comments more generally that the provision of “access to computers” in libraries and cultural buildings was also important. Some also specifically mentioned that being able to access w-fi was important to them.

Many recognised the benefit of giving library users the opportunity to develop their IT skills via computer classes, training and IT help at the library. Some highlighted the value of computer buddies and volunteers specifically in achieving this and alsothe value of being able to access other learning courses online.

Many respondents recognised the value of digital services, but felt tehta the digital offer should be increased and improved, including access to online subscriptions, current IT kit (PCs, self-service), apps, library catalogue, and website.

Some people appreciated the fact that they could use the online catalogue to search for, reserve and renew books.

Some felt online marketing should be better used (including social media) to market the broader library offer, and a a few felt the same was needed for online and digital services.

Some respondents highlighted the value of being able to access digital library services widely and flexibly e.g. 24 hours a day and away from the library buildings and others more generally indicated that they recognised the value of online and digital services being provided by libraries.

Some people mentioned that digital services impact on social face-to-face interactions, which is not good for individual well-being (especially for the vulnerable) or strengthening communities.

Some comments emphasised that the introduction of these services should not be at the expense of library buildings, books, staff and face to face interactions with a few specifically mentioning that digital and physical library services should co-exist.

There were suggestions that the current digital book offering needs to be expanded or improved.

Some people felt that too much screen time was bad for people, and that physical books were better, with some said they preferred physical books as opposed to e-books.

There were a few concerns raised about over-reliance on digital services and some highlighted that digital services were not of value to people without computer skills, and that digital services aren’t accessible to all.


‘Unsure, however I do have some concerns that an over-reliance on digital media will actually leave behind the most vulnerable people in the community that some of the strategies are aimed at, and that the county council should be cautious about how it uses digital media. I work for Surrey Adult Learning, and I see first-hand how much hands-on practical learning is needed to equip some of our learners to access the digital world - the elderly, job seekers, speakers of other languages, people with learning difficulties and disabilities. For many of these learners, access to a computer in the first place is often limited. Even

Page 92

10

57


There were suggestions that providing computers for online access to library services in non-library locations, such as schools, day centres, cafes and stations. Offering an online book ordering and delivery service to library members was also suggested and some felt the internet had made physical libraries obsolete.

Some respondents specifically wanted to see improvements to library Wi-Fi. A small number of other suggestions included partnering with other library services to reduce the cost of digital services, developing makerspaces, code clubs and other coding initiatives in libraries.


‘Invest in bigger libraries and expand digital services. Start doing computer courses again! If you want people to access digital services you need to teach them how to do that.’‘Libraries, as gateways to information, should engage with information in all its forms. Libraries should be providing access to e-books, e-magazines and digital audio books but should also use data and analytics to inform their purchase priorities. Surrey libraries should expand provision of coding clubs and educate everyone on online safety.’‘Libraries are an essential for so many families. While technology is becoming so big in schools and parents cannot afford computers they provide children the chance to read all the new books their friends are, have free computer access- for new skills, homework and even games. Computer buddies help people return to work with new IT skills. They are essential to communities. What's on offer in libraries needs to be effectively marketed county-wide to gain new

with computer or internet access, many need quite extensive initial tuition to coach them and equip them with the confidence to use modern technology to access further services and feel connected with the wider community.’‘I do not read books in a digital format as I do not find this a pleasurable or helpful way to access (sic) books (fact and fiction). I use a small local library. If the services were to be closed and moved to a main centre I would have no way to access (sic) service other than online, so will probably end up not using the library service.’‘In the age of internet, my grandchildren think of going to the library as a treat even though it’s routine. They handle books with care, they choose books, they listen to stories - they have amazing positive experiences with libraries and their pile of books are by the bedside. The internet does not do this for them in the same way.’

Page 93

10

58


members. Without stepping foot in a library you would not have known of the online resources and the club's and events.’

Page 94

10

59

ANNEX 1 – MONITORING INFORMATION

Page 95

10

60

Full responses to monitoring information are shown in the tables below. The highest and second highest numbers of respondents are highlighted:

Age Number of respondents Percentage of respondentsUnder 18 34 0.4318-24 78 0.9925-44 1871 23.6845-64 3177 40.2165-74 1705 21.5875 and over 722 9.14Prefer not to say 233 2.95Not Answered 81 0.10

Gender Number of respondents Percentage of respondentsMale 2456 31.08Female 4996 63.23Prefer not to say 341 4.32Not Answered 53 1.10

Employment Status Number of respondents Percentage of respondentsFull-time employment (30 hours or more per week) 2318 29.15Part-time employment (less than 30 hours per week) 1287 16.18Self-employed (full-time or part-time) 739 9.29Voluntary employment 263 3.31Not employed 160 2.01In full-time education (school college or university) 87 1.09In part-time education (school college or university) 22 0.28Homemaker 387 4.87Not required to work due to a disability or illness 55 0.69Retired 2423 30.47Not Answered 212 2.67

Page 96

10

61

Ethnicity Number of respondents Percentage of respondentsWhite British 6391 80.89White any other background 490 6.20Black or Black British 16 0.20Asian or Asian British 121 1.53Mixed race 79 1.00Gypsy Roma Traveller 6 0.08Prefer not to say 575 7.28Other please specify 82 1.04Not Answered 141 1.78

Are your day-to-day activities limited because of a health problem or disability which has lasted or is expected to last at least 12 months?

Number of respondents Percentage of respondentsYes - limited a lot 203 2.57Yes - limited a little 710 8.99No 6601 83.55Prefer not to say 273 3.46Not Answered 114 1.44

Do you look after, or give help or support to family members, friends, neighbours, or others because of either: long-term physical or mental ill health/disability and/or problems related to old age?

Number of respondents Percentage of respondentsNo 5498 69.59Yes 1-19 hours a week 1473 18.64Yes 20-49 hours a week 150 1.90Yes 50 or more hours a week 220 2.78Prefer not to say 434 5.49Not Answered 126 1.59

Page 97

10

62

Religion Number of respondents Percentage of respondentsBuddhist 27 0.34Hindu 44 0.56Christian (including all Christian denominations) 3917 49.58Sikh 11 0.14Jewish 35 0.44Muslim 26 0.33No religion 2327 29.45Prefer not to say 1176 14.88Other please specify 158 2.00Not Answered 180 2.28

Page 98

10

63

ANNEX 2 – FEEDBACK FROM PARTNER ORGANISATIONS

Page 99

10

64

Feedback from Partner Organisations

The following organisations have provided written feedback in response to the consultation:

Citizen’s Advice Bureau – Reigate and Banstead

Chartered Institute for Archaeologists

Cranleigh Parish Council

Elmbridge Museum

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council

Friends of Woking Palace

Haslemere Town Council

Kingswood Residents Association

Mole Valley District Council

Reigate and Banstead Borough Council

Send and Ripley History Society

South East Museum Development Programme

Spelthorne Health and Wellbeing Group

Surrey Heath Borough Council

Surrey Museum Partnership

Tandridge District Council

Tandridge Voluntary Service Council

Tattenhams Community Library

The Farnham Society

The Lightbox

Waverley Borough Council

Windlesham Parish Council

Woking Borough Council

Page 100

10

65

Comments Received from Partner Organisations

Comments received from partner organisations were wide ranging, including views and ideas based around the five strategic principles, perceived threat to local their local libraries, concern at possible loss of culture and heritage and the wider operational management of the county council. Below are a sample of comments:

Enhancing the role of Libraries and Cultural centres to make them more diverse places to support the wider health and well-being of residents is welcomed and recognises that this approach will inevitably lead to fewer larger directly operated centres with centres either closing or providing access channels through other partner locations. For the Borough it is considered that the easily accessible town centre provision should be maintained as a location albeit it could be diversified to meet a wider range of service need.

Closing the research room at Surrey History Centre (SCH) will damage historical research/ family history for a huge number of people.

SHC hosts and supports many and varied events aimed at audiences both young and old. They also take Heritage events around the county and were most supportive of our ‘Research your House’ day.

The Learning on my Doorstep programme (LOMD) at SHC allows independent Heritage organisations to develop their own resources to carry out their own local outreach work with local communities. The LOMD has been recognised and supported by the Arts Council but could not be delivered without the skill and expertise of SHC staff.

Mentioning grants and support to independent Heritage organisations helps them sustain themselves in in many cases helps them achieve accreditation status as a museum

Conservation and monitoring museum conditions. Independent Heritage organisations in Surrey currently have access to expertise from SHC and have attended training sessions at SHC. The enormous amount of work that goes on behind the scenes conserving the huge number of artefacts in their care and making them readily available to researchers is bound to be compromised if any cuts go forward

Concerns raised that if libraries were closed alongside children’s centres this could hit communities hard. Could they be combined etc.? To what extent has the impact on the voluntary sector been taken into account on the potential changes to libraries, children’s centres and SEND? The lack of joined up thinking is a real worry.

Access to information and knowledge is very important for local residents across Surrey, as is learning new skills but there is a recognition that in the future the reliance on stand-alone buildings be a lot less. Surrey County Council (SCC) should look at co-locating other services within libraries , rather than losing them entirely

The libraries in Caterham Hill and Caterham Valley are currently being reviewed as part of the Caterham Masterplan and the One Public Estate programme. The library in Caterham on the Hill is a stand-alone building protected by a covenant in the green belt, so has no other useable purpose. SCC to speak with local Parish Councils to understand how local libraries are utilised.

Page 101

10

66

Library usage data appears to put Haslemere out of the top ranked Surrey libraries by use, however it is a mistake to compare the statistics with larger towns across the County and we would hope that data on visitor numbers etc. would be considered in context of population numbers.

The geography of Surrey means that a library can serve both a town and a large rural hinterland. For example Haslemere library is a community amenity that many rely on for services, over and above the borrowing of books. For example many use the free Wi-Fi and computers for things such as universal credit and job centre applications which are accessible via online forms. If you are on a very low income, or lack the skills to access a computer- the library is essential. Other services include help with applying for free bus passes for seniors and disabled people.

Surrey Museum Partnership (SMP) helps museums financially, to run more efficiently, improve professional standards, keep services relevant to Surrey communities, and to promote museum contribution to the local economy and tourism. It would be very detrimental to Museums across Surrey if SCC support to the museums partnership was removed

The success of SMP stems from its development of strong partnerships between the museums as a network, as well as their stakeholders, and with a range of providers locally, regionally and nationally across culture, education, tourism, community groups and local authority organisations.

SMP also leverages in additional financial support from national and regional grant programmes for the benefit of the museums sector across Surrey.

The consultation explains that usage of libraries which is true. However caution over placing too much weight on this and the information presented in the decline charts, particularly as opening hours have reduced over a number of years in an effort to minimise running costs and it is unclear whether any allowances for change in hours has been made in the figures.

The new Community/Cultural hubs should be located in the same area as current libraries in order to avoid residents having to travel long distances to access facilities. Access to modern IT facilities and super-fast Wi-Fi and support users with job hunting, preparing CVs applying for universal credit

The new Hubs must have facilities to encourage children to read books.

Community/Cultural hubs should also provide help to users to enable them to access historical records and improve the cultural information on offer to local communities, particularly for those on low incomes.

Citizens Advice Reigate and Banstead (CARBS) complements and enhances the work of SCC and Reigate & Banstead Borough Council (RBBC) in every principle set out in the strategy.

We know that engaging communities with their local heritage and archaeology is a positive way to develop local identities, and create healthier, happier, and more resilient communities and as such demonstrates a clear relevance to the Council’s 5 principles guiding this review.

Over the years what was once a strong legacy of cultural services handed to us from Victorian times - museums, art centres, music services, theatres and community learning - has been steadily undermined

The Performing Arts library is one of only a handful in the country and massively important as an archive and hub for drama, dance and music, with teachers and students from across the county and

Page 102

10

67

beyond benefitting from its presence. It also contains a permanent display of the composer Ralph Vaughan Williams. So it is a hugely important part of Surrey’s musical and artistic heritage.

The crucial aspect is for it to be kept together in the face of public spending cuts. There must be a way to ensure that these services are maintained whilst investigating partnership arrangements with charities and volunteer groups that will help to secure their future.

The support provided by SMP, and more specifically the Learning on my doorstep (LOMD) countywide project, to have been invaluable. LOMD has developed, supported and maintained relationships between Surrey Schools and the rich and diverse range of museums and cultural organisations across the county

We feel that libraries offer a valuable resource in our borough in supporting residents and the access is much wider than books. Libraries are an integral to our communities and create cultural and creative enrichment. It is well accepted that they:

Increase reading and literacy skills improve digital access and literacy help everyone achieve their full potential

healthier and happier lives

greater prosperity

stronger, more resilient communities

With the proposed loss of two children’s centres in the borough the libraries may provide some of the support and activities that they offered. The main library is in the centre of Epsom and this provides economic benefits and is also central to both students at the Laines Theatre Arts and the University of the Creative Arts. The relocation of the performing arts library to our Bourne Hall Library is a welcome addition given our performing arts and cultural offering and we feel strongly that this should be retained within the Borough. We support the introduction of a more digital services and believe Libraries have a strong role in supporting this agenda.

Volunteers like us have a lot to offer to their local communities but projects like ours are only viable with assistance, guidance and leadership from the professionals. We therefore sincerely hope that at the end of the on-line consultations currently being carried out by SCC into The Libraries and Cultural Services you will find a way to keep the existing budget level because the proposed reduction of more than 50% will mean projects like ours will not be possible in the future and all the advantages that can be gained by so many children and adults across the county will be lost.

Libraries located at Tattenham Corner and Banstead. We understand that both libraries are subject to possible closure following your current review. We believe that such closures would be to the detriment of the residents of Kingswood, Banstead, Tattenhams and Preston, Nork and Tadworth and Walton. These areas have an increasingly ageing population more reliant on library and associated community services. Both libraries are located in busy shopping areas.

Your review also asks for more general views on how costs may be reduced. As stated the cost of staff, ( salaries, pensions, any catering or vending, car schemes etc), within a building such as County Hall will be at the top of the list of costs with the cost of occupation, (rent, rates, power maintenance, IT, insurance etc) second. Cultural Services budget shows a cost for libraries at £8.7 million for 2018/19 reducing to £7.9 million in 2020/21. The sum allocated to Libraries is very small

Page 103

10

68

compared with an overall SCC budget of £1.7 billion. We suggest that the savings that need to be made could best be achieved through a review of County Hall internal costs, including staffing levels, organisation and how services are provided.

There are already some great examples in the borough that we can build on, for example, Library at Tattenhams which was turned over to community management some six years ago which is now thriving with capable and enthusiastic team of more than 70 volunteers.

We strongly agree with the strategic principles you set out. Libraries do provide the opportunities for everyone to learn, access information, acquire new skills, improve literacy and be involved in their communities.

Whilst we understand there is limited funding and can support targeting the wellbeing and strengthening of communities, including the most vulnerable, we draw your attention to the fact that many of our users are the vulnerable. It is parents and their children and also our older residents who find the library service of particular value. Whilst new technologies are important, physical books and reference materials rather than electronic books are of benefit to these age groups. Many of the older residents particularly enjoy the social inclusion of the library and are amongst our volunteers.

Whilst we acknowledge that “shared spaces” could be of value, we already work with schools and others. It is important that the library is located in the right place. In Tattenhams we are next to the health centre, opposite the co-op and other shops, and the post office and chemist. We are by the bus stop and the railway station. This is where people come. This is more important than spending money by moving the library elsewhere to share space.

From our perspective of working with different types of museum provision and support across the South East – we can see very clearly the considerable impact that Surrey Museums Partnership has, and its effectiveness as a vehicle to encourage partnership and collaboration (with the leverage this brings to access funding, and the cost/benefit of its relatively modest funding from local authority with regards to its widespread impact). SMPs work is even more impressive given the relatively low levels of funding involved. We therefore urge any review of Cultural Services to recognise that SMP is an extremely cost effective vehicle for supporting Surrey museums and their wide range of users: together they achieve far more than they ever could on their own

There is concern that if these services do not continue to be delivered by Surrey County Council directly it could lead to inconsistency in terms of quality and accessibility. It is also important to be mindful that in the pursuit of delivering principles 3, 4 and 5 it is not to the detriment of principles 1 & 2. In favour of the development of multi-agency co-located cultural and public sector hubs (or a “one-stop-shop”) which we believe would improve accessibility and support ongoing sustainability of these important services. Technology should be used where ever possible to ensure that this is a service that is fit for modern living and a service that is truly valued. However it is unclear what these 5 principles translate into for each area and what library services will look like as a consequence.

We acknowledge that Surrey County Council has declared an intention to reduce its expenditure on libraries to a level closer to the national average spend of £9.89 per person from Surry’s current average spend of £14 per person. No intention to close any libraries is given, but to reduce costs by up to 30% some closures or major restructuring must be under consideration.

Page 104

10

69

In view of the fact that the consultation document talks so positively about libraries as an integral part of community life for so many Farnham residents we feel strongly that all services at the library should be retained.

The Council largely agrees with the principles put forward to ensure library and cultural services remain sustainable. It is particularly keen that Bagshot Library continues to be maintained, as the volunteers here have dedicated a huge amount of time and effort to provide a very valuable service to local residents. There has recently been a drive to recruit new volunteers and the library has invested in new technology to ensure it can run effectively.

Library buildings are an important community hub in our towns and villages visited by the elderly and families with young children. Whilst we appreciate that their use has been falling we feel this is an opportunity to use these important buildings in a more community based way bringing in other services that could be delivered more effectively and efficiently at a local level.

In Waverly, the parish and town councils could be well-placed to run a new type of community hub including a library service. The review of these services creates opportunities for local organisations embedded within their areas thereby creating greater synergy, levels of service, efficiency and savings than the current model of operation. Removing more of these hubs from our communities potentially increases isolation and adds pressure to public services.

Agree with the principles of the strategy but feel that there is insufficient detail on how these principles will work in practice.

Given the aim is to cut spend per head of population by about 30%, some libraries must be under threat and we would ask that there be greater transparency about this. We would expect that there would be further consultation once the libraries identified for closure are known.

One of the aims of the Government is for libraries to be hubs for social prescribing and it is difficult to understand how this can be achieved if libraries are under threat of closure.

As a small museum who can showcase the amazing history the area has, we would lose a vital resource aswell as the amazing staff who know so much. Their invaluable talents and knowledge should not be ignored, as unfortunately with cuts the people left behind are sometimes not the most knowledgeable and if they are the ones left to fulfil a whole service on their own, their morale and wellbeing takes such a battering that they are unable to do the job that they most love.

Page 105

10

Equality Impact Assessment

1

ANNEX 2


Assessment (EIA)1. Topic of assessment

EIA title Transforming Libraries and Cultural Services in Surrey

EIA author Lesli Good, Ben Skipp

2. Approval Name Date approved

Approved by Liz Mills

3. Quality controlVersion number 0.8 EIA completedDate saved 15. 1. 19 EIA published

4. EIA teamName Job title Organisation Team role

Lesli Good

Assistant Director, Lifelong Learning and Culture (Interim)

SCC Assistant Director

Ben Skipp Programme Manager SCC Project Manager

Page 107

10


2

5. Explaining the matter being assessed What policy, function or service is being introduced or reviewed?

Surrey County Council is developing a new strategy to support the delivery of libraries and cultural services. The development of this strategy is one component of a wider Surrey County Council transformation that is about how the council delivers services in the future within the financial constraints it is facing now and will continue to face in the future.

As the first step the council has consulted residents, service users and partners on five strategic principles to underpin the development of the strategy. Consultation took place between 30th October 2018 and 4th January 2019.

This EIA identifies the key equalities issues that flow from the strategic principles.

What proposals are you assessing?

The consultation sought feedback on five strategic principles to underpin the strategy development. These were:

1. Libraries and cultural services provide and enable opportunities for everyone to learn, access information, acquire new skills, improve literacy and be involved in their communities.

2. There is a focus on the wellbeing and strengthening of communities, particularly the most vulnerable, to enable them to be resilient.

3. Libraries and cultural services are most effective and efficient when they work in partnership with the public, voluntary, community and private sectors, including through the creation of shared spaces.

4. New technologies, including digital, enable libraries and cultural services to reach new audiences, and existing audiences in new ways, and offer 24/7 access.

5. Volunteers are crucial community advocates and assets in libraries and cultural services, who also gain valuable skills and relationships through the work they do.

Residents, service users and partners were asked to indicate whether they agree/disagree with the principles and, for each principle what impact the principle might have on them. In addition, there was the opportunity for consultees to provide comments.

The consultation has demonstrated that there is significant support for the five strategic principles to inform development of a new strategy for libraries and cultural services.

We have identified that positive impacts will include:

Page 108

10


3

the ability to access library, cultural and other services in the same building/community hubs

increased access to services as a result of the enhanced digital platform

the ability to access library and cultural services in community settings

improvements in targeted services for specific groups

We have identified the following potential negative impacts, including:

reduced access to libraries and cultural services operating in stand-alone buildings for older people, people with mobility issues and rural communities

barriers to participation in proposed enhanced digital services by people who may not have access to, or the skills to use digital technology

We have also identified that we do not fully understand the impact of the principles on children and young people as they were under-represented in the consultation compared to use of libraries and cultural services. At 0.43% the percentage of responses to the library and cultural services stage one consultation from the 0 – 18 age group is disproportionately low when compared to the Surrey population and the use of libraries by the 0 – 14 age group who represent 27% of libraries current borrowers.

We are also aware that the development of a strategy and new service model will impact on staff and partners.

To address these impacts in the next phase of developing the strategy and new service model we will need to ensure that geographical spread is met through enhanced digital services and libraries and cultural services in community settings.

We will undertake targeted consultation with those groups who may experience physical barriers to participation e.g. older people, people with mobility challenges and rural communities.

We will undertake targeted consultation with children and young people to ensure that we understand better the impact of the strategic principles on this group.

We will seek to understand more fully barriers to participation for those who may not benefit from the enhanced digital platform and design services to reduce digital exclusion.

We will include staff in the design of the new service model and consult formally if there is a change in the structure.

Page 109

10


4

We will work closely with boroughs, districts, partners, voluntary sector and users to co-design the new service model.

As a live document this EIA seeks to assess the impact of the consultation and these service outcomes with regard to groups with protected characteristics.

Who is affected by the proposals outlined above?

There will be a potential positive and negative impact on the following groups.

All users of library and cultural servicesSurrey residentsVisitors to SurreyBusinesses

Page 110

10


5

6. Sources of information

Engagement carried out

The consultation was carried out from 30 October 2018 to 04 January 2019. Consultees were asked to complete a survey asking for views on the five strategic principles (shown in section 5). The survey was accessible both online and in hard copy, including an Easy Read version.

The council contacted multiple partner organisations to raise awareness of consultation with a link to the online questionnaire. These include, but are not limited to:

Surrey District and borough local authorities All SCC schools Action for Carers Age Concern Age Uk Alzheimers Society Children’s Centres Disability Access Networks Further education colleges Hospitals National Autistic Society NHS Surrey Community Action Surrey Youth Parliament University of Surrey Other Voluntary Groups and Charities

In addition, 13 drop-in sessions were held in each of the borough/district council areas across the county. These allowed people to ask questions about the strategy development and consultation content.

Data used

Initial quantitative findings (see summary report – 22 Nov 2019) of the current consultation being carried out across Surrey on the proposed new libraries and cultural strategy.

Final consultation summary report for the Libraries and Cultural Services Transformation, including both quantitative and qualitative responses.

Usage data – analysing the numbers of visitors and issues made in each Surrey library.

Research - Good practice and delivery models of library and cultural services, both nationally and internationally. Some examples were included in included in the consultation’s strategy document.

Financial data – Internal SCC libraries and cultural services finance data and CIPFA (Chartered Institute of Public Finance Authorities).

Page 111

10


6

Statistical Datasets at ward level – IMD, IDACI, IDAOP, % of population aged 0 – 4 and 65+

Geographical spread/ coverage of existing libraries and cultural buildings

Page 112

10


7Page 113

10


8

7. Impact of the new/amended policy, service or function 7a. Impact of the proposals on residents and service users with protected characteristics

Protected characteristic

Potential positive impacts Potential negative impacts Evidence

All groups

The 5 strategic principles that will underpin the development of the libraries and cultural strategy and new service model could have a positive impact on all groups as shown below:

Users will be able to access a range of libraries, cultural and other services in one building/hub.

Users will be able to access library and cultural services physically and digitally in community settings.

Users will be able to access a wider range of services through an enhanced digital platform.

The 5 strategic principles that will underpin the development of the libraries and cultural strategy and new service model could have a negative impact on all groups as shown below:

The possibility that the new strategy and service model will result in a reduction in stand-alone buildings in which only library and cultural services will be delivered.

Increased emphasis on digital access to services might impact on residents who may not have the skills, or access to technology to benefit from this development.

See the detailed evidence for each group with protected characteristics in their specific section below.

Page 114

10


9

Age

In addition to the positive impacts for all groups set out above, there are some positive impacts specific to some of this group.

Younger and older users may benefit from targeted services.

The negative impact on this group is set out above in the section titled all groups.

Surrey Library Borrowers Compared to Surrey Population:

(March 2016)

Libraries and Cultural Services Transformation Strategy Consultation Respondents:

Children are significant users of Surrey Libraries in proportion to their representation in the Surrey population and are predominantly registered at the Category C, CPLs and some B libraries. There is significant use by children of rhyme times and other events at Category A and B libraries.

The age group that has the highest rate of registration at Category A libraries is 16-64. A library member can register at any library and can use all libraries in the network.(Source: Library Data Management System March 2016 & ONS 2015 Mid-Year Estimates)

Age Band

Current Borrowers

Surrey Population

Over /Under Representation

0-14 27% 18% +9%15-65 55% 63% -9%65 17% 19% -2%

Age Band Respondents to Consultation

Under 18 0.43%18-64 64.88%65+ 30.72%

Page 115

10


10

DisabilityDisabled people will be able to access targeted services.

Increased emphasis on a digital platform could reduce access for people with disabilities where necessary adaptations have not yet been developed.

The Library Service does not hold data on disability of its users.

The day to day activities of 13.5% of Surrey’s population are limited by a long term health problem or disability. This proportion is below the national average of 17.6% and is unchanged since 2001.The activities of 5.7% are limited “a lot”.

The likelihood of suffering from a long term illness or disability increases with age. 78% of people over 85 reported a health problem compared with just 2.9% of children under 16.

Source: Surrey-i, 2011 Census-Disability, Health and Carers)

Gender reassignment

The positive impact on this group is set out above in the section titled all groups.


Pregnancy and maternity

In addition to the positive impacts for all groups set out above, there are some positive impacts specific to some of this group. Parents with young children may experience positive benefits from a wider service offer and on the enhanced digital platform eg co-location


Early years children (and therefore their parents) are significant users of Surrey Libraries in proportion to their representation in the Surrey population and predominantly are registered at the Category C, CPLs and some B libraries. There is significant use by children of rhyme times and other events at Category A and B libraries.(Source: Library Data Management System & ONS 2015 Mid-Year Estimates)

In 2013 there were 13,569 live births recording the mother’s usual place of residence as Surrey. North East Surrey had the highest number with 4,084 live

Page 116

10


11

of midwifery services in library/cultural/community hubs.

This group may benefit from targeted services.

Residents from this group may access libraries and cultural services more actively if they are in buildings with a broader community focus.

births and the lowest number was 2,775 in the South West. (Source: Surrey-i)

Race


This group may benefit from an increased focus on targeted services.



The Library Service does not hold data on the ethnicity of its users.

The population of Surrey is 83.5% White British. The District & Boroughs in Surrey that have more than 1% above the County average for a minority ethnic group are as follows:

Elmbridge, Runnymede and Woking: White OtherSpelthorne: IndianWoking: PakistaniEpsom & Ewell: Other Asian(Source: Census 2011)

Page 117

10


12

Religion and belief




SexThe positive impact on this group is set out above in the section titled all groups.


Sexual orientation


This group may benefit from targeted services.


The Library Service does not hold data on its users for this protected characteristic.

Marriage and civil partnerships



The Library Service does not hold data for this protected characteristic of its users.

Carers(protected by association)



There are over 100 Reminiscence Professionals, (those engaging with Alzheimer sufferers usually in residential homes), and a number of Care Homes are also using Surrey Libraries regularly. Library Direct Volunteers offer an alternative service for those unable to physically access a Library.

Page 118

10


13

(Source: Library Data Management System)

The percentage of the Surrey population providing unpaid care is 10%. The figure is similar across all the Districts & Boroughs, and slightly below the national average.

Older people are more likely to be providing unpaid care than younger people, and providing more hours of care. Nearly 14% of people aged 65 or over provide care with more than quarter of these providing 50 hours or more. Among young people under 25, less than 2% provide care, around one in 13 of these providing 50 hours or more.

Young adult carers can face barriers to education and employment which may be due to young people becoming more heavily involved in caring as they get older. Having a caring a role when aged 16 – 24 years old can affect future life opportunities.

As the general population ages, the number of older people providing unpaid care is also expected to increase. Estimates have been produced of the number of older carers in Surrey to increase by 11% in Surrey. The largest increases are expected in Tandridge, Reigate & Banstead, Woking and Epsom & Ewell. (Source: JSNA 2013)

Page 119

10


14

7b. Impact of the proposals on staff with protected characteristicsProtected

characteristicPotential positive impacts Potential negative impacts Evidence

All groups

Opportunity to use their skills and knowledge to influence the new strategy for library and cultural services and the design of the service for the future.

Uncertainty throughout the next stage consultation process on how the new strategy and how the outcome in a possible new service offer might affect them.

If, subject to the next stage of consultation the strategy brings forward a new service offer requiring staff to work in new locations they may have further to travel to work incurring greater expense of time and money.

AgeThe positive impact on this group is set out above in the section titled all groups.

Staff who are older may find it difficult to adapt.

Surrey Libraries Staff:

Age Range % of Library Staff

15 to 19 9.6%20 to 24 5.7%25 to 29 5.9%30 to 34 5.2%35 to 39 6.1%40 to 44 8.3%

Page 120

10


15

45 to 49 7.9%50 to 54 11.4%55 to 59 16.6%60 to 64 14.0%65 to 69 6.8%

70+ 2.6%(May 2017)

DisabilityThe positive impact on this group is set out above in the section titled all groups.

Staff with mental health issues may be more prone to be affected by any change in their working arrangements.

Surrey County Council staff with a declared disability is as follows:

Male: 3.10% Female: 3.14%

(Source: SCC Equalities and Diversity Profile 2016)

Gender reassignment



There is no workforce data available.




There is no workforce data available.

Race



All Staff Surrey County Council:Gender

Ethnicity Male FemaleWhite 76.95% 80.30%BAME 7.86% 7.28%Not declared 15.19% 12.42%


Ethnicity Surrey (%)

White: British 83.51White: Irish 1.15White: Other White 5.54

Page 121

10


16

White and Asian 0.85Indian 1.79Pakistani 0.96Chinese 0.84Other Asian 1.73African 0.69

(Source: Census 2011)

Religion and belief



Religion Surrey%

SCC Staff

%Christian 62.8 28Muslim 2.15 1.14Hindu 1.33 0.58Buddhist 0.53 0.5Sikh 0.33 0.07Jewish 0.27 0.13Other Religion 0.37 0.36No Religion 24.80 20.23Not Stated 7.42 48.99

(Source: Census 2011 and SCC Equalities and Diversity Profile 2016 )

Staff belonging to the Christian faith and those with No Faith/Religion represent a greater proportion of staff to other religions although below the average when compared against the County as a whole. Those not stating a religion or belief are the largest category amongst staff.

Page 122

10


17

Sex



Surrey Libraries Staff Gender Breakdown: Male 13% Female 87%

Sexual orientation



All Staff Surrey County Council: Heterosexual: 44.07% LGBT: 1.19% Not Declared: 54.74%




The negative impact on this group is set out above in the section titled all groups. There is no workforce data available.



The negative impact on this group is set out above in the section titled all groups. There is no workforce data available.

Page 123

10


18

8. Amendments to the proposals

Change Reason for change

As a result of the consultation the wording of the strategic principles has been amended, see below that changes are shown in italics.

Libraries and cultural services provide and enable opportunities for everyone to learn, access information, acquire new skills, literacy and be involved in their communities.

There will be a focus on the wellbeing and strengthening of communities, particularly the most vulnerable, to enable them to be resilient, providing touch points and safe spaces.

Libraries and cultural services are most effective and efficient when they work in partnership with the public, voluntary, community and private sectors, including through the creation of shared spaces within a financially sustainable network of hubs.


Volunteers are crucial community advocates and assets in libraries and cultural services, who also gain valuable skills and relationships through the work they do.

To respond to the wealth of ideas and information provided in the qualitative responses and make the principles clearer.

Page 124

10


19

9. Action plan

Potential impact (positive or negative)

Action needed to maximise positive impact or mitigate negative impact

By when Owner

Potential impact of library and cultural services operating in stand-alone buildings on all groups.

TBC Liz Mills

Potential impact on users who may not benefit from the enhanced digital platform if they do not have access to, or skills to use new technology.

In the next phase of developing the strategy and new service model we will investigate the barriers to participation for this group and design services to reduce digital exclusion.

TBC Liz Mills

Potential impact on staff including increased levels of anxiety about how the development of a new strategy and potential changes in the service offer might affect them.

Staff will be involved in the development of the strategy and future service offer.

Senior management will implement a communications strategy during the strategy development and the next stage of consultation on same to ensure staff receive timely and accurate information.

Staff will be equipped with information and tools to enable them to manage their interactions with customers positively whilst the strategy is being developed and during the next stage of the consultation.

On-going Lesli Good

Page 125

10


20

10. Potential negative impacts that cannot be mitigated

Potential negative impact Protected characteristic(s) that could be affected

Page 126

10


21

11. Summary of key impacts and actions

Page 127

10


22

Information and engagement underpinning equalities analysis

7,000 questionnaires were returned.3,000 respondents provided comments in addition to sharing their view of the principles on which we consulted.Partner organisations have provided feedback by letter and in meetings.The % of respondents was subject to comparison against the demographics of Surreys population.

Key impacts (positive and/or negative) on people with protected characteristics

The most significant negative impact which will affect all groups is the potential reduction of libraries and cultural services operating in stand-alone buildings.

Potential impact on users who may not benefit from the enhanced digital platform if they do not have access to, or skills to use new technology.

Positive impacts for all groups include opportunity to access libraries, cultural and other services in community/cultural hubs and the enhanced digital platform.

Potential impact on staff as a result of uncertainty during the strategy development process as to the impact of a new service offer on their roles.

Changes you have made to the proposal as a result of the EIA

The strategic principles have been amended, see below that changes are shown in italics.

Libraries and cultural services provide and enable opportunities for everyone to learn, access information, acquire new skills, literacy and be involved in their communities.

There will be a focus on the wellbeing and strengthening of communities, particularly the most vulnerable, to enable them to be resilient, providing touch points and safe spaces.

Libraries and cultural services are most effective and efficient when they work in partnership with the public, voluntary, community and private sectors, including through the creation of shared spaces within a financially sustainable network of hubs.


Volunteers are crucial community advocates and assets in libraries and cultural services, who also gain valuable skills and relationships through the work they do.

Key mitigating actions planned to address any outstanding negative impacts

In the next phase of developing the strategy and new service model we will need to ensure that geographical spread is met through enhanced digital services and libraries and cultural services in community settings.

Page 128

10


23

We will undertake targeted consultation with those groups who may experience physical barriers to participation eg older people, people with mobility challenges and rural communities.

In the next phase of developing the strategy and new service model we will investigate the barriers to participation for this group and design services to reduce digital exclusion. We will include staff in the design of the new service model and consult formally if there is a change in the structure.

We will work closely with boroughs, districts, partners, voluntary sector and users to co-design the new service model.

Potential negative impacts that cannot be mitigated

Page 129

10


CABINET

DATE: 16 JULY 2019


LEAD OFFICER: PETER HOPKINS, LEAD ASSET STRATEGY MANAGERDAVE HILL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES, LIFELONG LEARNING AND CULTURE

SUBJECT: CREATION OF A NEW SPECIALIST CENTRE AT WORPLESDON PRIMARY SCHOOL IN PARTNERSHIP WITH FREEMANTLES SCHOOL PROVIDING 21 PLACES FOR PUPILS WITH HIGH COMMUNICATION AND INTERACTION NEEDS

SUMMARY OF ISSUE:

To agree the proposal for a new specialist centre to be developed at Worplesdon Primary School in partnership with Freemantles School. This would create places for primary pupils with an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) and who have Communication and Interaction Needs (COIN) in Surrey. The specialist centre will be based at Worplesdon Primary School and operated in partnership with Freemantles School.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

It is recommended:

1. That Cabinet agree the proposal to build a specialist centre at Worplesdon Primary School in partnership with Freemantles School, in principle, and the project will proceed subject to a full public consultation and statutory notices.

2. That the funding for this project is allocated from the Special Education Needs & Disabilities Capital Grant of £10.7m and the scheme is added to Capital programme, as detailed in Part 2 of this report.


A new specialist provision centre at Worplesdon Primary School would meet the demand for additional places for children and young people with communication and interaction needs (COIN). This is the first centre in Surrey that is being developed in partnership between a special school and a mainstream primary school. The two schools working in partnership ensure pupils benefit from the expertise of a special school as well as inclusion in a mainstream primary school.

Page 131

11

Item 11

DETAILS:

1. Demand for specialist centre provision in the south west area for pupils with special educational needs is high, particularly for pupils with COIN. As a result, other specialist provision in the local area is operating at or above capacity. The provision of an additional specialist COIN centre will help support local families who would otherwise have to travel further afield. This will not only enable local provision for local children, but also decrease home to school journey times and associated costs.

2. Worplesdon Primary School is a primary school in the borough of Guildford in Surrey with a two form entry for infants and three form entry for juniors. The school has a ‘good’ Ofsted rating and does not currently have a specialist centre. Freemantles School is a special school in the borough of Woking in Surrey catering for the needs of children and young people with complex social communication needs. The school has an ‘outstanding’ Ofsted rating.

3. It is proposed that Freemantles School and Worplesdon Primary School work in partnership to host a specialist Special Education Needs and Disability (SEND) centre for 21 pupils on the site at Worplesdon Primary School. The staff would benefit from supervision and training as employees of Freemantles School but would be based in the centre at Worplesdon Primary School. All pupils admitted to the centre would have an EHCP specifying the school as an appropriate placement to meet their individual needs.

4. It is anticipated that the centre would be organised with three places per year group, although. A bespoke building would be provided for the specialist centre and located within the school grounds.

5. Appropriate pupils for this provision would be identified and placed at this specialist COIN centre using the Education Health Care Plan and subsequent review pathways.

CONSULTATION:

6. The Headteacher and school governors of Worplesdon Primary School and Freemantles School are engaged and supportive of the expansion proposals.

7. A planning exhibition was held at an open evening on 15 May, to which parents, staff and residents were invited. There were 20 attendees. The project proposals received overwhelming support with no objections being lodged.

8. A council-led public consultation on the educational rationale of the project will run until the end of the summer term. There will be an open public meeting during the consultation period. Statutory notices will be published in September which the Cabinet Member for All Age Learning will be asked to determine on 5 November.


9. This report is proposing Cabinet agree the proposal in order for property services to go to tender. The final approval for the project would be subject to consultation results, statutory notices and determination through single member decision.

Page 132

11

10. There will be a partnership agreement between Worplesdon Primary School and Freemantles School to ensure effective governance for future sustainability and manage any potential divergence between the two parties.


11. The project will be subject to robust cost challenge and scrutiny to drive optimum value as it progresses. Further financial details including potential cost avoidance and revenue savings are set out in the report circulated in Part 2 of the report. These details have been circulated separately to ensure commercial sensitivity, in the interest of securing best value.


12. The Council is facing a very serious financial situation, whereby there are substantial savings to be achieved to establish a balanced budget with regard to expenditure funded from the High Needs Block of the Dedicated Schools Grant. As such, the Section 151 Officer (Chief Finance Officer) supports the initiative to reduce reliance upon Independent, Non Maintained Independent Sector (NMIs), schools and colleges through the creation of additional units in local authority maintained schools. The creation of the unit at Worplesdon is estimated to save approximately £9,000 per child per year through containing provision locally in maintained settings. Further initiatives will need to be pursued to contain and then reduce High Needs Block expenditure.

13. The cost of the scheme is estimated to be £1.1m funded from the SEND Capital Grant and whilst there is no official rate of return, in comparing the likely full-year savings to the cost of the project, costs will be recouped within approximately 5 years. The report seeks to allocate £1.1m of resources using this fact as the business case and to proceed to public consultation and procurement to deliver the places for September 2020.


14. Section 13 of the Education Act 1996 places a duty on a Local Authority (with responsibility to education) to ensure sufficient primary and secondary education provision is available to meet the needs of the population in its area.


15. An Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) has been started in respect to the proposal.

CORPORATE PARENTING/LOOKED AFTER CHILDREN IMPLICATIONS

16. This proposal would provide increased provision for primary places for children with communication and interaction needs (COIN), which would be of benefit to the community served by the school. This means it would therefore also be of benefit to any Looked After Children who have an Education Health and Care Plan identifying their communication and interaction needs.

Page 133

11

SAFEGUARDING RESPONSIBILITIES FOR VULNERABLE CHILDREN AND ADULTS IMPLICATIONS

17. Safeguarding vulnerable children is a high priority in all Surrey schools. Schools have considerable expertise in safeguarding vulnerable children and adhere to robust procedures. The schools will continue to apply good practise in the area of safeguarding as they are currently. In addition, safeguarding is a key area for monitoring when Ofsted carries out inspections.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS

18. The design philosophy is to create buildings that will support low energy consumption, reduce solar gain and promote natural ventilation. Any new infrastructure will be built to the local planning authority’s adopted core planning strategy

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT:

If approved, to proceed to commence the tender process for the project, through to contract award, via delegated decision.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contact Officer:

Jane Keenan, Commissioning Manager, tel. 07970 645 745

Philip Roche, Schools & Major Capital Projects Manager, tel. 020 8541 9311

Consulted:

Kareen O Brien, Headteacher, Worplesdon Primary SchoolJustin Price, Headteacher, Freemantles SchoolParents of children attending Worplesdon Primary SchoolStaff members and Governors at Worplesdon Primary SchoolResidentsCllr Keith Witham, Councillor for Worplesdon------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 134

11


CABINET

DATE: 16 JULY 2019

REPORT OF: MRS JULIE ILES– CABINET MEMBER FOR ALL-AGE LEARNING

LEAD OFFICER:

DAVE HILL - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES, LIFELONG LEARNING AND CULTURE

SUBJECT: PROPOSAL TO ENTER INTO A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE SCHOOLS ALLIANCE FOR EXCELLENCE (SAFE)

SUMMARY OF ISSUE:

This report seeks Cabinet approval for the council to be a partner in a new, not-for-profit company, which is to be called the Schools Alliance for Excellence (SAfE). This is a partnership – between schools, both maintained schools and academies, the Surrey Teaching Schools Network (STSN) and Surrey County Council – to continue to improve the quality of education in Surrey.

Following the end of the Babcock 4S contract, it is proposed that the council should commission SAfE to provide a number of services previously provided by that company. In the first instance, these services are those relating explicitly to school improvement but as SAfE establishes itself, it is anticipated this commission may be extended to other areas.

This report sets out the proposed outcomes for the three-year period of the initial commission (1 September 2019 to 31 August 2022). As indicated in Surrey County Council’s Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (2019), most children in Surrey succeed without intervention from the council. Consequently, in line with Surrey’s community vision for 2030, these commissioning intentions should have a particular focus on the progress and outcomes of the most vulnerable children and young people with the aim of increasing their educational engagement and achievements and in closing the gap in attainment levels. Independent schools can benefit from SAfE services but cannot be part of the partnership.

RECOMMENDATIONS:It is recommended that Cabinet:

1. Approves the establishment of the new school-led partnership for improvement in Surrey known as the Schools Alliance for Excellence (SAfE).

2. Endorses the Council’s participation as a member of SAfE with two officers of the Council to be appointed to the board of directors of the company.

3. Agrees to commission SAfE to lead and manage Surrey’s school improvement strategy for an initial three years, from September 2019 to 2022.

4. Grants delegated authority to the Executive Director for Children Families Lifelong Learning and Culture, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for All-Age Learning, to agree, as appropriate, to SAfE being contracted for further council commissions over the next three years.

5. Agrees that the Council will act as the ‘supervising authority’ for SAfE.

Page 135

12

Item 12


Surrey County Council outsourced its school improvement services over 15 years ago. Through the contract, Babcock 4S was engaged to undertake all 11 council duties relating to school standards and the quality assurance of all maintained schools, 14 compliance checking duties and five relating to the curriculum (see annex one to this report for the list of these duties). This contract came to an end in March 2019, and these duties are currently being undertaken by council officers on a short-term basis. However, this is not consistent with the developing schools-led system and partnership approach underpinning our work with children and families.

Over recent years, Surrey schools have built a system of improvement using local practitioners and teaching schools. The recommendations in this report would extend the breadth and depth of that schools-led system so it can accelerate improvement in the outcomes for children and young people, particularly the most vulnerable, in Surrey schools.

DETAILS

The development of local area education partnerships1. Over the last few years, local education partnerships have been established in

different parts of the country. Sometimes led by local authorities, sometimes by schools, these area-based partnerships support schools and help to drive improvements for children and young people. At their best, they take responsibility for the quality of education in the local area and can act as an engine of improvement, brokering connections and initiatives across schools.

2. In April, 2019, with the agreement of schools in Surrey, the Surrey Teaching Schools Network (STSN) extended its focus on leadership services to coordinate a ‘universal offer’ to schools, which signposted a range of services and resources for professional development, school-to-school support, research and development and governance training. The local authority supported this initiative and with the end of the Babcock 4S contract, saw the opportunity for this partnership to develop further by taking on responsibility for the delivery of the council’s core statutory duties for school improvement.

3. Consequently, the executive director set in train work with key partners to establish a formal education partnership that would take responsibility for this larger portfolio of school improvement services. Over the last few months, considerable work has been undertaken by schools, STSN, the Guildford diocese and council officers and this has led to the proposal to establish SAfE as a school company. The intention is that this partnership will be incorporated as a company limited by guarantee by 1 September 2019. The proposal is that Surrey County Council would become a partner in the company and take up two places on the board of directors.

Links with Surrey’s vision for 20304. The council has set out its vision for Surrey to be a uniquely special place where

everyone has a great start in life, people live healthy and fulfilling lives, are enabled to achieve their full potential and contribute to the community, and no one is left behind. It has summarised its ambitions for people as:

children and young people are safe and feel safe and confident;

everyone benefits from education, skills and employment opportunities that help them succeed in life;

Page 136

12

everyone lives healthy, active and fulfilling lives, and makes good choices about their wellbeing;

everyone gets the health and social care support and information they need at the right time and place; and

communities are welcoming and supportive, especially of those most in need, and people feel able to contribute to community life.

5. If this vision is to translate into reality, it must be underpinned by a strong local education system serving all children and young people well. Working in partnership is key to achieving better outcomes for our young people as the council knows that it alone cannot realise the aspirations in the community vision for Surrey in 2030. Over the last few months officers have worked with schools and key partners to establish a vision and design for SAfE that will steer the changes needed to support the achievement of the community vision. The creation of SAfE reflects the effective partnership working that has taken place over recent months. Once established, SAfE will be led by schools but in partnership with the local authority and other key partners in the education community.

6. SAfE will be an inclusive education partnership where all children and young people, regardless of their background or ability, have the opportunities to flourish, enjoy learning and achieve the best possible outcomes through excellent education. The agreed aims of the partnership are to build:

a truly excellent education system from early years to post-16;

a collaboration for improvement for all schools and education settings not just those experiencing difficulty; and

a safe, inclusive learning community enabling challenge, support, improvement, innovation and learning from one another.

7. It sees all Surrey children as the partnership’s responsibility and has identified six goals (see below), all of which are crucial to the realisation of the community vision for 2030.

Page 137

12

8. This report therefore recommends that SAfE is welcomed by the council, most particularly for the potential it offers for partnership working that will lead to an even stronger education system in Surrey. SAfE will become accountable for driving and ensuring school improvement in Surrey. This means it will:

know all Surrey schools well;

establish robust monitoring, challenge and support;

broker and commission effective support for schools needing extra help at a particular time and for those causing concern;

identify, develop and extend good and effective practice;

signpost excellent professional development and training for school staff and governors;

work closely with the local authority and external bodies, such as the Department for Education (DfE), Ofsted and the Regional Schools Commissioner, as appropriate; and

help to accelerate a range of improvement and performance outcomes.

9. It intends to do this by establishing an ambitious, schools-led system of continuous improvement. It will draw on the collective resources of schools in Surrey, for example, the use of good practitioners in individual schools or of outstanding practice within schools. SAfE will use the rich resource offered by the STSN. It will use the expertise of system leaders in education such as various high-quality local leaders in Surrey’s schools, national leaders of education (NLEs), specialist leaders of education (SLEs) and national leaders of governance (NLGs).

Page 138

12

Specification of commissioning outcomes: 2019-202210. This report recommends that the council should commission SAfE to provide a number

of services previously provided by Babcock 4S. In the first instance, these services are those relating explicitly to school improvement but as SAfE establishes itself, it is likely this commission will be extended to other areas.

11. The commission should specify a set of outcomes and performance indicators for the three-year period of the commission, which support the council’s vision for 2030. These will mark progress toward the goal that all Surrey’s children will thrive emotionally, grow intellectually and reach their full potential. Surrey’s education system – comprising early years settings, primary, secondary and special schools and sixth form and further education colleges – is already very successful except for some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged pupils.

12. As most children in Surrey succeed without intervention from the council, there needs to be a focus on those not so well served by the system. This entails an overall focus on the progress and outcomes of potentially vulnerable children, including disadvantaged pupils, pupils with special educational needs and children who are looked after or were previously looked after, with the aim of increasing overall educational engagement and achievement as well as closing the gap in attainment levels.

13. Over the three-year life of the strategy, the proposed outcomes are to: maintain Surrey pupils’ top-quartile performance at the early years foundation stage

(EYFS), key stage (KS) one, two and four;

increase the percentage of schools judged as good or outstanding, with the aspiration that no school will be placed in an Ofsted ‘inadequate’ category within the next 18 months;

increase the percentage of disadvantaged pupils achieving the expected standards at key stage 2 and at key stage 4;

increase the percentage of learners making good progress in writing and mathematics between the ages of 7 and 11;

increase the percentage of disadvantaged pupils making expected or better progress against the progress 8 measure at key stage 4;

reduce vulnerable pupils’ rates of absence and exclusion from school; and

increase the percentage of disadvantaged learners who enter higher education by age 19.

14. The council also expects SAfE to undertake a number of activities and processes as set out in annex 2 of this report. These include responsibility for the statutory duties and tasks set out in the DfE guidance, schools causing concern (November 2018).

Contract monitoring 15. The council will ensure these outcomes and key performance indicators (KPIs) are

delivered through efficient monitoring of the contract with SAfE, which will be expected to:

meet informally with the council officers, as commissioners, on a monthly basis to report progress and raise issues about the delivery of the commission;

Page 139

12

provide a formal report of the commission’s progress on a termly basis, which will be discussed in detail with the council, as commissioner, and with the SAfE board; and

provide the council with a comprehensive annual assessment of the performance of the education system in Surrey, highlighting strengths, priorities and key areas for development. This annual review will include a focus on the progress and attainment of potentially vulnerable groups.

Governance of SAfE16 SAfE would be a not for profit, schools-led company, focused on school improvement

and owned by Surrey’s schools in partnership with Surrey County Council. Schools and academy trusts within Surrey are eligible for full membership. As members of SAfE, Surrey schools would have with a high degree of control and oversight over the organisation. The level of control by Surrey schools will be achieved through reserved rights and other similar provisions set out in the articles and memorandum of association. Other schools and organisations wishing to use SAfE’s services may have the option to become ‘associate members’ and access services through a service contract or a collaboration agreement (as the case may be) without necessarily being legal ‘members’ of the company.

17 It is intended that SAfE will be incorporated as a company limited by guarantee by 1 September 2019. This is a relatively straightforward model to set up, limits the risk to individual members; and has a low burden of administration. Companies limited by guarantee attract a lighter burden of regulation than companies limited by shares and have an extremely flexible model of membership and governance that can be easily tailored to local requirements. A decision about whether to seek charitable status is likely to be made at some point during its first year of operation.

18 The directors of SAfE will collectively form a board, providing strategic leadership and holding the executive management to account. It is currently envisaged that there will be 10 directors of the company. These would come from local partners: the chairs of the four phase councils (early years; primary; secondary; special); a governor; the CEO of one of the dioceses operating in Surrey; the CEO of a local academy trust; a director of the Surrey Schools Teaching Network (STSN); and two local authority nominees.

19 The company would by default be a school company. This is because the regulations on school companies automatically apply to any company that includes maintained schools in its membership. The features of a school company are set out in detail from paragraphs 33 to 40 of this report.

Management of SAfE20. The company will need to be established so that it can employ its own staff and enter

into a number of contracts.

21. The chief executive of SAfE will oversee the day-to-day operation of the partnership’s services and management of its staff. They will also lead and manage STSN, which will support the coherence of the support for schools.

22. The company will secure its resources from: income from schools;

traded services;

Page 140

12

a commission from Surrey CC for school improvement;

other potential commissions; and

grant funding and awards.

Supervisory authority 23. All school companies need to have a supervising authority, which in most instances is

their local authority (see section 12, Education Act 2002; regulations 26 and 27, School Companies Regulations 2002). The expectation is that duty will be undertaken in a manner that is as light touch as intended in the DfE guidance (DES, 2003). This report recommends that Surrey County Council takes on this role.

24 The functions of the supervising authority include: monitoring the management and finances of the school company, including scrutiny of

audited annual company accounts;

considering requests from school companies to borrow;

notifying the secretary of state for education of company membership, name or registered number and any changes to these details within 28 days; and

directing governing bodies to withdraw from a school company in certain circumstances.

CONSULTATION:

25. This report signals a change in the relationship with schools in Surrey. The design and establishment of SAfE has been a collaborative endeavour between schools, council officers and key partners, advised at key points by an external adviser with knowledge of local area partnerships in different parts of the country. Surrey schools are choosing to take greater responsibility for their collective performance. The principle underpinning the proposal for a local partnership is that it offers the best vehicle to promote improvement in our education system, with the focus on improving the achievements and life-chances of the most vulnerable children and young people.

26. The proposal to establish SAfE has been considered and keenly supported by Surrey’s phase councils and the STSN board. There has also been positive engagement with governors and the dioceses who operate in Surrey. The Regional Schools Commissioner has also been informed about the proposal, at the termly meeting with SCC officers on 12 June 2019. The commissioner noted the proposal, which is consistent with the government’s view that local authorities should consider commissioning their statutory functions relating to school effectiveness and improvement to education experts.

RISK MANAGEMENT AND IMPLICATIONS27. The key risks to the council are set out in part 2 of this report.

Page 141

12

Finance and value for money implications:

28 Finance and value for money (VFM) implications are set out in part 2, as exempt information.

Section 151 officer commentary:29. The council is facing a very serious financial situation, whereby there are still

substantial savings to be delivered to achieve a balanced budget in the current year and a sustainable budget plan for future years. Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture is on a major transformation journey to improve services for children and families. This is a high priority service and is a key part of the improvement programme. The section 151 officer acknowledges that this initiative will allow greater control around overall spend.

30. The purpose of the report is to obtain cabinet approval for the establishment of a school company, a not for profit company, limited by guarantee for which the council is the supervising authority. The council will seek to discharge its statutory duties in relation to school improvement through the company and once established the council will consider further commissions.

31. All costs in establishing the company will need to be funded from existing resources. Similarly the cost of all commissions including any monitoring arrangements that the council needs to put in place will need to be contained within existing budgets, whether they be funded from the dedicated schools grant (DSG), or council funds. Such commissioning arrangements will need to be flexible enough to absorb any reductions in funding. It is not anticipated that the council will need to provide any corporate resources to support the operation of the new company. Any support required would need to be provided on a cost recovery basis.

32. The establishment of the new company does not involve the transfer of any staff. All future commissions will need to consider this in the future and that any impact on potential employment and pension costs for the council are identified at that time.

Legal implications – monitoring officer:

33. For the reasons stated in the report, a company limited by guarantee will be incorporated with the name Schools Alliance for Excellence (SAfE). The council will participate in the company as a ‘member’ by providing a financial guarantee, usually for a nominal amount such as £1. A key feature of companies limited by guarantee is that dividends cannot be paid to the company’s members. Any surplus generated by the company must be retained and reinvested by the company.

34. When constituted as a company, SAfE will be a ‘school company’ as defined by Section 11 of the Education Act 2002, as amended. Section 12 of the Education Act 2002 requires a governing body wishing to exercise any of these powers first to obtain the consent of its maintaining local authority, the council. In addition, the School Companies Regulations 2002 (as amended) must also be complied with. The regulations allow local authorities to be members of a school company.

35. The regulations also require every school company to designate a local authority as its ‘supervising authority’. In SAfE’s case the supervising authority would initially be the council because all of the governing bodies are located within the county. If SAfE

Page 142

12

grows beyond Surrey, then it is possible that another local authority could become the supervising authority.

36. Where a local authority becomes the supervising authority for a school company it must under the regulations inform the secretary of state in writing within 28 days of becoming the supervising authority. The duties of the supervising authority under the regulations are to monitor the management and finances of the company. It must also notify the members of the company, as well as any local authorities which maintain schools whose governing bodies are members of the company, if it considers that the company is poorly managed or there is a risk of the company becoming insolvent.

37. The regulations do not prevent a local authority being both the supervising authority of the company and having representatives on the company’s board of directors. A council officer who is a director of the company will have legal duties for the management of the company. A conflict of interest will arise if they are also responsible for carrying out the council’s responsibilities as supervising authority to monitor the company or commission work from it. Therefore, it would be strongly advisable to ensure that council officers nominated to be on the board of directors do not also have decision making or supervisory responsibility concerning the company as part of their role at the council.

38. The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 as amended (TUPE) would apply to any council employees who are assigned to the carrying out of these functions would transfer to SAfE. It is not anticipated that any staff will transfer as a result of the original commission envisaged in this report.

39. The council must comply with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCRs) in commissioning services from SAfE. Under Regulation 12(4) of the PCRs, known as the ‘joint-Teckal’ exemption, the council can award a contract to a company it does not wholly own without undertaking a competitive tender. Three criteria must be satisfied to ensure the joint-Teckal exemption applies. These are:

(i) the council exercises jointly with other contracting authorities (i.e. the governing bodies) a control over that company which is similar to that which they exercise over their own departments;

(ii) more than 80 per cent of the activities of the company are carried out in the performance of tasks entrusted to it by the controlling contracting authorities (including the council); and

(iii) there is no direct private capital participation in the company.

All of these criteria are satisfied in relation to SAfE.

40. An independent external law firm will be appointed jointly by all of the participating organisations to undertake the incorporation of the company and establish the necessary governance arrangements. Legal services will continue to provide support to the project internally.

Equalities and diversity:

41. The service is universal and SAfE will be expected to monitor the educational performance of children and young people, including those with protected characteristics, including gender, race, disability and pupils who receive free school

Page 143

12

meals. The council’s commission emphasises a focus on Surrey’s most vulnerable young people, including those who are disadvantaged, those with SEND and those in public care. The service will continue to monitor and tackle these inequalities.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

Subject to Cabinet’s agreement of the recommendations set out in this report, council officers will continue to work with schools and key partners to ensure that SAfE: is incorporated as a company limited by guarantee by 1 September 2019; and has the processes and procedures in place to enable the company to deliver the

council’s commission effectively.

Contact officer: Liz Mills, Director of Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture

Consulted: There has been internal consultation with the Cabinet Member for All-Age Learning, and been external consultation with representatives of primary, secondary and special schools, and early years settings, the Surrey Teaching Schools Network (STSN), the Guildford diocese and engagement with governors.

Annexes:Annex 1: LA statutory duties relating to school quality assurance and interventionAnnex 2: Draft output specification for 2019/20

Sources / background papersSurrey CC. Joint Strategic Needs Assessment, 2019DfES (2002), Statutory instrument, 2002 no 2978, The School Companies Regulations, 2002DfES (2003), Guidance on school companies DfE (November 2018) Schools causing concern

Page 144

12

Annex 1 School standards and compliance checking duties Surrey County Council

LA duty Lead

School quality assurance and intervention

school standards

promoting high standards in primary and secondary education

assisting schools with spending decisions where the budget is proving a distraction

where the secretary of state to issue guidance to which LAs and schools must have regard

enables the secretary of state to issue guidance in relation to the exercise of functions.

take action when a school goes into an Ofsted category

intervening in schools causing concern

requiring an 'eligible' school to enter into arrangements with another agency to improve the school

strengthening the local authority voice on the governing body to support a school's improvement.

securing leadership and membership change in a school through appointing an interim executive board

ensure teachers receive their statutory terms and conditions.

allows the secretary of state to intervene directly in under-performing schools.

LA to act in accordance with any government directive

ensure that education and training functions are exercised with a view to promoting high standards

compliance checking

registered pupils attending a maintained school to take part in a daily act of collective worship

moderate assessment in at least 25 per cent of schools to ensure consistency of standards in ks 2

report key stage 1 data to the DfE for school performance monitoring purposes

ensure schools are equipped to run key stage 1 teacher assessment and capture/submit results.

ensure security of assessment documents

visit 10 per cent of schools during test week to ensure ks 1 tests are being administered correctly

ensure heads fulfil their statutory duty in in administering key stage assessments

facilitate the investigation, by Ofsted, of a parental complaint about a maintained school

ensure that the curriculum provided by maintained schools is broad based and balanced

ensure the core entitlement is secured for pupils

provide information as required by the DfE about the funding of training for teachers

ensure head teachers fulfil their statutory duty in administering the year 1 phonics screening

monitor the phonics screening check in at least 10 per cent of schools

curriculum

consider complaints about the curriculum, RE and collective worship referred to them

#REF!

ensure schools and the LA provide religious education in accordance with the law

have regard to statutory guidance on sex education issued by the secretary of state

LA to constitute a standing advisory council on religious education (SACRE)

June 2019Page 145

12

1

Annex 2: draft output specification for SAfE 2019/20Background and contextCouncil officers are seeking Cabinet approval for the Local Authority (LA) to be a partner in a new private company limited by guarantee, which is to be called Schools Alliance for Excellence (SAfE). This is a partnership – between schools, both maintained schools and academies, the Surrey Teaching Schools’ Network (STSN), the Dioceses operating in Surrey and Surrey County CC – the aim of which is to continue to improve the quality of education in Surrey.

The Council intends to commission SAfE to deliver a number of services previously provided by Babcock 4S. In the first instance, these services are those relating explicitly to school improvement but as SAfE establishes itself, it is likely this commission will be extended to other areas.

This document sets out an initial outline of outcomes and performance indicators for the three-year period of the commission and for the first school year (2019/20). These are consistent with the council’s ambition to have a world class education system in Surrey.

2019 to 2022: 3-year outcomes and targetsAs most children in Surrey succeed without intervention from the council, there needs to be a focus on those not so well served by the system. This entails an overall focus on the progress and outcomes of potentially vulnerable children, including disadvantaged pupils, pupils with special educational needs and children who are looked after or were previously looked after, with the aim of increasing overall educational engagement and achievement as well as closing the gap in attainment levels.

Over the three-year life of the strategy, the proposed outcomes are to:

maintain Surrey pupils’ top-quartile performance at the early years foundation stage (EYFS), key stage (KS) one, two and four;

increase the percentage of schools judged as good or outstanding, with the aspiration that no school will be placed in an Ofsted ‘inadequate’ category within the next 18 months;

increase the percentage of disadvantaged pupils achieving the expected standards at KS 2 and at KS 4;

increase the percentage of disadvantaged learners making good progress in writing and mathematics between the ages of 7 and 11;

increase the percentage of disadvantaged pupils making expected or better progress against the progress 8 measure at KS 4;

reduce vulnerable pupils’ rates of absence and exclusion from school; and

increase the percentage of disadvantaged learners who enter higher education (HE) by age 19.

Council officers will work with SAfE to agree how these translate into annual outcomes so they are in place for September 2019.

Page 147

12

2

Key Deliverables: 1 September 2019 to 31 August 2020INTELLIGENCE GATHERING AND INFORMATION SHARING

Collate and analyse, on a half-termly basis, a range of agreed data at school, area and phase levels for all Surrey schools and to share this with the LA as commissioner;

Share responsibility with the LA for the organisation of a half-termly evidence gathering meeting to identify not only schools needing additional support but also areas of good practice and expertise;

On a termly basis, provide the local authority (LA) with a risk assessment of all schools, based on an as agreed approach to categorisation;

Alert the LA immediately to any concerns that could impact on safeguarding and pupil welfare;

Provide the LA with a comprehensive annual assessment of the performance of the education system in Surrey, highlighting strengths, priorities and key areas for development. This annual review will include a focus on the progress and attainment of potentially vulnerable groups, including disadvantaged pupils, pupils with special educational needs and children who are looked after or were previously looked after;

As requested by the LA, obtain and collate other intelligence (for example, on safeguarding, behaviour and attendance matters) at school or system level on and to compile appropriate reports for the LA;

Provide an anonymised summary of provisional GCSE results to the LA in August each year;

Agree a data sharing protocol LA which includes an agreed approach to the dissemination and use of schools’ data;

Support the LA in producing council reports; and

Support the LA in responding to freedom of information requests, members and MPs’ enquiries, investigations and so on.

SCHOOLS CAUSING CONCERN AND AT RISK

SAfE will support the LA to meet its statutory duties as set out in the February 2018 guidance Schools Causing Concern – see here, and particularly chapter 6 page 33 (school performance) and page 34 (safeguarding). The specific duties are 1, 56, 57, 64, 79, 80, and 81 as set out in attachment 1 to this document. The key performance indicators (KPIs) for 2019/20 are:

Unless there are exceptional reasons, any maintained school judged ‘requires improvement’ or worse following an inspection by Ofsted should be on an appropriate support package;

Support each maintained school causing concern as defined in the DfE guidance in producing an action plan that will ensure rapid improvement;

Ensure that an effective support programme for each maintained school causing concern is in place and work with those schools to secure progress, reporting on the effectiveness of that support to the LA on a half-termly basis;

Ensure all maintained schools at risk are supported and monitored;

Take prompt action in cases where any maintained school goes into an Ofsted category, supporting any local authority intervention using statutory powers;

Support each maintained school in preparation for any Ofsted monitoring visits;

Page 148

12

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/754974/Schools_causing_concern_guidance-November_2018.pdf

3

As appropriate, prepare bids for additional resources; and

Provide information to support the LA in the writing of letters of concern, warning notices, consultation with governing bodies about an IEB proposal and the response to Ofsted qualifying complaints.

LA STATUTORY DUTY TO PROVIDE GENERAL SUPPORT AND PROMOTE HIGH STANDARDS

SAfE will work closely with the LA, other local partners and statutory bodies to ensure all schools have the support they need to improve;

Acting on behalf of the LA, support head teacher appointments in maintained schools at all stages of the recruitment process;

Work with the LA, the dioceses and academy trusts to facilitate interim leadership arrangements in Surrey schools;

Signpost and broker high quality CPD for staff in schools;

Signpost and broker support and development opportunities for governors; and

Establish good relationships and effective communications with the key partners in the educational community, ensuring they recognise the successes of Surrey schools and have an understanding of current educational issues.

SAFEGUARDING

Work in partnership with SCC officers to ensure an integrated approach to discharging the LA’s responsibility to safeguard children.

MEETINGS WITH THE DFE, OFSTED AND THE RSC Establish cordial and effective relationships with the DfE, Ofsted and the RSC; and

Support the Director of Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture, or her representative, in any of Surrey CC’s meetings with the DfE, Ofsted and the RSC.

SUPPORT FOR INSPECTION

Support schools in their preparation for inspection and, where required, during inspections;

Speak to Ofsted lead inspectors, on behalf of SCC, during the course of an inspection; and

Attend Ofsted feedback meetings as appropriate.

STATUTORY ASSESSMENT AND MODERATION

The Board should consider whether SAfE could take on this responsibility from April 2020. This decision is not urgent.

If SAfE assumes this responsibility, it must ensure that all compliance checking is undertaken relating to early years and key stage assessments as follows:

moderate assessment in at least 25 per cent of schools to ensure consistency of standards in key stage 2 (see attachment 1, duty 51);

report key stage 1 data to the DfE for school performance monitoring purposes (see duty 52);

ensure schools are equipped to run key stage 1 teacher assessment and capture/submit results (see duty 53);

ensure the security of assessment documents (see duty 54);

visit 10 per cent of schools during test week to ensure key stage 1 tests are being administered correctly (see duty 55); and

ensure head teachers fulfil their statutory duties in administering key stage assessments (59).

Page 149

12

4

CONTRACT MONITORING

Meet informally with the LA, as commissioner, on a monthly basis to report progress and raise issues about the delivery of the commission; and

Provide a formal report of the commission’s progress on a termly basis which will be discussed in detail with the LA, as commissioner, and with the SAfE Board.

Page 150

12


CABINET

DATE: TUESDAY 16 JULY 2019

REPORT OF: MRS MARY LEWIS, CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, YOUNG PEOPLE & FAMILIES

LEAD OFFICER:

DAVE HILL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES, LIFELONG LEARNING AND CULTURE

SUBJECT: CHILDREN’S IMPROVEMENT UPDATE

SUMMARY OF ISSUE:

Children’s services in Surrey were judged by Ofsted in May 2018 to be in a critical state. As a result Ofsted are carrying out a series of ‘Monitoring Visits’ approximately every 3-4 months, focussing on a different part of the service each time, and assessing the quality of practice for supporting and safeguarding children and families in Surrey. The third Monitoring Visit took place in June 2019.

Following the inspection last year a Children’s Commissioner was also appointed by the Department for Education (DfE) to make a judgement about whether children’s services should continue to be retained by Surrey. As previously reported to Cabinet in December 2018 and March 2019, the Commissioner concluded that Surrey has a credible plan in place and that “the Council now recognises and accepts the depth and complex nature of the issues it faces in children’s social care”.

An interim review was carried out by the Children’s Commissioner in April 2019 to ensure that progress and momentum are being maintained and the report to the Secretary of State for Education was shared with Surrey in June.

The service has embarked upon a comprehensive transformation programme involving: restructure of the children’s services department to remodel early help, the front door, how we deliver statutory interventions to families and to enable the department to operate within budget. This report provides Cabinet with an update on the delivery of Surrey’s Children’s Improvement Plan, the findings from the Commissioner’s interim review and the recent Ofsted Monitoring Visit and Annual Conversation. A progress update is also provided here on the service restructure and transformation work to implement and embed the new model for Surrey’s Children’s Services.

This report shows the huge amount of progress made to improve children’s services and is supported by the recent external scrutiny we’ve had. The Commissioner stated that “the authority has made rapid and solid progress since submitting his original report [to the DfE]” and Ofsted inspector’s fed back that we have “achieved a fundamental aim of the remodelling” and have “made substantial progress...through the newly implemented ‘front door’ arrangements”.

Page 151

13

Item 13

RECOMMENDATIONS


1. Cabinet notes the progress made delivering the Children’s Improvement Plan and the findings from the recent Children’s Commissioner Re-Visit, Ofsted Monitoring Visit 03 and Ofsted Annual Conversation.

2. Cabinet reviews progress in December 2019 on the delivery of the Children’s Improvement Plan and the findings from subsequent inspections. The Children’s Commissioner will be conducting a further review of our improvement work in October 2019 and Ofsted will next conduct a Monitoring Visit in October-November 2019.


The DfE appointed Children’s Commissioner will next be reviewing our progress improving practice across children’s services in Surrey in October 2019. The Commissioner will then report to the Department for Education and Secretary of State for Education in November 2019.

The next Ofsted Monitoring Visit, focussed on the Assessment service, will take place October-November 2019 with publication of the report in late-November 2019.

DETAILS:

Commissioner for Children’s Services – Update following interim review

1. When the DfE-appointed Children’s Commissioner reviewed our transformation and improvement plans last year (and progress made to that point), they concluded that we had developed the right plan to turn around Children’s Services in Surrey. The April visit was a check on our progress towards implementing our new structure and new model and to ensure we are on-track to improve the culture and practice for our staff, management and leadership and also our partners.

2. The Commissioner engaged senior managers and practitioners from Cornwall County Council to carry out a series of two-day visits, each visit focussed on different services and practice areas in Surrey, including:

Commissioning and partnerships; Help and protection; Children in Care / Leaving Care Services; Front door; Quality assurance / Performance management / Safeguarding

partnership; School partners / Health / CAMHS / Police and legal.

3. They met with over 200 staff, 50 external partners (inc from Police, NHS, Schools and the third sector), 20 young people and 7 Members. The visit also involved auditing around 40 children’s cases and a review of:

New / updated policies and procedures;

Page 152

13

Amended strategies and frameworks (eg: the QA and Performance framework, the Emotional Wellbeing and Mental Health strategy, Engagement framework);

Our plans (e.g. Improvement plan, Transformation plans, Corporate Parenting Board, SSCB/Partnership plans etc);

Child and young people records; Performance information.

4. The Commissioner’s findings were reported to the DfE and the Secretary of State for Education in May 2019 and can be seen in the attached report of the interim review (see Annex A - Interim Report of the Non-Executive Commissioner for Children’s Services Surrey - 16 May 2019). The feedback was overwhelmingly positive and the Commissioner was impressed with the pace and scale of change to Surrey’s Children’s Services – some of the key findings include:

Improved: Senior officers and Members have demonstrated their commitment to

address the issues and prioritise children’s services improvement. Despite the magnitude of change and some necessarily difficult

restructuring and HR processes, morale amongst staff is positive and there is overall confidence in the improvement journey;

Partnership engagement is having a real impact on practice; Caseloads are reducing and become much more manageable for

practitioners; Rapid progress has been made in improving the quality of performance

data giving confidence in understanding and interpreting quality of practice;

The combination of performance management, oversight of practice and expectations of practice standards are beginning to shift the management culture to one of quality and learning;

Encouraged at the pace of change – the authority has made rapid and solid progress since the Commissioner carried out the initial review last year.

Improving: Early Help Offer not yet clearly defined but the Council have a good plan

in place to develop this; The depth of cultural and practice change is critical to achieving

sustainable improvements and the effort in this area must continue; Staff should continue to be involved as much as possible in developing

and embedding the changes across the services; Supervision is still a long way from being consistently reflective and

effective but the structure is now in place and the expected standard being made clear;

Impressive progress at the ‘front door’ however timeliness of decision making needs to improve to become fully Working Together compliant.

5. The Commissioner will carry out a further review in October 2019 (reporting in November 2019) and will continue to support our improvement work until then with attendance at the Ofsted Priority Action Board (OPAB) and continued engagement with the Executive Director of Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture. We are proud of the changes already made and confident that our new model and improvement plans are the right things needed to achieve our

Page 153

13

vision of delivering good quality services which improve outcomes for children, young people and families living in Surrey.

Ofsted Monitoring

6. On 5 & 6 June 2019, Ofsted carried out their third (of six) Monitoring Visit of Surrey’s Children’s Services. The focus of this visit was on the recently established ‘front door’ – the Children’s Single Point of Access (C-SPA) – along with the Children’s Contact Centre team and the Early Help Hub. The visit concentrated on the effectiveness of the C-SPA and the impact and effectiveness of initial responses to children who go missing and who are at risk of exploitation. The early identification and response to children at risk of, or experiencing harm was also evaluated, along with the application of thresholds at the Council and partners.

7. A letter from the Inspectors following the visit detailing their findings was published on the Ofsted website on Friday 28 June and a copy is attached here as Annex B - Ofsted Monitoring Visit Letter 26.06.19.

8. The inspectors found that we have “made substantial progress in recently improving both the quality of management oversight and the practice standards of incoming contacts and referrals through the newly implemented ‘front door’ arrangements” and highlighted a number of specific areas of practice:

a) The ‘Request for Support’ team, SPA and Early Help Hub are providing increasingly safe, proportionate and well-evidenced initial responses to concerns regarding children’s safety and wellbeing;

b) Partnership agencies’ understanding and application of threshold guidance are improving;

c) Children at immediate and significant risk of harm are quickly identified and passed on, without delay, to assessment teams for urgent attention;

d) Management oversight, directions and decision making about contacts that are referred to the SPA service are increasingly prompt, clear and well evidenced;

e) Social workers in the SPA undertake multi-agency partnership (MAP) information gathering swiftly and efficiently in accordance with timescales;

f) The significantly reduced volume of referrals has led to more manageable workloads in the SPA, facilitating timely and prompt work, allowing greater reflection, discussion and well-evidenced recording;

g) The Early Help Hub is well managed, employing skilled and professionally curious early help advisers who have a child-centred and evaluative approach;

h) Advisers’ written records and recommendations are reflective and concise, supporting well- informed subsequent management decisions.

i) Access to targeted early help services to address children and family’s needs in the four area quadrants is swiftly facilitated when appropriate.

9. Our intensive programme of quality assurance, performance management and audit activities continues to be well received by Ofsted and increasingly enables us to ‘know ourselves’, identify practice weaknesses and pro-actively take steps to address them. Ofsted told us that “this ongoing, iterative and highly labour-

Page 154

13

https://files.api.ofsted.gov.uk/v1/file/50088564

intensive programme is a critical cornerstone of the local authority’s determined plans to achieve a sustained and widespread improvement in social work practice standards”. Social workers also “said that they have welcomed the reflective meetings with managers that are part of the audit model. They demonstrated to inspectors an ability to reflect on important learning points and a receptiveness to learning and improvement”.

10. We accept that there is more to do in some areas inspected in June including:a) Ensuring children’s family histories and any recurring patterns of neglect

and domestic abuse are fully considered when making decisions on continuing support and intervention;

b) Working with Surrey Police to reduce delays in notifications;c) Increasing capacity in the Request for Support team.

We will continue to embed improvements across the C-SPA, Request for Support team and Early Help Hub – along with other areas of children’s services.

11. Ofsted will conduct the next Monitoring Visit on 31 October and 1 November 2019 (with their findings published late-November 2019) to look at the Assessments service. We will continue listening to advice, feedback and best-practice recommendations to make sure that we make progress (including Ofsted as their findings serve as good markers in our journey). However this will be our journey to outstanding services for Surrey’s children and families because they deserve nothing less.

HMIP Inspection

12. Our Youth Offending Services were inspected between 10 and 14 June by the HM Inspectorate of Probation. A report outlining their findings and next steps will be published mid-August. We are not expecting this to be an easy read and it’s likely that several practice areas across Youth Offending Services will be identified as needing improvement. It should be noted that the HMIP inspection regime is entirely retrospective, predominantly focussing on practice from 6-9 months ago; it unfortunately doesn’t take account of planned or recently-delivered improvements. The restructure of the service (completed in May) was a key deliverable enabling us to tackle the challenges and we’re confident that we can improve practice quickly over the coming year. Detailed plans will be produced to address the inspector’s findings once the report is received.

Ofsted Annual Conversation

13. On 20 June the CFLC Leadership Team also met with Ofsted inspectors for our ‘Annual Conversation’ (or Annual Engagement meeting). The annual conversations take place alongside the Monitoring Visit inspection routine – it is not a replacement for a focussed visit and all authorities, regardless of their current Ofsted grade, hold an Annual Conversation.

14. The purpose of this meeting is to review our Self Evaluation document alongside Ofsted inspectors covering both social care and education services for children and young people.

Page 155

13

15. The Self Evaluation document (attached as Annex C - Surrey Self-Evaluation - May 2019) draws on existing documentation and activity across the service. It summarises the quality and impact of practice across our early help, safeguarding and education responsibilities, identifies strengths and weaknesses, and our plans to improve practice over the next 12 months. The Self Evaluation is based on the following three questions and uses performance information / analytics, quality assurance activity and feedback to evidence our assessment:

What do we know about the quality and impact of social work practice in Surrey?

How do we know it? What are our plans for the next 12 months to maintain or improve

practice?

16. The Annual Conversation does not result in a published report from Ofsted and our inspection routine through regular Monitoring Visits to Surrey will continue as planned.

Ofsted Priority Action Board (OPAB) and the Improvement Plan

17. The Ofsted Priority Action Board (OPAB), responsible for overseeing the delivery of the Children’s Improvement Plan, met for the first time on 19 September 2018 with the new, reduced membership from Surrey County Council and partner agencies and with the independent chair of the board. The board have been meeting approximately every 8 weeks since then to oversee the improvement journey for Surrey’s children’s services.

18. Significant progress has been made delivering against the improvement plan since the last report to Cabinet in March 2019:

60% of the actions have been fully delivered 25% of the remaining actions are on-track to complete by August 2019 15% of the remaining actions are being reviewed this month to identify

any issues, assign resources where needed and bring back on-schedule.

19. A large number of the remaining actions are due to be completed by September 2019 and we are currently preparing handover of the ongoing monitoring/tracking of delivered improvements where needed. Throughout June to August 2019 we are working closely with the Safeguarding Partnership, Corporate Parenting Board and Action Leads/Sponsors from the Improvement Plan Delivery Group to ensure there is suitable ongoing scrutiny and oversight in place. The OPAB will meet next on 31 July at which point, the proposed handover arrangements will be reviewed. Further meetings of OPAB are scheduled for September and November 2019 however these will only take place if required by the board, the DfE and/or the Independent Chair.

Transformation Update – Recap on 2018-2019

20. This time last year we committed to making a fundamental shift to early support and prevention, ensuring that we do statutory work well and put in place a model that makes sure children and families receive the right support, at the right time

Page 156

13

by the right service. A brief overview of the major transformation activities is included here.

21. We have now completed a top to bottom reorganisation of our structure with the new model for services in place from April 2019. Further detail on the outcome of the restructure is included below in paragraphs 28 to 32.

22. The implementation of new front door arrangements and our Single Point of Access (SPA) means we can ensure the council has preventative and early help services in place to assist at the earliest possible moment in a child’s life. Feedback from our partners has been positive and there has been significant improvement in performance data.

23. We have implemented the Family Safeguarding Model first pioneered in Hertfordshire. Family Safeguarding will improve the quality of work we do with families, and outcomes for children and parents. Key elements of the model include: specialist workers for domestic abuse, substance misuse and mental health expertise joining the teams; training in Motivational Interviewing (for all services including education) as a framework for practice for all staff; a move to group case discussions; and structured tools to support direct work.

24. The new Quality Assurance division has enabled us to know ourselves and our practice and support operational services and continuous improvement better than ever before.

25. The launch of Surrey Children’s Services Academy (SCSA) in January 2019 provides a learning & development offer for staff across the partnership - it is an offer that complements and enhances partnership working and means we can drive up and maintain professional standards, supporting colleagues at every level.

26. We made a commitment to strengthen our relationship with foster carers, adopters and other carers. Over the past year we have significantly increased our recruitment of foster carers and we are implementing the Mockingbird model to improve the stability of placements.

27. The ‘Children’s Social Work Practice Standards’ were updated and relaunched for practitioners in March 2019. These are at the heart of our vision to deliver a good quality service which improves outcomes for children, young people and families in Surrey.

28. This year we are transitioning to the new Safeguarding Partnership arrangements in Surrey, with our intentions being published to the DfE in June 2019 and in place from September 2019. The new arrangements are designed to ensure strong and effective partnership working in child protection and safeguarding practice across the county and to promote the continuous improvement of these services.

Page 157

13

Restructuring our Services

29. As reported to Cabinet in December 2018 and March 2019, a significant programme of organisational restructuring of the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture directorate began last year. The programme was split into three phases and the final phase concluded in June 2019.

30. Phase 1, completed in July 2018, significantly strengthened the senior leadership team of children’s service, creating a dedicated Quality and Performance role at Director level and moving from one to two Director level roles for social care services - one for Safeguarding and Family Resilience and a second for Looked after Children and Leaving Care (Corporate Parenting). The Director of Education, Life-long Learning and Culture brought together some existing education functions and some other services from the wider Council, libraries, adult learning, culture, etc. functions. The role of Director of Commissioning was established to develop and commission new services that will be at the cutting edge of national practice.

31. Phase 2 of the programme was split into 2 parts. Stage 2a was completed to plan in November 2018, establishing organisational arrangements at the Assistant Director levels within each of the 5 new Directorates. Stage 2b – focusing on Service Manager level arrangements - began on 31 October 2018 and was completed in February 2019.

32. Phase 3 commenced in December 2018 and concluded in June 2019, having impacted wide range of the Directorate’s front line and support services and all remaining roles not already included in the earlier programme phases.

33. The top-to-bottom restructure has affected over 2,500 staff, it has been a challenging but necessary programme of change and we are now well placed to continue with the culture and service improvement work across our services.

Our Priorities for 2019-2020

34. There is of course much more to do to ensure that we reach our goal of providing Surrey’s children and families with the outstanding services that they deserve. Now that the structural issues have been resolved our focus can be on culture and practice.

35. 2019-2020 brings with it an exciting period as we move to a new model based on Family Resilience, Family Safeguarding and relationship based practice. We have set about defining the key things that will be most important to our services post April:

36. Culture, Practice and Outcomes: In the new structure and model the focus will be on improving outcomes for children and their families. We will focus relentlessly on front line practice and we will develop a new culture together. Every piece of work, across all services will be done to quality and as we develop our new approach we will develop greater confidence and momentum.

Page 158

13

37. Developing our Front Line Managers: We are determined that our front line staff across every service receive the best leadership, management, guidance and support. We are investing in smaller teams and are determined that our managers will receive training, development and support to facilitate great front line staff. Our managers and staff are our most important resource and going forward we will be asking a lot more from them – while providing the support them to enable to achieve.

38. Partnerships: As we move forward, we will develop deep and productive relationships with partners such as health, schools, police and the voluntary sector. They too want to deliver excellent services to children and families and we generally achieve great outcomes when we work together.

39. Staff Wellbeing: There will be a range of support that recognises that working with children and families in a relationship based model brings with it stresses - as well as great joy! This will be combined with excellent supervision and support, manageable caseloads and systems that support the work. The Children’s Services Academy will ensure all staff & partners get excellent training & development opportunities

40. Supervision and Practice: Supervision is fundamental to great work with children and families. We will therefore be investing in a new approach to embedding 1:1 and group supervision. This will be across all of our services and will be the bedrock to our improvement journey.

41. Technology, Resources and Systems: We have to make our technology, resources and systems work better in a way that supports our work. We are moving the new ‘front door’ into offices nearby and will be locating the North East office in the area that it serves. The SEND and Education IT system will be replaced and we will be using the Family Safeguarding ‘workbook’ in LCS.

42. As we proceed into our new structure and the transformation & improvement work continues this year, we will be driven by a number of key principles that are fundamental to our improvement journey:

Putting children, young people and their families at the heart of all we do Having a clear model for our work, understood by all agencies and

families we work with Being honest and open about the challenges we face together with other

agencies and the families we work with Looking outwards to learn from others Being reflective and knowing ourselves well Being prepared to innovate and try new things Using research and evaluation to inform and improve our services Learning and developing in a new Children’s Workforce Academy model Having manageable caseloads Using supervision as a bedrock for making the right decisions about our

work with children and families Talking, reflecting and communicating together on a regular basis

Page 159

13

CONSULTATION:

43. The Surrey Children’s Improvement Plan has been developed between officers from the Children, Families & Learning directorate, representatives from Surrey Police, Surrey School Phase Councils (Primary, Secondary and Special), health services including the CCGs and providers and colleagues from the third sector.

44. A full consultation has been conducted with staff for the restructure of the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning & Culture directorate in line with SCC’s ‘Change management’ policy. The consultation for the final phase began on 14 December 2018 and closed on 18 February 2019 with the post-consultation document and new structure communicated to all staff and trade union representatives on 28 February 2019.


45. The following key risks associated with change have been identified, along with mitigation activities:

Risk Description Mitigation ActivityWider stakeholder groups involved in the provision of children’s services and related support for vulnerable children and their families are not engaged or committed to working collaboratively to ensure the successful delivery of the Surrey Children’s Improvement Plan and wider Transformation plans.

Partnership representation is vital and this view is supported by the recommendations following Ofsted’s 2018 inspection of children’s services. A cross-partnership ‘Improvement Plan Delivery Group’ has been established. This group reports regularly to the Ofsted Priority Action Board on progress. Robust terms of reference have been agreed and all partners are held to account by the board’s Independent Chair.

The quantity of change happening across the children’s services operation leads to reduced performance across the service.

Senior Officers understand that this is a challenging programme of transformation. All officers who are subject of consultation and restructure are understandably anxious about what this means for them and we are in a very unsettled period. We have high expectations that our staff will be able to provide the high quality service children in Surrey deserve.

The recent Ofsted Monitoring letter commented on the emerging learning and quality assurance culture which enables senior managers to have a realistic view of front line practice. This is pivotal over the next 6 months as workers move to different teams and develop new ways of working.

Page 160

13

Each of the Quadrant Assistant Directors has monthly performance meetings will all of their managers to maintain expectations about compliance. We have built in additional capacity for 12 months in the Front Door, in Assessment and in Family Safeguarding to lend resilience as new ways of working with families and with partners begin to embed.

Financial and Value for Money Implications:

46. There are no direct financial implications relating to the Surrey Children’s Improvement Plan. All improvement work is being delivered using existing resources and revenue budgets where required.

Section 151 Officer Commentary:

47. The Children’s improvement plan proposed in this report is being funded within existing Budget envelope 2018-19 and proposed MTFP for 2019-2024.There are therefore no additional financial implications to consider.

Legal Implications – Monitoring Officer:

48. Following the assessment by Ofsted of Surrey Children’s Services as inadequate, the appointment of the Children’s Commissioner and his recommendation following review that Surrey Children’s Service should be allowed a further 12 months to demonstrate it can make the required improvements, this report has been prepared to inform Cabinet of the progress of the Improvement Plan.

49. This update is provided for information and does not require any decision. In his report to the Secretary of State the Commissioner has highlighted the importance of the Ofsted Priority Action Board and of the role of Members in the delivery of the Plan.

Equalities and Diversity:

50. There are no direct equalities implications arising from this report but any actions taken need to be consistent with the council’s policies and procedures.

Corporate Parenting / Looked After Children Implications:

51. The re-inspection of children’s services by Ofsted in February/March 2018 rated the ‘children looked after and achieving permanence’ service as Requires Improvement. 5 (of the 18) recommendations from the inspectors specifically relate to services for looked after children; several actions in the Children’s Improvement Plan will address these issues.

Page 161

13

Safeguarding Responsibilities for Vulnerable Children and Adults Implications:

52. The Children’s Improvement Plan outlines the work required to address all recommendations from Ofsted following the re-inspection of children’s services. Up to 10 of the recommendations describe work required to address failings in our practice to safeguard vulnerable children.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT:

53. Ofsted will next carry out a Monitoring Visit on 31 October and 1 November 2019 with a focus on Assessments and the report outlining the findings will be published late-November 2019.

54. The next Commissioner visit and review of our progress will take place in October 2019 with the report to the Secretary of State for Education expected to be published in November or December 2019.

55. The Improvement Plan Delivery Group, overseen by the Ofsted Priority Action Board, will continue to deliver the work outlined in the Children’s Improvement Plan. The board meets every 8 weeks and will scrutinise the completion of the work, resolving issues and allocating resources as required.

Annexes - Attached with document

Annex A - Interim Report of the Non-Executive Commissioner for Children’s Services Surrey - 16 May 2019

Annex B - Ofsted Monitoring Visit Letter June 2019

Annex C - Surrey Self-Evaluation - May 2019


None

Page 162

13

1

Interim Report of the Non-Executive Commissioner for

Children’s Services

Surrey County Council

16 May 2019

Trevor Doughty

Children’s Services Commissioner for Surrey County Council

Page 163

13

2

1.1 I was appointed non-executive commissioner for Surrey County

Council following the Ofsted Inspection carried out under the

Single Inspection Framework between 26 February and 22 March

2018. The report was published on 16 May 2018. Ofsted rated

Surrey’s children’s services ‘Inadequate’. Following consideration

of the report, the Secretary of State concluded that the Council is

failing to perform to an adequate standard for some or all of the

functions to which Section 497a of the Education Act 1996 is

applied by Section 50 of the Children Act 2004 (Children’s Social

Care functions). On 25 June 2018 I was appointed Commissioner

for Children’s services in Surrey. My primary focus as the

Commissioner is the ‘presumption test’, that is “In cases of

persistent or systemic failure, children’s social care services will be

removed from local authority control for a period of time in order

to bring about sustainable improvement unless there are

compelling reasons not to do so”.

1.2 In reporting to the Minister as part of my recommendations I said

the following.

“It is too early to make a secure judgement about whether the

steps that have and are being taken will bring about sustainable

improvement in the effectiveness of children’s social care services

in Surrey. The Council now recognises and accepts the depth and

complex nature of the issues it faces in children’s social care. It

has appointed a sector leader as the Director of Children’s Services

and a Chief Executive who understands the challenge and how to

support her DCS and what to look for. However, it is too early to

expect the improvements required to rectify the deep and long-

standing problems identified by Ofsted and confirmed by my

review. Given the clear intention of the Council and significant

resources allocated to the task, at this early stage I do not believe

that taking the Service out of the control of the Council will

accelerate progress, rather that it could serve as a distraction to

the considerable efforts of the DCS to make the necessary

improvements. It is for these reasons, I recommend that the

Minister allows the Council a further 12 months to demonstrate

that the action plan it has put in place is working. It is particularly

important that there is continuity in an ongoing dialogue to

monitor improvement in addition to the monitoring visits by

Ofsted. I would, therefore, also recommend that Commissioner

Page 164

13

3

oversight should continue with further reviews and assessment of

progress against the findings of this first review in around 6 and 12

months. In my view this would strike a proper balance between

concern arising from the previous ‘false starts’ and an

acknowledgement of the recent but palpable change in the attitude

and approach by the Council to bring about sustainable

improvement.”

1.3 This report is to give an interim view on progress in Surrey County

Council Children’s Services and will be followed by a further report

in around 6 months time.

1.4 In preparation, the methodology has been as my previous report.

During the first two weeks in April 2019 senior managers and

practitioners from Cornwall were engaged on my behalf. Prior to

visiting the authority they reviewed performance data, reports and

the new structure. On site in Surrey they met with senior

managers and practitioners across Children Services, held focus

groups for managers and practitioners, met with partners and

audited around 40 cases. They were made welcome by the County

Council and their partners and staff and managers were found to

be open and candid in their response to the visit. I followed up by

meeting senior managers and senior members to share the

findings of my staff’s visits and to gauge initial response. It should

be emphasised that there is a rapid pace of change in Surrey and

my interim findings are based on visits in early April and further

work will have occurred in the weeks since and will be taken into

account in my further report later in the year.

1.5 In my original report I emphasised the deep seated and long term

nature of the problems in Surrey Children Services and it is

unreasonable to expect to find clear evidence of improvement in

the lives of vulnerable children at this early stage. However, clear

signs that the fundamental structural and cultural issues are

changing for the better should be reasonably expected.

1.6 Following my appointment as Commissioner, the Authority at

senior member and officer level emphasised their change in

attitude and recognition of the depth of the issues and the

Council’s determination to address them. Over the past several

months this commitment has been demonstrated and there is now

Page 165

13

4

substance behind the claim. There has been investment and

together with significant change at both member and senior officer

level demonstrating that the Council has prioritised Children

Services improvement.

1.7 Senior managers appointments have been made at impressive

pace which means leadership and responsibility is now more

distributed and there is no longer the over dependence on the

DCS.

1.8 Police no longer lad the multi agency safeguarding hub (MASH).

Plans are in place to move to a new model for the front door with a

contact centre, safeguarding hub and an early help hub. They will

move out of the police station to a building where they will all work

together on one floor. Police are screening and triaging their own

work, referrals through to the present MASH have reduced

considerably and are more appropriate but need further work.

Commitment and resource from the police to make this happen is

in place. This is impressive progress though at the time of the visit

decisions were all still not being made within 24 hours in order for

full Working Together compliance.

1.9 There has been rapid progress in improving the quality of data

which has, in turn, underpinned the introduction of a performance

management system that can give senior managers confidence in

understanding and interpreting quality of practice. That practice is

not yet at the consistent standard required but the building blocks

are now in place for such improvement to take place.

1.10 Case auditing and management oversight has been established

and is beginning to embed itself in the operation of the

organisation. Supervision is still a long way from being

consistently reflective and effective but the structure is now in

place and the expected standard being made clear. The

combination of performance management, oversight of practice

and expectations of practice standards are beginning to shift the

management culture to one of quality and learning.

1.11 The family resilience model together with practice standards have

been introduced and though these will take time to be fully

Page 166

13

5

established and understood, the leadership has taken the right

steps in giving this early priority.

1.12 There is still a considerable challenge facing the authority but

senior managers are fully aware of the priorities. There are

particular issues in the North East area and these were still evident

at the beginning of April 2019 but I am assured further work and

appointments have improved the performance since then and I will

come back to that in my next report.

1.13 One of the most serious effects of the long term problems is that

an atmosphere of constant and overwhelming pressure on Social

Workers has led to a culture of finding expedient solutions rather

than the first priority being “how can I best help the child and

family?” The reform of the front door, the family resilience model

and the overall performance management are aimed at delivering

a proper child centred approach but this will take time and

identifying further evidence of culture change will be part of my

next review in the Autumn.

1.14 My team were impressed that despite the magnitude of change

and some necessarily difficult restructuring and HR processes,

morale amongst staff is positive and there is overall confidence in

the improvement journey.

1.15 There is still work to be done in establishing the confidence of

partners. The authority is fully aware of this and some progress

has been made and the Ofsted Priority Action Board is making this

a priority.

1.16 Much has been done and much remains to be done. When an

authority has had failing Children Services to this extent, it is a

challenge for senior managers to prioritise the many issues that

need addressing. There has been a concentration on improving

social work particularly at the ‘front door’ and this is

understandable. The early help offer and the crucial place of early

help in making vulnerable children safer remains to be established

and must now be a priority.

1.17 The authority has made rapid and solid progress since I submitted

my original report. It is important to emphasise that this is from a

Page 167

13

6

starting point of seriously failing services and there is still some

way to go before there is clear evidence that vulnerable children

and their families are being better served. Nonetheless, I can give

a positive message on the Council’s progress and the effectiveness

of the leadership that has been put in place. I will report again in

6 months but I am able to commend the progress that has been

made whilst continuing to emphasize the magnitude of the task.

Trevor Doughty

Commissioner for Surrey’s Children’s Services

16 May 2019

Page 168

13

Ofsted Piccadilly Gate Store Street

Manchester M1 2WD

T 0300 123 1231 Textphone 0161 618 8524

[email protected] www.gov.uk/ofsted

Ofsted is proud to use recycled paper

26 June 2019 Dave Hill, CBE Director for children, families, lifelong learning and culture Surrey County Council County Hall Kingston Upon Thames KT1 2DN Dear Dave Monitoring visit of Surrey children’s services This letter summarises the findings of the monitoring visit to Surrey children’s services on the 5 and 6 June 2019. The visit was the third monitoring visit since the local authority was judged inadequate, overall, in May 2018. The inspectors were Nick Stacey and Julie Knight, Her Majesty’s Inspectors. The local authority has made substantial progress in recently improving both the quality of management oversight and the practice standards of incoming contacts and referrals through newly implemented ‘front door’ arrangements. Inspectors evaluated the ‘front door’, the local authority’s initial response to and management of incoming contacts and referrals. This included the ‘request for support’ team, which is the first point of contact for agencies and the public who have concerns about children, and the single point of access (SPA) service. The SPA responds to contacts that have been referred on to children’s services for a decision about what type of support, if any, is needed to help children and their families overcome difficulties and improve their circumstances. The SPA also features an early help hub which considers referrals for supporting children who have been judged to have lower threshold levels of need. Overview At the time of this visit, senior leaders and managers had very recently completed the implementation of a new practice model, called ‘family resilience’, underpinning a widescale planned redesign and restructure of children’s services. This affected all frontline staff and managers. This ambitious service remodelling included a total reconfiguration of the ‘front door’, where new arrangements had been fully operational for only five weeks at the time of the visit. Senior leaders and managers had consulted widely and carefully on the reconfiguration of the ‘front door’, including with other local authorities, to design a model fitting the context of Surrey with the objective of achieving enduring change. A fundamental aim of the remodelling has already been achieved, with a significant reduction in the previously

Page 169

13

file:///D:/CACI/LIVE/OBDATA/G1/P1/L1/OB_LIVE/_PH_/[email protected]

file:///D:/CACI/LIVE/OBDATA/G1/P1/L1/OB_LIVE/_PH_/www.gov.uk/ofsted

high volume of contacts and referrals, and in the number of child protection investigations, child in need assessments and child protection plans. Consequently, social workers’ caseloads across the service have substantially reduced to an average of 15 each. Smaller, manageable caseloads are a critical component of Surrey’s ‘family resilience’ model. The local authority readily accepts that there is further work required to improve practice in some areas identified during the visit. This includes, for example, ensuring that histories of children exposed to continuing harm, through recurring patterns of neglect and domestic abuse, are taken full account of when making further decisions as to what continuing support and intervention are appropriate. Although partnership working is much improved, there are still delays in the timeframe within which police notifications are passed by the police to the ‘request for support’ team. Although the widespread service redesign was very recent at the time of the visit, inspectors found that the ‘request for support’ team, SPA and early help hub are providing increasingly safe, proportionate and well-evidenced initial responses to concerns reported regarding children’s safety and well-being. Partnership agencies’ understanding and application of new threshold guidance are improving, resulting in them exercising more care and thought to their objectives before making a referral to children’s services Findings Under the new arrangements, initial contacts to the ‘request for support’ team are managed well through the careful and appropriate application of threshold guidance. Children at immediate and significant risk of harm are quickly identified and passed on without delay to assessment teams for urgent attention. Decisions to refer onto the SPA, or early help hub, are also consistent with initial threshold levels of need. Police referrals are often submitted to the ‘request for support’ team some days after police attendance at incidents, resulting in delays for some children who are in need of help and support. ‘Request for support team’ officers frequently ask social workers for advice on threshold guidance and decisions, but these discussions are not documented to provide written evidence of the reasons. All contacts are reviewed and prioritised by a social worker each day, and staff diligently and promptly check whether children have been the subject of previous contacts. Any history is appropriately weighted in threshold decisions. The volume and pace of work in the team is demanding and senior managers have imminent plans to increase its capacity. Under the new arrangements, partner agencies can seek advice through a new telephone consultation service when they are considering whether the needs of children require a formal referral to the SPA. This is already enhancing information-sharing, understanding of thresholds, communication and confidence in the ‘front door’. Partners can choose whether to disclose the names of children. If the details of children are shared, any information that children’s services already know about them is not used to inform whether they meet the threshold for a service, as the

Page 170

13

status of the call remains a ‘consultation’. Callers may be invited to make a referral when the consultation indicates the issues discussed warrant it, but children who could have significant needs might not have these addressed if callers subsequently decide not to make a referral. Senior managers are actively considering measures to address this potential shortcoming in responding to risk to ensure that there is a proportionate and well-thought-through approach to information-sharing at this early stage. The early help hub is well managed, employing skilled and professionally curious early help advisers who have a child-centred and evaluative approach. The ‘request for support’ team applies balanced and proportionate thresholds when it refers children and families to the early help hub. Initial management oversight and directions are thorough and prompt. Early help advisers work efficiently and quickly, speaking to referrers, involved agencies and parents and reviewing any histories of previous contacts and interventions. Parental consent and threshold guidance continually inform their work. Advisers frequently consult with accessible and supportive senior advisers and SPA team managers when children’s needs are close to the threshold for statutory social work involvement. Workloads are closely controlled and managed through daily meetings. Timescales for completing information-gathering, recommendations and decisions are routinely met. Advisers’ written records and recommendations are reflective and concise, supporting well-informed subsequent management decisions. Access to targeted early help services to address children and family’s needs in the four area quadrants is swiftly facilitated when appropriate. Management oversight, directions and decision-making about contacts that are referred to the SPA service are also increasingly prompt, clear and well evidenced. Consent from parents and carers is largely obtained by referring agencies and is always considered before information is sought or shared in the SPA. Consent is overridden, and the reasons documented, on the occasions this is justified, such as when risks to children are the overarching priority. Social workers in the SPA undertake multi-agency partnership (MAP) information-gathering swiftly and efficiently in accordance with timescale guidance that stipulates that management decisions be recorded within 24 hours. When timescales are extended, the reasons given are justifiable, for example a parent or another agency might be unavailable. Social workers carefully document any earlier agency involvement and what is known about the child and family’s history. Social workers’ recommendations are well-written and balanced summaries of information gathered, alongside any previous history. The significantly reduced volume of referrals has led to more manageable workloads in the SPA, facilitating timely and prompt work, and allowing greater reflection, discussion and well-evidenced recording. However, in deciding what type and level of service a family needs, social workers and managers do not always give sufficient attention to recurring patterns and themes within families, such as neglect and domestic abuse. This could lead to some children not receiving the right help that they need.

Page 171

13

Police and health partners co-located in the SPA are supportive of the recently introduced changes to the front door arrangements and thresholds of need. They value the morning case discussion meetings to share information and discuss referrals where the thresholds are not clear. A designated early help worker is provided with regular, updated information on children missing from home, school and care by the police each day. This reduces delays in requesting return home interviews, as police reports on missing children are often submitted late. SPA partners have received extensive training and are engaging well in the new practice model and thresholds of needs. Consequently, they are embracing the cultural shift towards respectful conversations with parents, including routinely seeking their consent when considering referrals to children’s social care. This has already significantly reduced the number of inappropriate contacts from the police and schools. The local authority has identified emerging improvements in the consideration given by referring professionals to the outcomes they are seeking before they make referrals, including whether a team around the family approach would be a more suitable offer. Inspectors agreed with the salient areas for improvement and learning themes identified in senior managers’ summaries of six cases that had recently been audited. Inspectors met with the allocated social workers for these children during the visit. Social workers said that they have welcomed the reflective meetings with managers that are part of the audit model. They demonstrated to inspectors an ability to reflect on important learning points and a receptiveness to learning and improvement. Social workers told inspectors of the benefits of their recently reduced caseloads. The local authority has audited over 500 children’s cases using an audit tool that invites an evaluative approach from first line managers completing the initial audits. The re-audits of the original audits and senior management moderations are slowly building a more accurate understanding of the quality and impact of social work practice. This ongoing, iterative and highly labour-intensive programme is a critical cornerstone of the local authority’s determined plans to achieve a sustained and widespread improvement in social work practice standards. Senior managers reported that they are seeing fewer cases with critical practice weaknesses, although the overall standard of practice signals that much more remains to be done to achieve the strong levels of practice that senior managers are committed to achieving. I am copying this letter to the Department for Education. It will be published on the Ofsted website. Yours sincerely Nick Stacey Her Majesty’s Inspector

Page 172

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page | 1 Surrey Self Evaluation – May 2019

Children, Families, Life Long Learning, Culture and Communities

SELF-EVALUATION May 2019

Page 173

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Introduction Children’s services in Surrey were re-inspected in March 2018 and overall were judged to be Inadequate.

Since then we have had two monitoring visits in September 2018 (focussed on Child in Need and Child Protection) and January 2019

(focussed on Looked after Children). A third Monitoring Visit will take place in June 2019 with a focus on the Children’s Single Point of

Access (C-SPA) and Early Help.

Last year we acknowledged that the issues and problems were deep rooted, long standing and led to a position whereby children were not being

adequately protected and kept safe. Far reaching plans were formulated to redesign the services from top to bottom. Alongside the

redesign, we have completed a restructuring of the services and developed a new model of working called Surrey Family Resilience; it was

clear that nothing short of a complete culture change would enable the services to meet the needs of Surrey’s children and families.

Following the 2018 re-inspection, the Department for Education (DfE) appointed a Non-Executive Children’s Commissioner to make a

judgement about whether children’s services should continue to be retained by Surrey County Council. The Commissioner’s report, published in

September 2018, concluded that Surrey has a credible plan in place and that “the Council now recognises and accepts the depth and complex

nature of the issues it faces in children’s social care”.

The Commissioner recently reviewed our progress (in April 2019) and will be reporting back to the DfE this month with a further review in

October 2019.

Joint Local Area SEND revisit: In March 2019, Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission carried out a joint review of Surrey’s progress in

addressing weaknesses that were highlighted in a previous inspection in 2016. The inspectors judged that the local area had made sufficient

progress in four out of five areas of weakness, but that there was more to do. The partnership of county council, CCGs and schools/settings are

working together with families to transform services for children needing support to help them reach their potential and lead more independent

lives. Further work is now underway with families and partners to develop a jointly-owned Surrey-wide SEND strategy and long-term action plan.

This self-evaluation summarises the quality and impact of practice across our early help, safeguarding and education responsibilities.

Coupled with related plans, it serves as a key tool to inform service development across Surrey’s children’s services throughout 2019/20.

The self-evaluation addresses three key questions:

• What do we know about the quality and impact of practice?

• Why can we be confident about our progress?

• What are our plans for the next 12 months to maintain or improve practice?

Page 174

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Following the re-inspection last year we recognised that this was an improvement journey with critical parts that need to fit together. The

internal approach that we take within Surrey children’s services and how we work collaboratively with our key partners; police, health,

schools, adult services and others. This is just part of the picture though and we have put together a Conditions for Success diagram that

shows the key principles that we need to put in place and embed into our practice in order to succeed.

The visual representation below indicates how the right culture, practical arrangements and model are being brought into place for Surrey’s

children’s services to improve and to be maintained, nurtured and developed in the future.

Our improvement journey is

underpinned by a number of

commitments:

Children and young people will be at

the heart of all that we do

Research & evaluation will drive

self-knowledge and analysis, and inform

new & innovative practice

We will talk, discuss and reflect

together on a regular basis, and be

frank about our challenges and where

we need to improve

We will think systemically about our

work and it will be underpinned by a

clear model

Page 175

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Transforming Our Services 2018-2019 This time last year we committed to making a fundamental shift to early support and prevention, ensuring that we do statutory work well and

put in place a model that makes sure children and families receive the right support, at the right time by the right service.

We have now completed a top to bottom reorganisation of our structure with the new model for all services in place from April 2019.

The implementation of new front door arrangements and our Single Point of Access means we can ensure the

council has preventative and early help services in place to assist at the earliest possible moment in a child’s life.

Feedback from our partners has been positive and there has been significant improvement in performance data.

We have implemented the Family Safeguarding Model first pioneered in Hertfordshire. Family Safeguarding will

improve the quality of work we do with families, and outcomes for children and parents. Key elements of the model

include: specialist workers for domestic abuse, substance misuse and mental health expertise joining the teams;

training in Motivational Interviewing (for all services including education) as a framework for practice for all

staff; a move to group case discussions; and structured tools to support direct work.

The new Quality Assurance division has enabled us to know ourselves and our practice and support

operational services and continuous improvement better than ever before.

The launch of Surrey Children’s Services Academy (SCSA) in January 2019 provides a learning &

development offer for staff across the partnership - it is an offer that complements and enhances partnership

working and means we can drive up and maintain professional standards, supporting colleagues at every level.

We made a commitment to strengthen our relationship with foster carers, adopters and other carers. Over

the past year we have significantly increased our recruitment of foster carers and we are implementing the

Mockingbird model to improve the stability of placements.

The ‘Children’s Social Work Practice Standards’ were updated and relaunched for practitioners in March 2019

(attached as Annex A). These are at the heart of our vision to deliver a good quality service which improves

outcomes for children, young people and families in Surrey.

This year we are transitioning to the new Safeguarding Partnership arrangements in Surrey, with our intentions

being published to the DfE in June 2019 and in place from September 2019. The new arrangements are designed

to ensure strong and effective partnership working in child protection and safeguarding practice across the county

and to promote the continuous improvement of these services.

Surrey’s new education partnership - the Schools Alliance for Excellence (SAfE) - will include the Surrey

Schools Teaching Network, the Guildford Diocese, headteachers and early years providers. The partnership will

enable the use of STSN’s strong system leaders to support, challenge and intervene in schools of concern.

Page 176

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


New Structure and Way of Working The complete reorganisation of our teams was completed in April 2019; the attached document (see Annex B) describes how our approach is

changing across children’s services and a brief description of the reorganised services is included here:

Children’s Single Point of Access (C-SPA)

This is the umbrella term for the front door to support, information and

advice for residents, families and those who work with children. The SPA is

the conduit for access to services at levels 2, 3 and 4 of Effective Family

Resilience. It also provides direct information, advice and guidance to

residents and people who work with children in Surrey about where and

how to find the appropriate support for families. We are committed to

children and their families receiving the right help at the right time and our

SPA will better enable us to fulfil this commitment.

The Early Help Hub is the main conduit for support for families at levels 2

and 3 of Effective Family Resilience. Surrey County Council commissions

targeted support for children up to the age of 11 through Family Centres.

The Family Support Programme (FSP) will also support families with

children aged 5 – 18 and is delivered by 6 teams covering the 11 Districts

and Boroughs. FSP staff are trained in evidence based interventions and

will undertake early help assessment and planning. CAMHS and SEND will

be co-located in the Early Help Hub. Both services will have their front

door triage co-located with partners in the Hub from September 2019,

including the SEND information, advice and advocacy Service (SSIAS).

The Assessment Service operates at level 4 of Effective Family

Resilience and responds to the needs of children pre-birth to 18. There are

small assessment teams in each quadrant, made up of statutory social

workers, a family support worker and a youth support practitioner. Our

practice across the whole service is based upon consent, strong

relationships with families and with partners.

Children in Need: Each quadrant has Family Safeguarding Teams,

Safeguarding Adolescent Teams (SAT) and Children with Disabilities

(CWD). SAT teams focus on young people aged 12 plus where contextual

factors rather than familial factors are the main focus of concern while

Family Safeguarding Teams focus on children up to the age of 12

and all young people where the primary concern is familial

behaviours. SAT, supported by a CAMHS social worker and a

police officer, provide a single response for those who are CIN, at

risk of coming into care, at risk of exploitation and those in need of

youth offending support. This ensures we focus on their offending

and safeguarding needs through a single lens and a single plan.

CWD works with families providing CIN, CP and court services

alongside a specialist team that works with and reviews children who

have care packages and require review.

Family Safeguarding & Child Protection: Family Safeguarding,

CWD and SAT operate at level 4 of Effective Family Resilience.

Family Safeguarding is an evidence based model of practice and is a

way of keeping families together, where safe to do so. Achieved

through a more collaborative way of working with embedded adult

specialists and motivating parents to identify the changes needed

within their own families. We have 22 Family Safeguarding teams.

Our core offer for Looked After Children was agreed by the

Corporate Parenting Board in December 2018; key to this is

consistency for all children with everyone receiving the same

minimum offer. A revised strategy for looked after children and care

leavers is now in development and will be in place by September.

The new structure for Leaving Care teams supports closer

working with Looked After Children teams and we have focussed on

earlier allocation of Personal Advisors. The Local Offer for care

leavers, developed with the Rights & Participation Team, young

people from the Care Council and care-experienced apprentices was

launched in January 2018 and further enhanced through 2019.

Page 177

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


The Vulnerable Learners Team draw together frontline practitioners who

are responsible for ensuring children can go to school locally, stay in school

and succeed by accessing the right support, at the right time. Through

blended professional teams, graduated pathways and a multi-agency/team

around the child approach the team works to ensure all children can

achieve their potential. Each area is led by an Education and Inclusion

Service Manager and their teams include: speech and language therapy;

Access to Education; specialist teaching; educational psychology; Race,

Equality and Minority Achievement; 0-25 SEND caseworkers and Inclusion.

SEND Services are accountable for the overarching strategy in relation to the

sustainability of the high needs block, this is integral to delivering an early

identification and support approach and ensuring it is delivered in a manner

which will improve outcomes sustainably and within available resources.

The Graduated Pathway service is being developed within the Family

Resilience model and being embedded with all schools and settings including

health & care partners. It also includes the Early Years SEN Advisors.

Education teams deliver many of the statutory functions of the local authority including those in relation to provision of sufficient good quality places, school effectiveness, admissions and transport. In terms of Place Planning, we are developing a long term programme delivering sufficiency of school and FE places (mainstream, alternative provision and SEN) and maintaining a robust school organisation plan, working with all providers in its development and forecasts.

Admissions and Transport discharge statutory responsibilities for mainstream

and SEN pupils in relation to transport arrangements and maintain the SEN

and Mainstream transport policies.

Our Schools Relationships team maintain a link with the Quality Division in

respect of Education Safeguarding, supporting the delivery of a robust

education safeguarding system, development of policies, new training

opportunities and support to the Designated Safeguarding Leads.

Educational Effectiveness deliver our school effectiveness statutory

functions, developing dynamic data and information for school performance,

risks and issues.

Establishing a Quality and Performance Division was one of the key

elements in the re-organisation of the Department. It provides a

strengthened and more integrated set of strategic services which

support and inform operational services in the department, better

engage with our partners and service users and which contribute

significantly to our continuous improvement ambitions. Our aims are

to improve strategic and operational planning, develop stronger

partnerships and increase capacity for operational services. The

Division includes the ‘Policy Planning and Partnerships Service’

(inc Safeguarding Partnership), ‘Customer Engagement Service’

(complaints; information governance, participation and user voice),

‘Performance Information and Intelligence Service’ (PI and

analysis, data accuracy and integrity), ‘Quality Assurance Service’

(practice audit – inc education safeguarding, IRO, LADO), and

‘Children’s Workforce Academy’ (learning & development).

The ‘Quality Assurance Framework’ was launched in April 2019

(attached as Annex C) and aims to improve outcomes by monitoring

the quality of practice and service provision and a five step process

to achieve practice assurance: Evidence, Analysis, Action, Learning

and Impact. Evidence: There is a wealth of evidence captured

through direct work with children, service audits, deep dives and

peer reviews which we will use to understand what is working well,

what we need to improve, and what activity is needed to drive

improvement. Analysis: Practitioners, managers, heads of service

and leadership will all use the evidence available to them, to

analyse, challenge and improve quality and performance. Action:

We must have the systems in place to respond to the intelligence we

get. Day to day quality and performance activity is also embedded

within all of our teams. Learning: Organisation and whole systems

learning is vital to the creation of a culture of improvement. Impact:

Evidencing the impact of our learning will be central to ensuring our

activity makes a difference for children and families. We will invest in

these approaches, set conditions and routines to check we have

made a difference. Through being curious about the impact of our

activity, we will be constantly aware there is more to learn.

Page 178

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Effective Family Resilience in Surrey In Surrey, our approach is changing. We will work in true partnership with families and provide children with the help and support they need

so that they can remain living safely within their families. We will do this by ensuring:

Everyone knows how to access help for children and their families, with families’ consent;

Children with additional and complex needs are identified early, they and their families are offered help at the earliest opportunity;

The majority of children’s needs will be met without statutory intervention;

Children and their families are subjects of statutory assessment and support only when it is evident children are at risk of significant impairment to their health or development or significant harm as a result of care given/not given to them by their families;

Adults are provided help to meet their own needs which will enable them to have a better focus on parenting;

Children and their families move on from statutory services as soon as circumstances have improved and when they are no longer at risk of significant harm. Those children who are unable to remain with their birth families move on to live with substitute families wherever possible;

Children and their families are helped to become resilient so that they can manage future life challenges independently;

Children and their families’ needs are met by confident practitioners trained in Motivational Interviewing using evidence based interventions;

The children’s workforce is aligned to meet demand across the levels of need.

We have developed a model of practice called ‘Effective Family Resilience’ - the document which sets this out is attached as Annex D and this

model applies to all children and education services.

The Surrey Effective Support Windscreen

The model and windscreen is a simple way of developing a

shared understanding and explaining the Surrey approach

across all our services and partnerships, ensuring a consistent

approach is applied by all. The model illustrates how we will

respond to the requirements of children and families across four

levels of need (Universal, Early Help, Targeted Help and

Specialist).

Families’ positions on the windscreen will change as their

circumstances change and therefore will not be a fixed position.

All practitioners consider the needs that take priority when

identifying the appropriate level.

The windscreen is a visual tool to help us share a common

language to describe risk and needs

Page 179

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Local Context Surrey is a large county in the South East of England. Landlocked, the county borders Greater London to the Northeast (Croydon, Kingston,

Sutton, Barnes and Richmond), Berkshire to the Northwest, East and West Sussex to the South, Kent to the East and Hampshire to the West.

The county is made up of 11 boroughs and districts and all parliamentary seats are held by Conservative MPs. Following local elections in

2017, Conservative members hold a significant majority at the county council (61 seats), followed by Liberal Democrats (9), Resident

Associations (9), Labour (1) and Green (1).

Surrey has a population estimated at 1.2 million people and is the third most populated county

of the nine in the region. There are approximately 270,000 children and young people living in

the county (22.5%). This is broken down into 72,400 children aged under 5 (26.8% of the children

and young people population), 172,100 children aged 5-16 (63.7%), 25,500 people aged 17- 18

years. (9.4%). The population is projected to increase by 19% over the next 25 years.

The majority of the population, (83.5%) reported their ethnic group as “White British” in the 2011

Census. A further 6.9% belonged to other white ethnic groups; “Irish, “Gypsy or Irish Traveller”

and “Other White”. The next largest ethnic group was “Indian” with 20,200 people (1.8% of the

population) followed by Pakistani (1.0%).

Nearly 65,000 Surrey residents speak a language other than English as their main language. The

most common other languages spoken in Surrey are Polish (6,634 speakers) and Chinese

languages (4,426 speakers). Most of them consider that they can speak English “well”

or “very well”, but nearly 6,500 people cannot speak English well and a further 1,000

cannot speak English at all.

In the 2011 Census, 62.8% of Surrey’s population, said that their religion was

Christian. 24.8% said they had no religion. The greatest number of people belonging to

another religion in Surrey were Muslim, who made up 2.2% of the population (24,400

people).

Surrey makes up 15% of the economy in the South East with higher than average

gross disposable income per person in England, second only to inner West London. In

2018, the median weekly wage paid to employees in Surrey was 9% greater than England. The majority of people are in full time work or self-

employed with low unemployment rates (3%) and increasing numbers of economically active residents. More people in Surrey own their own

home than the England average and monthly rents are higher for properties with the same number of bedrooms than those across the country.

Page 180

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Despite this wealth, there are pockets of income deprivation affecting children specifically in Guilford (Westborough and Stoke), Elmbridge

((Walton North and Ambleside), Mole Valley (Holmwoods) and Waverley (Farnham Upper Hale). It is estimated that one in ten children in

Surrey live in poverty.

Most families in Surrey have one or two children (85%) who are likely to live with a married couple (70%), 12% are cohabiting couples and 18% a

lone parent (1 in 9 lone parents are male).

There are 195,000 students attending 505 schools in

Surrey. There 395 maintained schools, of which 145

are Academies (97 primary, 40 secondary and 8 special

schools), and 110 are independent schools (inc non-

maintained special schools). A third of schools are faith

schools (25% Church of England, 9% Roman Catholic,

1% other faiths). 48% of pupils attend a state funded

primary school, 31% a state funded secondary school and 20% an independent school (twice as many as the England average). The proportion

of students from ethnic groups other than White British in Surrey’s state funded schools has more than doubled since 2004, leading to 1 in 8

having a first language other than English.

94.3% of primary and secondary schools have an Ofsted rating of good or outstanding. Surrey is ranked 13th nationally for this measure

and first amongst the large authorities.

Page 181

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


What we know about the quality and impact of early help, social work and education practice in Surrey

Why we can be confident about our progress

Our plans for the next 12 months to maintain or improve practice

Page 182

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Early Years We maintain a high proportion of Early Years settings achieving Good or Outstanding with 93% compared to the National figures of 85%.

The Early Help Hub includes a team of Early Help Advisors to support settings with children aged 0 – 11 years with emergent need.

The Early Years Educational Effectiveness Teams continue to offer targeted support to providers which are judged to Require Improvement

or as Inadequate, support development of the new provision and focus on identified areas of deprivation.

The Early Years and Early Help –Commissioning Team broker places for the most disadvantaged and hard to reach families to support

maximum take-up of places and early identification and intervention.

The Early Years SEND Team delivers support to settings and awards financial support via the Inclusion Fund enabling children to access

their Funded Entitlement and the earliest possible intervention. The team has been key in development of the graduated response model.

Surrey have introduced a new Inclusion Fund for 2 year olds which will enable settings to apply for financial support for the most

disadvantaged 2 year olds which will support early intervention and emergent need

Strengths High proportion of Good and Outstanding provision

Improving outcomes now ranked as 4th nationally for Good Levels of Development at Early Years Foundation Stage

Surrey children with SEND make better progress and significantly more achieved a Good Level of Development

Excellent sector engagement and consultation with very active Early Years Phase Council

Strong and growing mixed market of Early Years provision with particular development within maintained sector.

Challenges & Areas for Development

Ensuring continued sufficiency of free places for Funded Entitlement for 2, 3 and 4 year olds.

Disadvantaged children are not making enough progress at Early Years Foundation Stage with Surrey figures lower than previous year and lower than National figures

Focus to increase take-up of Early Years Pupil Premium, deprivation and Disability Access Fund

Plans to maintain / improve practice (over the next 12 months)

Focus on individual commissioning of 2 year old entitlement to increase take-up

Targeted Early Intervention Programmes in areas of disadvantage to improve outcomes including : closing the word gap, emotional resilience and supported transition into schools

Communication Plan to promote Funded 2 year old provision, EYPP and DAF

93% of Surrey Early Years provision is rated as

Good or Outstanding by Ofsted as of March 2018

Early Years Foundation Stage data shows 78.4%

of Surrey children achieved a Good Level of

Development in 2018

Page 183

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Children’s SPA (Single Point of Access)

.

The data shows us

Significant reduction in the number of contacts to the front door and

subsequently fewer referrals and assessments.

Partners (particularly Police) significant reduction in submitting level 1 contacts

Improvement in timeliness for those young people and families requiring level 2

/ 3 services. On average we are now progressing these in 3.6 days (compared

to 4.6 days in April 2018). 63% of level 2/3 are progressed within the 3 day

timescale (compared to 35% in April 2018)

Level 4 contacts are being progressed within 1.1 days on average – far quicker

than the 1.9 days a year ago. 77% of level 4 contacts are now being

progressed to social care within 1 working day compared to 53% in April 2018.

Strengths

A new culture of ‘being helpful’ and close partnership working in the SPA.

Pace across the day-to-day work with contacts progressed in a timely way.

Social Workers based in the police station moderating police ‘SCARFs’ –

leading to a further reduction in inappropriate contacts.

Monthly partnership Quality Assurance meetings now in place

Daily meetings with partners in the SPA to map the priorities for the day

Challenges or Areas for Improvement

Recruitment remains the major challenge for the SPA. A permanent-staff

recruitment drive is underway to reduce our reliance on locums

Cross-partnership QA and auditing activity is currently limited


CAMHS and SEND teams integrated into the SPA by October 2019

Police staff joining the Early Help Hub later this year

Customer Satisfaction Survey launched May 2019 following SPA

Live performance information on-screen at the SPA

Introduce induction ‘open days’ for in-house staff and for partners

Page 184

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Early Help and the Early Help Hub .

The data shows us

Proportion of EH contacts leading to an assessment is the lowest it has been in the reporting period (16%) and the number of children with a subsequent contact in the last 12 months was the highest in the same period (40%).

Management Oversight (MO) just below the 75% target

Number of completed assessments has reduced from 241 in April 2018, to 163 in April 2019 (32% fewer).

Strengths

Re-commissioning of our Family Centres and the offer for children aged 0-11

Re-commissioning our Early Help provision with an outcomes-focus

Underwriting the Family Support Programme – adding 12 more social worker posts, an outcomes framework and an enhanced offer for 5-18.

Targeted Youth Support (our in-house offer)

Co-production of the Youth Offer, audit of our buildings/assets with a greater focus on shared-use for young people

Referrals are sent from the Early Help Hub straight to the service


Major shift in culture for our partners

Need to ‘de-toxify’ the ‘Lead Practitioner’ role

Addressing the expectation of some partners that there is an ‘early help service’ that does all early help – shifting the mind-set to recognise this is the work our partners are already delivering.


Develop our case management system so that EH activity can be recorded on our system by partners/providers

‘Community Connectors’ in the Early Help Hub working with Parenting Coordinators and Youth Offer Leads.

Developing our ‘virtual offer’ – Improved website and the ability to ‘self-assess’ online and our Comms & Engagement strategy with partners

Page 185

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Referral and Assessment

The data shows us

Referrals to children’s services continue to reduce with 652 received in March 2019 and 459 in April 2019, compared to 953 in April 2018. The proportion of re-referrals remains above the 22% target (at 27% in April 2019), however, the number of children in this cohort has reduced with the referral rate

Assessment timeliness has remained relatively stable in 2019 however we have seen this drop to 70% in April. The average length of time to complete an assessment is below the 45 working day target at 37 days.

The number of open assessments at the end of March 2019 (1283) was almost half the number open at the same time last year (2411). This has led to average caseloads reducing to a more manageable 16-18 children in the assessment teams

Strengths

Regular Assessment Manager meetings across all quadrants – better sharing of concerns, best-practice & ‘what’s working well’.

Assessment Team Managers working at the SPA on rotation – to improve relationships between teams and across the partnership and to improve the application of thresholds.


Permanent staff across Assessment Teams (in all quadrants)

Improving the equity of response across the county and the consistent application of thresholds

Improving the use of chronologies and family history to inform decision making


Recruiting a QA team manager (initially for 12-month period) in each Assessment quadrant with a focus on timely response to partners and families, engaging the family and professional networks early on.

Develop more analytical assessments focused on improving Family and network resilience.

Training for Family Support Workers and Youth Services workers in Family Network meetings

Page 186

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Children in Need

The data shows us

There are 2220 Children In Need who are not subject to a CP plan or Looked After. There continues to be an increase in visits to these children (57% on time), though this remains below the 90% target. There are 419 children who are not recorded as being seen for eight weeks or more with a further 94 children with a disability not being seen for 18 weeks or more.

For the fourth month in a row we have seen a significant number of children who remain open and allocated to social workers without an active plan following an assessment. This is a moving cohort which changes each month as assessments are completed or Child Protection plans are ended. The majority of these children are allocated to CWD (134), the North East (131) and North West (89) and Managers are focussing on these children this month to ensure their records are reviewed and transferred to the correct service, stepped down or closed as required.

A process (and recording) change is being prioritised in this area to resolve the issue by attaching the plan to the assessment.

Strengths

All children with disabilities have been reviewed (and re-allocated where necessary) to ensure they are allocated to the appropriate team


Too many children without a completed Child in Need plan following assessment.

Timeliness of visits to Children in Need continues to be below the target of 90% seen every 4 weeks (for those without CWD).


Ensure Child in Need visits and recording is consistent across all teams and improve the timeliness of visits.

Continue the focus each month on those children without a CiN plan in place (or with draft plan). Weekly tracking now in place.

Development of Contextual Safeguarding and No Wrong Door approaches

Earlier recognition of concerns which could escalate and more timely intervention where appropriate to avoid drift

Increased use of Family Group Conferences at the earliest opportunity along with better use of Family Network meetings

Page 187

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Strategy Discussions, S47 Enquiries and ICPCs We have seen a continued reduction in the number of strategy discussions, S47 enquiries and child protection conferences being held and this

reduction starts at the front door (C-SPA). Over the past year we have launched a new thresholds document, complimented by a

communications and training programme with our partners and this has been key to the major cultural change across Surrey where we have

moved away from the approach of ‘referring everything’. The recalibration and re-education on the purpose of strategy discussions and when

they’re appropriate has also contributed to this reduction. It is something we are closely monitoring across all areas and Quality Assurance

resources are actively monitoring the application of thresholds at all stages.

The data shows us

The number of strategy discussions being held continues the downward trend. There has been a 56% reduction in the number held between April 2018 (482) and April 2019 (212).

Subsequently the number of S47 Enquires has more than halved in the same period, from 357 in April 2018 to 166 in April 2019. This has led to a reduction in the number of children being discussed at Initial Child Protection Conferences between April 2018 (143) and April 2019 (31).

As a result of the reduction in the number of children being

discussed at an ICPC, timeliness from the strategy discussion

that made the decision to progress to conference has improved

from 88% in April 2018 to 90% in April 2019.

Strengths

Reduction in numbers shows that the right children are being

identified in response to risks/concerns

Threshold for Strategy Discussions is being tested by QA


Lack of multi-agency discussion factoring into our decision making

and analysis

Reason for strategy meeting is sometimes unclear

Ensuring due consideration is given to all siblings in the

family/household

Plans to maintain/improve practice (over the next 12 months)

Quality assurance will lead on quarterly reviews based on dip

sampling of quality of strategy meetings including deep dives to test

and reassure re application of threshold

Our monthly audit programme will continue to highlight the quality of

strategy meetings and if they can evidence right outcomes for

children

Through additional capacity in our assessment service, we will

provide “real time” audit alongside SAP/MAP/Assessment Teams

Collate good examples of strategy/s47 to support practice

improvement

Page 188

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Child Protection and Family Safeguarding The data shows us

There were 862 children subject to a CP plan as at 30th April - the lowest since January 2018. The total number of new children subject to a plan continues to reduce from 93 in January, to 58 in February and 28 in April. After three months of increasing numbers of children having a late Review CP Conference, in March this recovered from 87% to 96% and in April is 100%. Children with a late review reduced to 0 last month. There are 78 children with a plan open for 18 months or more, 19 of those have had a plan open for two years or more. A slight increase from the last 3 months.

As at 30th April there were 115 children identified as not seen alone in the previous six weeks, 50 of these for 12 weeks or more. Analysis of these children indicates that most are aged 4 years or under. Policy has been changed so that all children on a plan, regardless of their age should be seen alone at least once every six weeks.

Strengths Smaller teams with a clearer remit and reduced caseloads enabling them to

spend more time with families and a clearer focus during supervision.

Far better pace around Public Law Outline (PLO). We know the right children are in PLO. Only essential assessments are being completed and these are done in-house where possible.

Improved relationships with Legal and new arrangements in place for legal planning meetings.


Quality of practice is unlikely to significantly improve until the partner roles/practitioners are in-place (e.g. adults mental health workers, domestic abuse workers.etc.)

Pre-birth assessments – timeliness and our preparedness for unborn children and a focus on family history

Recruitment of permanent practitioners and managers

Plans to maintain / improve practice (over the next 12

months)

Continue to hold quadrant performance meetings and holding practitioners / front-line managers to account.

Work to improve the quality of child protection plans with a focus on making them SMARTer

Motivational Interviewing and Parenting Assessment training for staff (training programme underway)

Developing our work around Contextual Safeguarding through an integrated system for recognition of risk

Page 189

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Looked After Children The data shows us

There were 942 Looked After Children as at 30th April.

This number has reduced from 1004 in November 2018

but remains higher than the number of LAC in April 2018

(939).

Performance relating to LAC reviews, visits and PEPs

are all within target and there continues to be an

improving picture for Initial and Review Health

Assessments and dental checks.

Pathway Plan timeliness continues to be the most

significant performance issue for LAC however this has

improved in April with 91% of children aged 16+ with a

completed plan.

Strengths

Updated Permanency Policy and procedures with more robust arrangements and tracking tools in place.

Significant improvements in IHAs performance with 92% (as of 30th April) of looked after children having a completed IHA.

Revised (and comprehensive) LAC Sufficiency Plan agreed with a recent focus on reducing external residential placements.

One Service Manager now has complete oversight of planning for care leavers and siblings.

Improved recruitment of in-house Foster Carers

Restructure of the Corporate Parenting Board and a new focus on enabling Members to meet children and effect change.

‘Action Cards’ from CiC Council completed in ‘real-time’

CAMHS workers are now placed in the quadrant teams

Challenges or Areas for Development

Children are not consistently being well prepared for LAC reviews

Number of LAC without a school place needs to significantly reduce

Timeliness of Pathway Plans is improving but remains poor.

Return Home Interviews performance has declined.

Quality of PEPs is inconsistent


Improve the quality of Life-Story work

Increased capacity in the Virtual School to address issues including the quality of PEPs, children missing education and Pupil Premium

LCS review to support C&F assessments for looked after children – including a focus on ensuring children and foster carers contribute

Continue development of a consistent core offer to looked after children with launch in September 2019

Ensure LT placements have been appropriately matched via Panel.

Page 190

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Care Leavers The data shows us

There are currently 596 care leavers with fewer UASC in the service (268 in January, 249 in February, 247 in March and 244 in April).

73% of care leavers are currently in employment, education or training.

Pathway plans and review timeliness for care leavers continues to improve as does the recording of contacts. There are currently 32 young people with whom the service is not in touch.


High cost of out-of-county support packages

Districts and Boroughs providing consistent support regarding

housing for care leavers.

Focussed effort on those children and young people that are not

‘in-touch’

Improving timelines of Pathway Plan completion for young people

aged 15 ½ to 16 years


Improved support for young people transitioning to adulthood and

improved mental health and emotional wellbeing support for care

leavers.

Focus on provision of suitable accommodation through work with

partners along with support for Staying Put and supported

lodgings.

Rough Sleepers initiative to prevent care leavers becoming

homeless.

Continue to develop our local offer for care leavers to make it

clearer and more accessible for young people. Our new

apprentices will be leading on this – starting in July

Continued focus on education, employment and training

opportunities for care leavers.

Page 191

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Special Educational Needs and Disabilities There are c157,000 pupils in Surrey maintained schools and academies; of these children and young people around 23,000 are receiving special educational needs (SEN) support in an educational setting.

The data shows us

Surrey maintains education, health and care plans (EHCPs) for almost

9,200 pupils. In 2018, 67% of new EHCPs were issued on time, higher than

both the national (58%) and regional (50%) figures.

38% of children and young people with an EHCP are placed in a special school, with a further 7.5% educated in a SEN unit within mainstream schools. Numbers of 16-25 year olds who transition into post-16 provision with an EHCP continue to increase (1, 262 as at 31 May 2019), placing increased demand on specialist college places.

Strengths

Undertaken a review of the CWD Service to ensure the threshold of intervention and allocation of a social worker is proportionate to need.

All children with CWD have an updated annual assessment ensuring their needs are reassessed and packages changed where appropriate.

Refocussed to ensure that CWD Teams are delivered through the quadrants and aligned to SEN, to ensure a countywide holistic approach.

Re-invigorated the Disability Resource Panel and High Needs Panel to include SEN, Health and Transitions; to ensure there is a single view of all services being delivered to the child and funding is apportioned to the appropriate agency.

SEN Admissions are now part of the Gateway to Resources Service to ensure a coordinated approach to resource allocation for children.

Team Managers and social workers have received refresher safeguarding training to ensure that they can effectively identify and respond to safeguarding issues and that there is no need to reallocate to another worker.

Applewood and Ruth House short break facilities have both maintained Good in their OFSTED inspections.

Cross-team work is being undertaken between SEND and All Age Learning Disability team to ensure a greater focus around transition, including placement of support workers in secondary schools to promote independence, social inclusion and wellbeing.

Page 192

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


In March 2019, Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission carried out a revisit to assess Surrey’s progress in addressing areas of weakness

highlighted in the Local Area Inspection in October 2016. The inspectors found improvements in:

The timeliness and quality of statutory assessments and plans

The involvement of children, parents and carers in the planning and evaluation of services, and the promotion of the local offer.

The local area’s management information and administration processes.

The early identification of special educational needs by schools.

However, they identified a picture of increased school absence for pupils with SEND, often linked to mental health concerns deeming that Surrey

had made insufficient progress in this area.


In order to improve outcomes for children and achieve financial

sustainability, we have developed a SEND strategy which sets out

proposals based on supporting children and young people with

SEND at an earlier stage.

The strategy is based on five key principles:

1. Children with special educational needs are identified earlier and

supported in a timely, effective way in order to improve their

outcomes and wellbeing.

2. There is an increased focus on earlier intervention and prevention

to offer help and meet needs at the earliest opportunity, reducing

the demand on high cost, high need interventions.

3. Children and young people are helped to become resilient and

independent so that they can lead fulfilling lives in their own

communities.

4. The voices of our children, young people and families are heard

so they can shape and inform how we work together to achieve

the best results.

5. Surrey’s early years settings, schools, colleges and other

providers are able to support children to live, learn and grow up

locally and achieve their full potential.

To build on the improvements over the last year, next steps will include:

A multi-agency approach to quality assurance of EHC plans, including

oversight by young people and parents/carers

Including parents/carers and young people as Experts by Experience

in the new Surrey Workforce Academy

Creating a consistent information-sharing agreement between all

agencies supporting children and young people with SEND

Trialling a graduated, tailored response to supporting the needs of

children and young people

Implementing an improved, streamlined multi-agency decision-

making programme at key points in a young person’s journey, placing

emphasis on local provision

Identifying the support needed when mental health concerns impact

on school attendance

The partnership of county council, CCGs and schools/education settings

are working together with families to transform SEND services. Further

work is underway with families and partners to implement the jointly-

owned countywide SEND strategy and long-term action plan.

Hearing the views and experiences of a wide range of children, young

people, parents, carers and practitioners is an important part of our work

and we are inviting people to share their views in a number of ways

including the POET survey, by contacting SEND Youth Advisers Surrey

(SYAS) or Family Voice Surrey.

Page 193

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Absence and Exclusions The data shows us

For the autumn term 2018/19, absence levels for pupils with SEND (both EHCP &

SEN support) were lower than at the same point in 2017/ 18. Persistent absence

levels were also lower for pupils with an EHCP, but had increased for those on SEN

Support from 16.8% to 17.3%

The proportion of permanent exclusions received by pupils with an EHCP remains

higher than last year, as is the proportion received by pupils on SEN Support.

89 children have been permanently excluded from education this academic year (as

compared to 81 at the same point last year). Of these children, 8 have an EHCP and

42 currently receive SEN Support (as at 31 May 2019)

An increasing trajectory of Fixed Penalty Notices have been issued by schools (349

issued in May 2019 alone) - the main reason being holidays during term-time

SCC operate a county-wide approach to non-attendance in-line with the legal

framework; this work is led by the Inclusion Service (rebranded from the Education

Welfare Service to emphasise the LA’s focus on inclusion)


Attendance is a priority focus for the Council and the wider area partnership; 1249 cases are currently open to the Inclusion Service (previously Education Welfare Service) as at May 2019

A new data dashboard will inform targeted visits to schools

Countywide practice will place greater emphasis on cross-team working in recognition of the need to focus on families

Surrey Exclusion Project has provided a high profile to the issues around exclusion for Surrey schools and its impact on children and families. A highlight was the Inclusion Conference (January 2019) hosted by the High Sheriff and attended by 150+ primary head teachers/key stakeholders including Councillors.

A medical protocol has been co-developed/piloted with schools and parents/carers and will be rolled out countywide in

September following review, the aim is to ensure children are not signed off as unfit for school without a return to school plan.

Inclusion Service will continue to support/challenge schools and settings in-line with the statutory responsibility of head teachers / proprietors with clear lines of accountability, with Specialist teachers offering expertise/practical support for schools and families including the promotion of positive behaviour and management of challenging behaviour and aggression.

Concerns re attendance/exclusions in maintained schools are escalated via Schools Causing Concern meetings and shared with the School Effectiveness Team for collaborative action; with direction letters issued as appropriate. Surrey will escalate concerns with the Regional Schools Commissioner.

Project to consider Surrey’s access to, and commissioning of alternative provision in collaboration with head teachers.

Page 194

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Children Missing Education During the last 12 months the practice and oversight around children missing education (CME), those missing out on 25 hours education (PMOOE) has been reviewed and strengthened with teams fully aware of their roles and responsibilities.

The data shows us

At the end of April 2019 there were 262 children missing education. The majority (48%) are in year 10 and 11, but a significant number of children (20) are reception age. These children are more likely to be male (61%), eligible for free school meals (22% currently, 10% last year), a Looked After Child (17% currently, 10% previously) and receiving SEN support (51%).

In respect of pupils missing out on full time education (on the roll of a school) as at May 2019:

those not receiving 25 hours education due to anxiety related absence totalled 141 pupils

those children who are not receiving 25 hours education due to other absence (identified within themes) totalled 434 pupils


Development of datasets will enable robust weekly scrutiny of the number, NCY and quadrant location for those children who are not receiving 25 hours education due to a range of themes (including anxiety-related absence), those awaiting placement and those in alternative provision

Work underway between SEN and Commissioning to establish a clear commissioning strategy for place provision, including a forward plan regarding sufficiency linked to prioritisation of local support where possible

Implementation of Welfare Call Service, enabling a weekly analysis of attendance for pupils to enable greater scrutiny of attendance at non-maintained and independent settings

Robust strategy for data challenging schools around their inclusive practice linked to accountability for safeguarding and outcomes of children/young people

Greater cross-agency discussion with Public Health, police and other agencies to share data and escalate safeguarding issues

Page 195

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Elective Home Education The data shows us In June 2019, 1128 children were registered as Electively Home Educated, with 47% of these children in Key Stage 4 (i.e. Years 10 and 11). 20% of EHE children/young people are currently or have previously received free school meals.

Reasons why parents elect to home educate (in-line with the national descriptors):

1 - Distance or access to a local school = 17 2 - Religious or cultural beliefs = 96 3 - Philosophical or ideological views = 13 4 - Dissatisfaction with the system = 125 5 - Bullying = 80 6 - As a short term intervention for a particular reason = 118 7 - A child's unwillingness or inability to go to school = 182 8 - Special educational needs = 57 9 - Parents' desire for a closer relationship with their children = 15

No reason given = 528 (includes ‘parental preference’, as not a national “reason”)

[NB: Some parents list more than one reason so the total number of reasons and blanks combined is higher than the registered number.]


Continued engagement with parent/carer representative group to co-produce communication materials and review policy/practice, advice and guidance

Work with the Special Educational Needs Team to ensure that Annual Reviews are carried out in a timely way for those EHE children who have an EHCP

Continue to offer 100% of families a home visit after they have decided to electively home educate their child

Focussed work by Inclusion Managers to work with schools/settings and parents/carers around monitoring of attendance and the triggers for making the decision to home-educate

Further work to be undertaken on joining-up of teams/services to enhance the knowledge of children and their families and the LA’s support

Development of data dashboard with monthly scrutiny by Education Leadership Team to enable a focussed analysis of and response to themes, trends, following up on concerns as appropriate

Page 196

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Universal Offer – Progress and Attainment The data shows us

94% of primary and secondary maintained schools are judged as Good / Outstanding

For Surrey pupils overall, attainment continues to improve although progress between key stage 1 and 2 remains a concern in writing and in

maths. In particular, our national ranking in writing progress has fallen from 99th to 116th this year

Based on the published Key Stage 4 data, Surrey’s Attainment 8 and Progress 8 scores remain above the national average this year and

show an improvement on 2017. The KS5 Average Point Score is also higher than national and in 2017.

Disadvantaged pupils continue to perform at a lower level than their peers nationally.

At EYFS, KS1 and KS4, the gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers nationally has widened. However, for KS2 attainment it has

narrowed and some improvements have been seen in terms of KS1-2 progress.

Ofsted Judgements for Primary Schools

Ofsted Judgements for Secondary Schools


Surrey is establishing a local education partnership with schools,

early years settings and the diocese - Schools Alliance for

Excellence (SaFE). This will be operational on 1 September and

an initial 3 year contract will be underpinned by detailed key

performance measures including increasing the percentage of

good and outstanding schools, reducing absence and exclusions

for all pupils, raising attainment and progress, particularly for

those who are disadvantaged or have additional needs,

increasing inclusion and oversight in relation to safeguarding.

The Babcock 4S arrangements ceased on 31 March 2019; in the

meantime the local authority has established a small team to

carry out the LA’s statutory duties in relation to schools causing

concern.

The Governors Services Contract has been awarded to Cognus

and a strategy will be implemented to strengthen the knowledge

and skills of governors, to improve communications and develop

a talent pool of governors to ensure a steady pipeline of new

governing body members. The development of an extended pool

of advanced skills governors will a key focus to ensure a strong

range of governors are able to conduct effectiveness reviews and

support Interim Executive Boards where required.

Page 197

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Children and Young People not in Education, Employment or Training (NEETs)The data shows us

In April 2019, there were 373 young people aged 16-17 who were

known to be NEET. This represents 1.7% of young people in this

age group, lower than both the national (2.8%) and regional

(2.5%) figures.

Compared with March 2018, there has been an increase in the

proportion of pupils known to be NEET across the board – the

equivalent figures last year were 1.3% in Surrey, 2.2% in the

South-East and 2.7% nationally.

A higher proportion of young people with SEND are NEET

compared with those young people without SEND. In 2018, the

proportion of 16-17 year olds with SEND whose status was either

NEET or unknown was 6.9% compared with 4.3% for those

young people without SEND. These are lower than national

figures which are 9.6% and 5.9% respectively.

Young people who are NEET or unknown are more likely to be

male than female, both in Surrey and nationally. In 2018, the

proportion of NEET or unknown young people was 3.8% for girls

and 4.9% for boys.

89% of young people with SEND went into sustained education

or employment at the end of Key Stage 4 compared with 96% of

young people without SEND (2016/17 published data).


Refreshed approach to participation through collaborative

working with schools, colleges and voluntary sector

Creation of dedicated Participation Officer role to ensure a focus

on this area of work, facilitating a cross-team approach

Development of wider opportunities linked to the successful

Surrey Outdoor Learning and Development Team and Cultural

Services

Continue to work on cross-team initiatives with the Transitions

Team to support the focus on effective transitioning into

adulthood (e.g. collaborative conversation with SEND pupils at

NCY9 to inform transition)

Work collaboratively with Commission to develop the volume of

Post-16 supported internships through Surrey Choices and

apprenticeships

Work with the Family Resilience Team to further develop our

Team-Around-the-Family approach to working with the young

person and their family

Continue the U-Explore project at least until next year. U-Explore

work with young people who are at risk of NEET in year 11 and

has been running for the last 4 years.

Page 198

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Learning from Feedback Views of children and families are at the heart of what we do. We have a collective responsibility as an organisation to hear what all children,

young people and families are telling us and to use this information to support the assessment of the quality of our practice. We also want to

work with children, young people and families to ensure services are co-produced. As part of our promise to children and young people, we

promise to listen to them and involve them fully when making decisions about their lives.

Current Strengths

In Surrey we currently have:

A well-established apprenticeship scheme which enables care experienced young people to be our in-house experts and directly influence decisions;

An embedded Action Card system which raise concerns directly with Corporate Parenting Board;

Recruit Crew - Young people are part of the recruitment process for staff working directly with or responsible for making decisions about children and young people;

Total Respect training is well established and mandatory for all social care staff;

The commitment of senior managers and members to ensure the views of children and young people are heard and acted upon.

Recent Improvements

Children in Care Council and Children in Care Council Juniors – active locally, particularly through raising Action Cards and nationally, through National Leaving Care benchmarking Forum and APPG (they attend every month);

Newly established Youth Cabinet and elections for a new ‘Young Mayor’ will take place on 17th June 2019. Members of Youth Cabinet are aligned to SCC Cabinet portfolios and work is ongoing to develop their work programme;

Representation at key partnership groups/boards such as Safeguarding Partnership and CAMHS transformation;

Active CAMHS Youth Advisors who engage with service users to help support and improve practice;

Corporate Parenting Conversations – Councillors on the Corporate Parenting Board regularly have conversations with young people, foster carers and professionals to shape their understanding and the work of the CPB;

Councillors are now linked with a children’s residential home and are beginning regular visits to the homes from May/June 2019.

Surrey Children in Care Council

Care Council is a group of care experienced young people, 13-25 years

old (and Care Council Juniors for 8-13 year olds), who meet every month

to discuss issues that are key to Looked after Children and care leavers.

Care Council have established a direct link with Corporate Parenting

Board (CPB), and they have agreed an ‘Action Card’ system, which

enables Care Council to raise challenges directly to the board. Over 2018,

the Care Council meetings have had between 10 and 15 young people

attending. The membership is currently split evenly between males and

females, and a proportion of the membership represents young people

with special educational needs and disabilities.

Page 199

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Action Cards

Action Cards are a project which stems directly from our Care Council group. Care

Council members regularly raise action cards to the Corporate Parenting Board. At

every meeting of the Care Council, the members discuss what they want to stop,

start or change about the current care system. If two or more young people agree

that something is an issue, it is logged as an action card. There are 3 types of cards

that can be raised; an action card, a question card and an alert card. Since January

2018, we have received 19 action cards, 1 question card, and 10 alert cards.

BIG Survey

The BIG Survey is sent to all looked after children and care leavers. It is mailed directly to them and a link is also shared with workers and published online.

The survey is sent every January to find out more about the experiences of young

people over the previous year. This year 159 looked after children and 49 care

leavers completed the survey.

Child Protection Conference feedback

In May 2018, we sent a survey to children aged 5+ who have been on CP plans

because of neglect for 12+ months. The aim was to find out what young people

thought about the CP process in Surrey. We also carried out telephone interviews

with young people. We found that young people are not always invited to their

conferences and when they are, they are not always held at convenient times and

can impact on school. Young people told us that they didn’t always feel listened to.

We worked with the CP teams to redesign the conference rooms, feedback forms

and share the learning to ensure young people are always invited and have a say.

And more…

Looked After Reviews: Focus group with Care Council members to find out what

works well and what needs improvement at review meetings

Surrey has an active Youth Cabinet which is part of the British Youth Council.

Young people are elected to represent their areas and work with the schools in

their area to get feedback.

Young people and families are supported to complain if they are unhappy with

services.

Action Card 67 –

Young people helped

recreate the Welcome

Pack, however they

raised that teams

aren’t always sending

it to young people

Action Card 62 - Some young

people aren’t happy with the

standard of their provisions. They

would like to be able to cook their

own meals

Action Card 58 – Young people

are not allowed to use the local

field. It is the only secure field

that they are able to use and

would like access to it.

Page 200

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Performance Management We now produce a comprehensive monthly performance monitor (Performance Narrative) alongside performance data. Surrey is ambitious to

improve and now more outward looking. This month we have compared our performance against that achieved by authorities rated by Ofsted to

be Good or Outstanding. We want performance data and analysis to drive good practice across all of children’s services.

The performance comparison (“Surrey Children’s Social Care: Compared to Ofsted Rated Good and Outstanding Authorities”, April 2019)

provides an overview of Surrey Children’s Social Care data compared to five selected regional and national authorities rated good and

outstanding by Ofsted. There are no outstanding local authorities in Surrey’s comparator group. There are five ‘good’ rated authorities, each of

which are ‘very close’ statistical neighbours to Surrey. Hampshire and Hertfordshire were included. A further three outstanding local authorities

have been selected. All of the authorities selected have a similar proportion of 0-17 year old population with no significant variation. Sixteen

indicators of the quality and impact of practice were selected for comparison among the six authorities, across three statistical years. This has

been attached as Annex E.

The “Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Leadership Team: Performance Narrative”, May 2019 includes information about good

performance and about the positive impact of practice.

Performance reporting is embedded in CFLC through the monthly Performance Compendium, which takes ‘near live’ data from the Early Help,

Children’s Services and Education IT systems (EHM, LCS and EMS). There is a golden thread from front line practice to management and

leadership teams which has established a performance narrative that is owned as the single version of the truth. The monthly performance

compendium is a detailed breakdown of performance across all parts of the child’s journey and this is reported at the appropriate levels across

children’s services to enable and embed a culture of accountability and ownership. The May 2019 Performance Compendium and

Performance (Narrative) Report are attached to the self-evaluation as Annex F and Annex G respectively.

Performance Meetings are now taking place on a regular basis across children’s services and quadrant-based Performance Officer roles have

been established to further improve compliance with recording and to enable better data quality in performance reporting. These dedicated

performance resources support the teams and managers in each service to consistently utilise the information to better prioritise work, identify

practice issues or concerns as they appear and provide assurance at each level of reporting.

All Practitioners and Staff have their own responsibilities in respect of performance and quality management and service improvement through:

Being aware of their own performance and quality against relevant standards, objectives and targets; having a relentless focus on improving

outcomes for children; being committed to meeting personal and service improvement needs through learning and development and involvement

in service planning.

Page 201

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Achieving Better Practice Our Training offer has been significantly enhanced for the children’s workforce (including multi-agency partners) and supported by the

Children’s Services Academy and the QA service also deliver bespoke training when we identify shortfalls in practice.

In November 2018 a revised monthly case audit process was launched where the focus of the new audit tool was on the quality of practice,

evidencing the child’s journey, the effectiveness of intervention and outcomes secured for the child and their family.

All staff at management level across children’s services are responsible for completing at least one audit per month. Social workers are

involved in the audit process and are given the opportunity to have either a conversation with the auditor or to complete a case reflection sheet

that allows them to reflect on what they have learned in their practice and what they would do differently in the future. A monthly report focused

on audit activity and findings is produced and makes explicit reference to where practice weaknesses and strengths are noted by reporting on

seven key domains that include child centred practice, supervision, management oversight, and planning and review. A ‘Practice Learning

Bulletin’ is produced from this each quarter and shared with all practitioners (an example Learning Bulletin is attached as Annex H).

From March 2019 the Quality Assurance Service began producing a series of monthly “Best Practice Sound Bites” focusing on a range of

specific subjects. These are targeted at social workers and their managers and the aim is to provide practitioners with continued opportunities of

understanding how to reflect best practice in their work (an example Practice Sound Bite is attached as Annex I).

The above practice improvement approach is now going to be applied to Education and SEND services.

Looking back on our progress It is a year since the Executive Director joined the County Council in April 2018 and set out the steps we needed to take to transform the

Children, Families, Life Long Learning, Culture and Communities Service. This described a challenging programme of transformation and

improvement. We can now be confident in just how far we have come.

In April 2019 we committed to making a fundamental shift to early support and prevention, vowing that we would do statutory work well but

that we would do less of it. The implementation of new front door arrangements and our Single Point of Access means we can ensure the

Council has preventative and early help services in place to assist at the earliest possible moment in a child’s life.

It was made clear that Social Worker workloads had to be more manageable and since then we have made positive steps to reduce burdens

on individuals. The average number of open cases per practitioner across the county is now 15 children, compared to 28 children in April 2018.

On 17th May 2019 we hosted a Family Resilience Conference and the enthusiasm and energy of participants was encouraging. We heard that,

while there is still more to do, caseloads are already more manageable and are allowing us to provide a higher quality of service.

Last year we also set out our ambition to becoming a learning organisation. The launch of Surrey Children’s Services Academy in January 2019

means we can drive up and maintain professional standards, supporting colleagues – and our partners - at every level throughout their careers.

Page 202

13

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


The SEND Revisit highlighted that significant progress has been made addressing areas of weakness, however, this is the beginning of the

improvement journey and there is much to do in the future to become a good service. We are working as an integrated system to improve

outcomes for children and families and we are committed to working together to build on the improvements made so far.

These are just a few examples of the huge strides we have taken in the last year toward delivering outstanding children’s services. We

are now through the restructure process and there is evidence of the commitment of staff over the last year.

Our Priorities 2019-2020 There is of course much more to do to ensure that we reach our goal of providing Surrey’s children and families with the outstanding services

that they deserve. Now that the structural issues have been resolved our focus can be on culture and practice.

2019-2020 brings with it an exciting period as we move to a new model based on Family Resilience, Family Safeguarding and relationship based

practice. We have set about defining the key things that will be most important to our services post April:

In the new structure and model the focus will be on improving outcomes

for children and their families. We will focus relentlessly on front line

practice and we will develop a new culture together. Every piece of work,

across all services will be done to quality and as we develop our new

approach we will develop greater confidence and momentum.

We are determined that our front line staff across every service receive

the best leadership, management, guidance and support. We are

investing in smaller teams and are determined that our managers will

receive training, development and support to facilitate great front line

staff. Our managers and staff are our most important resource and going

forward we will be asking a lot more from them – while providing the

support them to enable to achieve.

Culture, Practice and Outcomes

Developing our Front Line Managers

Supervision is fundamental to great work with children and families.

We will therefore be investing in a new approach to embedding 1:1

and group supervision. This will be across all of our services and will

be the bedrock to our improvement journey.

We have to make our technology, resources and systems work

better in a way that supports our work. We are moving the new

‘front door’ into offices nearby and will be locating the North East

office in the area that it serves. The SEND and Education IT system

will be replaced and we will be using the Family Safeguarding

‘workbook’ in LCS.

Technology, Resources and Systems

There will be a range of support that recognises that working with

children and families in a relationship based model brings with it

stresses - as well as great joy! This will be combined with excellent

supervision and support, manageable caseloads and systems that

support the work. The Children’s Services Academy will ensure all

staff & partners get excellent training & development opportunities.

Staff Wellbeing

As we move forward, we will develop deep and productive relationships

with partners such as health, schools, police and the voluntary sector.

They too want to deliver excellent services to children and families and

we generally achieve great outcomes when we work together in pursuit of

great outcomes

Partnerships Supervision and Practice

Page 203

13


CABINET

DATE: 16 JULY 2019

REPORT OF: MRS MARY LEWIS – CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN, YOUNG PEOPLE & FAMILIES

LEAD OFFICER:

MR DAVE HILL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES, LIFE LONG LEARNING AND CULTURE

SUBJECT: REGIONAL ADOPTION AGENCY

SUMMARY OF ISSUE:

To seek approval for Surrey County Council to enter into an agreement to establish a Regional Adoption Agency (RAA) with three other local authorities, Brighton and Hove City Council, East and West Sussex County Councils.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

It is recommended that Cabinet:

1. Approves Surrey County Council’s participation in (the creation of) a Regional Adoption Agency (RAA) to be known as Adoption South East (ASE) in partnership with Brighton and Hove City Council, and East and West Sussex County Councils.

2. Delegates authority to the Executive Director for Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Children and Families to take any action necessary or incidental to the above including entering into and signing off the Partnership Agreement and any other agreement between Surrey County Council and the participating Authorities in order for the Regional Adoption arrangement to be implemented by 2020.

3. Delegates authority to the Executive Director for Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Children and Families to agree transfer of the council’s contribution to the pooled RAA budget, in accordance with the terms of the Partnership Agreement.


In response to the Action Plan for Adoption and alongside many other Councils Surrey County Council, in conjunction with Brighton and Hove City Council, East and West Sussex County Councils has developed a proposal to deliver its adoption services via a RAA. The Government has a power through the Education and Adoption Act 2016 which allows it to direct a Local Authority to join a Regionalised Adoption Agency if it has not already done so by 2020.

Page 205

14

Item 14

DETAILS:

1. Adoption is a way of providing new families for children who cannot be brought up by their biological parents. It is an irreversible legal process in which all parental rights and responsibilities are transferred to the adoptive family.

2. Successive governments have raised concerns that children in care are more likely to be unemployed, to experience mental health problems, to become homeless and to have their own children removed from them. It should be noted that children in care often arrive in care with significant issues that contribute to poor outcomes; however, a poor care experience can exacerbate rather than remedy these issues. Conversely, a well-matched, timely adoptive placement can make a significant and positive difference to the long-term outcomes of children.

3. In order to improve outcomes for children in care, the Coalition Government introduced An Action Plan for Adoption: tackling delay with legislative changes to the monitoring of the adoption process through an Adoption Scorecard. This set targets for Local Authorities to speed up the adoption process. In many authorities, those targets have not been met and the speed of adoption remains a local corporate parent and central government concern. The subsequent Department for Education (DfE) paper, Regionalising Adoption proposed the move to regional adoption agencies, in order to:

Speed up matching Improve adopter recruitment and adoption support Reduce costs Improve the life chances of vulnerable children.

4. As well as placing children for adoption, local authority adoption functions also include advising, assessing and recruiting potential adopters and providing post adoption support as required for children and adopters. There is also a duty of support for families coming into Surrey who are adopters and adoptees from other areas of the country.

5. The partnership between the four local authorities has developed since 2015, with strong foundations at senior management and operational levels. Each of the four authorities have well performing adoption services and strong relationships were forged in a previous local consortium approach to adoption services. Building on this, discussions at Director of Children’s Services level commenced at an early stage between the four authorities to explore regionalisation at a future date, taking account of the specific needs and geography of the proposed region.

6. In October 2017 local authorities were advised of continued ministerial resolve to complete regionalisation by April 2020. By this time the first RAAs had gone live, enabling learning from the new agencies about the challenges of integrating services and the emerging benefits of working together, prompting a proposal for the formation of Adoption South East to be submitted to the Department for Education. This was successful, securing grant funding to support further project work. As at May 2019 half of local authorities nationally are already part of live RAAs, with local authorities involved in remaining projects working to go live by April 2020.

Page 206

14

ADOPTION SOUTH EAST:

7. A Project Board of operational Adoption Managers from each of the four authorities was established in 2016. Its remit was initially to consider the pros and cons of forming an RAA and later, following receipt of grant funding, this has moved to undertaking the necessary preparatory work for implementation.

8. Informed by the project work, the proposed arrangements for the formation of the RAA have been developed to demonstrate that the optimum way of delivering services within a RAA is through a Hub and Spoke operating model. This conclusion has arisen from consideration of various options and learning from live RAAs. Taking all of this into account, there is confidence across the Authorities that the RAA can be successfully delivered with minimal disruption to staff, within existing budgets and without diminution of service quality.

9. Adopting a hub and spoke approach (with spokes in each Local Authority) would support centralisation of some administrative activities, whilst allowing service users to continue to access services locally- which is important given the size of the proposed region. Staff would remain in their current locations and remain with the same employing local authority.

10. The RAA would increase placement choice for children and support early permanence, benefitting children and releasing resources (notably foster placements) with the additional benefit of reduced inter agency spend which is currently payable if matched adoptive families are approved by another agency.

11. Creating a comprehensive ASE support offer for adoptive families would be a longer-term objective, however some initiatives by partner authorities could be scaled up at relatively little cost in the short term.

12. A large service would promote service resilience, providing opportunities for staff development and making staff turnover easier to manage. The number of children placed for adoption by the four local authorities is within the suggested envelope for bringing services together as a RAA.

DELIVERY:

13. A partnership (Orbis style) model was considered initially for the RAA, however this would not confer legal entity status unless established as a Local Government Trading Company (which would incur start-up costs.) In accordance with Government expectations, the RAA needs to be a stand-alone legal entity or to be hosted by one authority in order to contract with other parties.

14. Adopting a Voluntary Adoption Agency (VAA) hosted model was discounted given the limited VAA presence across the region. Instead the recommendation is that the RAA is hosted by one of the local authorities, on behalf of the four partners.

15. East Sussex County Council is well placed to act as host and has offered to do so, this offer is supported by the other three Local Authorities.

16. As the host, East Sussex County Council would act as the service contracting body on behalf of the RAA. Finance and additional corporate support to the RAA would

Page 207

14

include commissioning and maintaining a RAA case management system and provision of Information Governance and Legal Services (critically, providing legal advice with respect to the RAA’s role as an approving body for prospective adopters.) Senior management support would also be provided by East Sussex County Council, who will lead the recruitment process for a Head of Service for the RAA (a new position, to be offered on East Sussex County Council Terms and Conditions and funded from the RAA budget.)

17. East Sussex County Council would receive a recharge from the RAA budget for the costs incurred as the host. It is expected that the hosting costs would be reasonably modest given that accommodation and facilities costs for staff would continue to be met by the individual local authorities (given that the RAA spokes will be located within the Local Authorities.)

18. Statutory responsibilities for looked after children with adoption plans would continue to be held by the four LAs, including agency decision making with respect of children’s adoption plans and matching with an adoptive family (meaning that the required legal advice provided to support agency decisions would be obtained by the local authority with responsibility for the child.)

19. However family finding would be undertaken by the RAA, which would also undertake adopter recruitment, assessment and support. The RAA would additionally provide post adoption support services and offer a non-agency adoption service to applicants adopting a step child, relative or a child adopted from overseas.

STRUCTURE: Hub and spoke:

20. The Hub would be the strategic and business centre for the RAA, geographically based in East Sussex, albeit the number of people physically located together in the hub would be minimal-notably the Head of Service, business support and finance. The majority of the RAA’s staff will be based in the 4 spokes (one per local authority,) providing case work to service users, notably social work assessments of prospective adopters, family finding for children with adoption plans and adoption support-with locally based managers overseeing this work. In addition, some elements of service delivery might be undertaken by workers based in a spoke, on behalf of the whole RAA e.g. provision of adopter training, matching meetings and adoption panels. These would be services that can be accessed by children and families irrespective of where they live within the region. As such some workers will have both hub and spoke functions to perform (See Annex A.) A detailed RAA service structure would be agreed following appointment of a Head of Service, however Annex B indicates the relationship between the proposed RAA, the LAs and other partners as well as showing the role of the hub and the spokes.

STAKEHOLDERS:

21. Stakeholder engagement events have been held with staff, with feedback demonstrating enthusiasm for developing closer working but also understandable anxieties about change. Adopter Champions will support consultation with adopters/prospective adopters, acting as a bridge between the RAA project and service users to develop an engagement strategy. Directors were unanimous in recommending that the RAA should involve minimal change to employment

Page 208

14

arrangements for approximately 100 staff. It is therefore proposed that adoption service staff will remain employed by sovereign councils, on existing terms and conditions, and when vacancies arise in the future these would be recruited to by the sovereign council where the position arises. HR advice confirms staff may be managed on a day to day basis by colleagues employed by another local authority, subject to the partnership agreement. HR support would be provided by Orbis for East Sussex County Council and Brighton and Hove Council employees, and West Sussex and Surrey County Councils would be supported by their own HR departments.

FINANCE:

22. As host, East Sussex County Council would manage the pooled budget arrangements. Work is ongoing to finalise the financial arrangements for the RAA, including discussions with existing RAAs in order to test assumptions. However, we are working to the assumption that LA contributions would be no more than the existing budget for RAA ‘in- scope’ activity, as shown below at 2019/20 levels:

Brighton and Hove

Surrey East Sussex West Sussex Total

£1.110M £1.429M £1.297M £1.880M £5.716M

23. The proposal is that the budget assumptions are built into the partnership agreement, with provision for an annual uplift of staff costs, in line with inflation.

24. The basis for assignment of additional costs (and reimbursement in the event of underspend) would also be set out in detail in the partnership agreement. This would be based first on the Inter agency budget variance by Council, and then, for any remaining amount, on a combination of 50% on actual net costs and 50% on activity e.g. numbers of children placed) from the last 3 full financial years. (See Annex 3.)

25. Based on this, the “50/50” breakdown of any additional costs/ reimbursement would currently be as follows (subject to testing and confirmation as per paragraph 5.7):

Brighton and Hove

Surrey East Sussex West Sussex Total

20% 24% 24% 32% 100%

26. The financial risk is considered low as, under the pooling arrangement, it would be limited to the proportionate share of any overspend from the RAA, i.e. similar to the current financial risk of this activity through budget monitoring process. It is also considered low due to:

Over 70% of net RAA cost being for staff, which is a reasonably stable and predictable cost; staff not transferring from their originating Authority to East Sussex hence no need to consider Transfer of Undertaking Protection of Employment (TUPE) costs. The in principle agreement is that any termination costs that may arise in the future for any RAA posts appointed by East Sussex would be covered by the RAA or proportionately by each Council. It is also proposed that monitoring arrangements that will be in place for the RAA via its Strategic Partnership Board (the Executive Board.) The detail of this will be reflected in the Partnership Agreement.

Page 209

14

27. There is also an expectation, but not a planning assumption, that forming the RAA will deliver efficiencies in the medium to long term, thereby also potentially reducing any financial risk to the partners.

28. If final planning work shows that the RAA cannot be implemented within the existing budget envelope, discussion will be required as to whether the RAA can proceed or that an alternative model would need to be identified.

GOVERNANCE:

29. An Executive Board of Directors and Assistant Directors of Children’s Services, chaired by Stuart Gallimore, Director of Children’s Services in East Sussex is charged with setting direction and allocating resources.

30. In addition a Project Board of operational adoption managers and additional project support is grant funded and chaired at present by Suzanne Chambers, Adoption Service Manager for Surrey County Council but chairing will move to the new Head of Service once appointed. The chair of the Project board / Head of Service reports to the Executive Board.

31. With future governance in mind, it is proposed that the Executive Board oversees the Strategic Partnership and direction of travel as set out in an annual RAA Business Plan in order to comply with the duties placed on local authorities to monitor the provision of adoption services.

32. A Head of Service will be recruited (by East Sussex County Council) in September 2019 to shape service design and delivery in the lead up to ‘go live’. This post (and any related support) would be funded by the RAA, and the Head of Service will be accountable to the 4 partner authorities through the Executive Board.

33. The Partnership Agreement will set out the detail for the RAA, making provision for the Head of Service to make day to day operational decisions, and reserve strategic decision making to the Executive Board.

EQUALITIES AND DIVERSITY:

34. A preliminary EQIA was completed and the summary of this is set out below. This concluded that there will be no negative impact on any of the protected characteristics arising from the development of the Regional Adoption Agency, as there are no changes to policy or access arrangements for customers or staff.

Page 210

14


There have been regular staff bulletins and an RAA mailbox has been created, as well as 2 large scale events which has provided opportunity for discussion. This has enabled concerns to be raised but to date these have been generalised rather than specific to any protected characteristics.

Communications with stakeholders similarly has not raised specific concerns to date in relation to protected characteristics.


The impact is mainly positive as a larger agency operating on a regional scale provides opportunity to develop specialist knowledge provision, and increases the number of locations and dates from which service users might choose to access services.


None to date


Existing National Minimum Standards for Adoption and Adoption Agencies Regulations will continue to apply to the RAA, and offer protections to service users who wish to adopt.

The RAA’s performance with respect to the above and its success in placing children with protected characteristics for adoption, will continue to be subject to national KPIs set by the Department for Education through the ‘Adoption Scorecard’ and monitored locally by the RAA Strategic Partnership Board on a quarterly basis.

Ease of access to all locations for people with protected characteristics will be considered as part of the service design process.

Engagement will continue with staff and service users pending ‘go live’ to identify any as yet unidentified impacts and will inform service planning.


None

Page 211

14

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS/ MONITORING OFFICER COMMENTS

35. The Council’s principal functions in relation to adoption services are set out in the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002). Section 3 (Maintenance of Adoption Service) ACA 2002 requires the Council to maintain within its area adoption services designed to meet the needs of:

a) children who may be adopted, their parents and guardians; b) persons wishing to adopt a child; and c) adopted persons, their parents, natural parents and former guardians; and for

this purpose, must provide requisite facilities.

36. Regulation 5 (Arrangement for securing provision of services) of the Adoption Support Services Regulation 2005, permits the Council to secure the provision of adoption support services by another local authority.

37. Adoption services functions are the responsibility of the executive. Sections 9EA and 9EB of the Local Government Act 2000 (LGA 2000) and The Local Authorities (Arrangements for the Discharge of Functions) (England) Regulations 2012, in particular, Regulation 5 (Discharge of an executive’s functions by another relevant authority or another relevant executive) enables Cabinet to arrange for the Council’s adoption services functions to be discharged by another local authority.

38. Although these functions can be delegated to the RAA, the Council would still retain its overall statutory duty to maintain within its area an adoption service as defined in the ACA 2002.

39. Section 15 of the Education and Adoption Act 2016 (“Local authority adoption functions: joint arrangements”) provides the Secretary of State with the power to direct the transfer of adoption functions of a local authority to another local authority or to one or more other adoption agencies. The functions specified are:

d) the recruitment of persons as prospective adopters; e) the assessment of prospective adopters' suitability to adopt a child; f) the approval of prospective adopters as suitable to adopt a child; g) decisions as to whether a particular child should be placed for adoption with a

particular prospective adopter; and h) the provision of adoption support services.

40. Adoption South East will be subject to a Partnership Agreement between the four participating authorities. The terms of the Agreement are yet to be agreed but will include the duration of the agreement, appointment of East Sussex as the Host Authority, delegation of adoption functions and services, annual strategic plan, financial arrangements and contributions, staffing arrangements, pensions and management and governance arrangements. This report requests that delegated authority is provided to Executive Director for Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture in consultation with the Lead Member for Children and Families to sign off the final terms once agreed between the participating authorities.

41. As set out above, Cabinet has the legal powers to make the decision as recommended in this report.

Page 212

14

SECTION 151 OFFICER

42. The County Council is facing a very serious financial situation, whereby there are still substantial savings to be delivered to achieve a balanced budget in the current year and a sustainable budget plan for future years.

43. The S151 Officer can confirm that the proposed Council contribution to the Regional Adoption Agency is within the current budget. The RAA will not deliver any cashable savings to directly contribute towards the savings that the Council needs to achieve in the coming years. However it will improve outcomes for children which may lead to longer term savings within the system.

OTHER IMPLICATIONS:

44. The potential implications for the following council priorities and policy areas havebeen considered. Where the impact is potentially significant a summary of the issuesis set out in detail below.


45. Potentially more children may be successfully place for adoption, more quickly given a larger pool of prospective adopters from which to seek a match, which would have a positive impact for those children, and release resources (foster placements) to the benefit of other children.

SAFEGUARDING RESPONSIBILITIES FOR VULNERABLE CHILDREN AND ADULTSIMPLICATIONS

46. More children may be able to become permanently settled in adoptive homes, benefitting from placement stability, improved mental health and educational outcomes.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT:

47. Subject to agreement in all 4 authorities for the creation of the RAA, the ASE Executive Board would initiate a recruitment process for the RAA Head of Service in September 2019.

48. Once appointed the Head of Service would assume the Chair of the Project Board

49. The ASE Project Board under the oversight of the Executive Board, would continue to prepare for the launch of the RAA, developing a detailed implementation plan with a planned ‘go live’ date of 1 April 2020.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Contact Officer: Suzanne Chambers, Project Board Chair / Adoption Service Manager SCC 01932 794345

Consulted: Adoption Staff, Children’s Services, Service users

Page 213

14

Annexes:Annex 1 Roles and Responsibilities of the RAA and the LAs.Annex 2 ASE preferred model (hub and spoke)Annex 3 Decision making tree for allocation of share of overspend/refund if there is a budget surplus

Attachment 1-Equalities Impact Assessment

Sources/background papers:An Action Plan for Adoption: tackling delay Department for Education (March 2012)Regionalising Adoption Department for Education (June 2015)Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002). Section 3 (Maintenance of Adoption Service) ACA 2002------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 214

14

Annex 1: Roles and responsibilities of the RAA and the LAsDelivery body FunctionASE Hub Management of RAA-Head of Service

Business Support management Managing RAA budget Adopter enquiries and initial stage Co-ordination of adopter training Overview of Children with adoption plans/ early

permanence Matching processes Co-ordination of adoption panels across the region Agency decisions (Adopters) Post order strategy and commissioning ASE policies and procedures Participation and Customer feedback.

ASE Spokes (x4) Adopter assessment Family finding Adoption Support , including birth records counselling,

intermediary, Birth relatives Non agency adoption Contact-direct/post box

Support to the spokes provided by sovereign LAs Facilities/property services IT equipment and support for LA systems HR and payroll Learning and development

Local authority functions

Responsible person Adoption plan/ Annual Agency report Case holding children with adoption plans Permanence and care planning for children Agency decisions (child) Life story work/ direct work with child (pre order) Funding adoption plans( allowances/ set up costs / legal

fees) LA Partnerships CAMHS

Virtual SchoolCommissioned services from VAAs

Inter country adoption Inter-Agency Placements Commissioned Adoption Support

Page 215

14

Annex 2

HubManagement, marketing

and recruitment, matching and shared corporate functions

Spoke 3

Spoke 1 Spoke 2

Spoke 4

VS and CAMHS

VS and CAMHSVS and CAMHS

VS and CAMHS

Childrens social work

teams


teams


teams


teams

ASE preferred model

Proposed commissioned services

Page 216

14

Annex 3: Decision making tree for allocation of share of overspend or refund in the event of budget surplus

Overall RAA surplus or deficit?

Overall deficit Overall surplus

Has the RAA reserve* got a balance in it?

Has the RAA reserve got at least £250k* in it?

Y: Use available RAA reserve* to offset deficit

N:Go to next step

N: Top RAA reserve up to maximum of £250k*

Is there still a deficit balance?

Is there any spare surplus?

N: No further action

Y: Is the deficit due to the Inter Agency Budget (IAB) variance?


Y: Return the surplus balance to the 4 Councils as per the agreed % allocations

N: Allocate remaining deficit to the 4 Councils as per the agreed % allocations

Y: Allocate the deficit due to IAB pro rata to the size of each Council's share of the IAB variance

Is there still a deficit balance?


Y: Allocate remaining deficit to the 4 Councils as per the agreed % allocations

* Assumes RAA reserve agreed, and at £250k - ignore these steps if no reserve

Page 217

14


1

Equality Impact Assessment (EIA)1. Topic of assessment

EIA title Proposal to create a Regional Adoption Agency

EIA author Suzanne Chambers


Approved by

3. Quality controlVersion number EIA completedDate saved EIA published


Page 219

14


2


The vision for regional adoption agencies was originally set out in 2015 in the DfE publication ‘Regionalising Adoption’, this has resulted in local authorities being tasked with coming together to create larger agencies covering wider geographical areas by 2020. The rationale for regionalising adoption is to widen matching opportunities for looked after children, improving timeliness and quality of matching. Additional rationale includes promotion of best adoption practice, improved access to adoption support services and achieving economies of scale. 17 such regional adoption agencies (RAAs) covering half of local authorities were in existence by May 2020, and the number is expected to increase significantly over 2019-20 to take in remaining local authorities.

From 2016 Surrey has been in a partnership with East Sussex County Council, West Sussex County Council and Brighton and Hove City Council with the objective of launching a regional agency to be known as Adoption South East (ASE) in April 2020. Grant funding from the DfE has been supporting our project work since April 2018.

The creation of the RAA will represent a scaling up of adoption activity requiring ASE to recruit and assess approximately 125 adopters a year and place up to 150 children from the 4 local authorities. Adoption support assessments are likely to be needed for over 300 adopted children per year, and the RAA will also support post box or direct contact arrangements for over 2000 children across the region.

The RAA will be hosted by East Sussex County Council, who will appoint a Head of Service and provide corporate services to the RAA. Whilst staff will be managed by the Head of Service, they will however remain employed by their sovereign councils, without recourse to use of TUPE.

The RAA would look to centralise some functions, for example the recruitment line which takes initial enquiries and there would be a single RAA website and a co-ordinated programme of information events and training, but delivered at venues across the RAA. Whilst some adoption roles and activity would be located in East Sussex, this is likely to be limited with the aim being to avoid moving staff from their existing locations, not least given that many functions can be undertaken from local authority based spokes. Whilst a final staff structure has yet to be agreed it is anticipated that there would be roles for all the existing staff who wish to be part of the new RAA.

Under a Partner’s agreement each council would delegate responsibility for delivery of the adoption service to the RAA. Budget currently held in the local authority would accordingly be devolved to the RAA.

Page 220

14


3


Impact of creating a regional adoption agency for service users and staff


Looked after children with adoption plans Children adopted from care, and their adoptive families

accessing post adoption support. Prospective adopters Children subject of non-agency adoption application Adults accessing adoption support Relatives of children who

have been adopted from care

Staff who will be working for the new RAA Local authority children’s services

Page 221

14


4


Engagement carried out Service users:

The Services have informed service users about the expected changes through service newsletters, a secure website for adopters (yammer) in Surrey, and through service users groups. In addition, Adoption Champions have been appointed and will undertake further engagement with adoptive families-by survey and face to face meetings with adopter groups during the period July –December 2019

Engagement with relatives of children adopted from care to be supported by specialist birth relative workers attached to the current adoption services. Staff and local authority children’s team’s

Communications bulletins have been issued at regular intervals from the RAA Project Board

2 stakeholder engagement events have been held for staff who would be affected and invitations issued to local authority children’s services.

An RAA mailbox has been created to enable staff from the 4 local authorities to raise issues and make comments.

Data used

Feedback was obtained from the staff concerning confidence about the emerging plans for the RAA at the staff events.

7. Impact of the new/amended policy, service or function

It is expected that in general terms the RAA would have a positive impact for protected characteristic groups given that a larger service would be able to offer a more comprehensive service offer, including development of specialist resources. Specifically, there would be scope to develop greater expertise within the RAA concerning protected groups with a particular focus on the need to recruit and support families for children from minority ethnic backgrounds and children with complex health needs. It is therefore hoped that outcomes for protected groups would improve as a result of the creation of the RAA, given that the focus will be on timely placement of children and research shows that some of the protected groups currently wait longer to be placed in adoptive families.

Page 222

14


5

Similarly with respect to the duties of the RAA to provide support for adoptive families and others impacted by adoption, a larger agency would enable development of specialist functions and an improved support offer.

Against the positive impact of the RAA sits the challenge of delivering services across a large geographical area and ensuring that services remain readily accessible to all, and in particular protected groups.

Page 223

14


6

7a. Impact of the proposals on residents and service users with protected characteristics


Potential positive impacts Potential negative impacts Evidence

Age

Prospective Adopters: Impact is neutral. All adoption agencies must act in compliance with adoption agency regulations (which require adoption applicants to be at least 21 years of age but do not specify an upper age limit-this represents no change to the current eligibility criteria)

Children-N/A

Adult Adoptees-neutral

Birth relatives-neutral

None

The RAA will need to develop policies to reflect adoption regulations, statutory guidance and National Minimum Standards in this respect.

Existing policies across the current services already do this, so this is unlikely to prove problematic.

Once developed the policies would be subject to EIA

Page 224

14


7

Disability

For adopters impact is broadly neutral given that it will continue to be possible to access services from local spokes

For children with disabilities the chance of being successfully adopted would increase given a larger and more diverse adoption pool

Consolidation of some services to adopters may require that they are offered from fewer locations than at present e.g. adoption panels and training venues

The same comments with regards to policy will apply as for the other protected characteristics

It is expected that panels and preparation groups will be offered from 3 rather than 4 sites across the RAA

It is a requirement of the DfE that all RAAs have a single pool of adopters from which to match all children referred for family finding, and that there is no use of interagency fees within the RAA-thus opening up access.

Page 225

14


8

and greater scope to develop expertise in placing children with disabilities.

Birth relatives and adult adoptees –neutral (given that they will still access the service via the same LA as now.

Gender reassignment

Adopters: Impact is positive as there is more scope for a larger adoption service to develop knowledge and expertise of the specific needs of this group E.g. by commissioning appropriate training for staff or offering access to a support group.

Children: -impact is also likely to be positive for the same reason.

Adult adoptees and birth parents-impact will be as above

The same comments apply to the RAA policies as to the previous protected characteristics.


Adopters-impact is neutral.

Children-N/A

Adult adoptees and birth parents-impact is neutral.

As above

Page 226

14


9

Race

Adopters and children : -impact in terms of eligibility is positive. When seeking matching there will be a positive impact given an expectation of a broader range of children and adopters to be matched across the RAA than at local LA level.

Adult adoptees and birth relatives-impact is neutral

As above

Religion and belief

Impact is positive for the same reasons as applied to the above protected characteristic

As above

Sex Impact is neutral for all As above

Sexual orientation

Impact is positive given that a larger agency will provide opportunities to develop specific support

As above


Impact is neutral for all groups As above


Impact is neutral for all groups

Page 227

14


10

7b. Impact of the proposals on staff with protected characteristicsProtected

characteristicPotential positive impacts Potential negative impacts Evidence

Age

Disability

Staff: There may be an expectation of occasional travel beyond the existing workplace however this already applies given the nature of existing roles. E.g. staff sometimes undertake assessments of applicants living in another local authority

Service users:Prospective adopters and adopters may need to access training or panels from different locations than at present

Gender reassignment


Staff could be absent due to these during the consultation/selection process

Page 228

14


11

Race

Religion and belief

Sex

Sexual orientation



Change of location for services may impact as with disability

Page 229

14


12



None

9. Action plan



By when Owner

Staff concerns to date have focussed on location of work base

This will continue to be considered within the final service structure design

December 2019

Strategic Partnership board.

Change of location for adoption panels and adopter training-impact for staff and service users with disabilities

Any location considered will be accessible by public transport.However, against this adopters will be able to choose from a wider range of locations and dates in order to access these services, and would be offered opportunity to access training via other methods e.g. e-learning or to access panels via video link. For staff with disabilities negative impact would be reduced by agile working, and other reasonable adjustments.

December 2019

Strategic Partnership Board

Staff absent due to pregnancy or ill health

The line manager would ensure that all staff bulletins and consultation are sent directly to the staff member and that they are kept up to date about the progress of the RAA plans and have opportunity to participate in consultation

Ongoing Project Board members



Page 230

14


13



There have been regular staff bulletins and an RAA mailbox has been created, as well as 2 large scale events which has provided opportunity for discussion. This has enabled concerns to be raised but to date these have been generalised rather than specific to any protected characteristics.

Communications with stakeholders similarly has not raised specific concerns to date in relation to protected characteristics.


The impact is mainly positive as a larger agency operating on a regional scale provides opportunity to develop specialist knowledge provision, and increases the number of locations and dates from which service users might choose to access services.

Changes you have made to the proposal as a result of the EIA None to date


Existing National Minimum Standards for Adoption and Adoption Agencies Regulations will continue to apply to the RAA, and offer protections to service users who wish to adopt.

The RAA’s performance with respect to the above and it’s success in placing children with protected characteristics for adoption, will continue to be subject to national KPIs set by the Department for Education through the ‘Adoption Scorecard’ and monitored locally by the RAA Strategic Partnership Board on a quarterly basis.

Ease of access to all locations for people with protected characteristics will be considered as part of the service design process.

Engagement will continue with staff and service users pending ‘go live’ to identify any as yet unidentified impacts and will inform service planning.

Potential negative impacts that cannot be mitigated None

Page 231

14


CABINET

DATE: 16 JULY 2019

REPORT OF: MRS MARY LEWIS, CABINET MEMBER FOR CHILDREN

LEAD OFFICER:

DAVE HILL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES, LIFELONG LEARNING AND CULTURE

SUBJECT: COUNCIL TAX RELIEF FOR SURREY’S CARE LEAVERS

SUMMARY OF ISSUE:

Care Leavers can and do experience a range of challenges in their lives and, by the nature of having the legal status of a care leaver, it means they have spent time in the care system as a ‘looked after child/young person’. This includes unaccompanied asylum seeking children.

One of the challenges that Care Leavers face is finding and paying for accommodation as a young adult, which includes living on their own. Surrey is an expensive place to live including paying for accommodation. Currently in the local authority area of Surrey a small number of district and borough areas are providing council tax relief for care leavers, however this is not a consistent offer or a consistent geographical offer resulting in unfairness.

The Cabinet is being asked to agree in principle to support care leavers by paying the Surrey County Council proportion of Council Tax (around 75% of the total amount of Council Tax), for those care leavers living by themselves (independent living) or sharing with others with some support (semi-independent living).

RECOMMENDATIONS:


1. Cabinet agrees in principle to provide Council Tax Relief, for the Surrey County Council proportion of Council Tax, for Care Leavers (living in and out of the county) in independent and semi-independent living arrangements from 1 April 2020 from the ages of 18-25 years old (up to their 25th birthday).

2. Specifically for Care Leavers from the ages of 18-25 years old (up to their 25th birthday), living in independent and semi-independent living arrangements outside of Surrey County Council local authority area; that 75% of their Council Tax is paid for Surrey County Council.

3. Cabinet reviews this each political cycle (i.e. every 4 years), including understanding the impact this has made for Care Leavers, with the first review taking place in 2021 following the County Council elections.

Page 233

15

Item 15


Through its Corporate Parenting Responsibilities Surrey County Council (and its partners) has a duty to do the very best for Children in Care and Care Leavers, and provide the necessary care and support so they can achieve their potential. Supporting with the cost of living through Council Tax Relief will help Care Leavers to manage their transition to adulthood and help make their own home affordable, providing stability and a safe place.

DETAILS:

Context about Looked after children and care leavers in Surrey1. Currently in Surrey there are around 980 looked after children and around 600 care

leavers. These are children and young people that have often experienced long term abuse and neglect and on many occasions have had to live away from their birth parents, who themselves are likely to have poorer life outcomes.

2. On average both nationally and in Surrey, only around 17.5% of looked after children get their attainment 8 score (GCSE results), compared with 55% of all pupils in Surrey. Looked after children’s expected progress compared to all of Surrey’s pupils is well below average.

3. Looked after children are also more likely to be exploited and go missing; 25% of the children currently identified at risk of being exploited are looked after.

4. In Surrey 73% of care leavers are in education, employment or training. This is good but compared to a Surrey population with very low unemployment and many who go onto further and higher education, this group is still at a disadvantage compared to their Surrey peers.

5. National research tells us that adverse childhood experiences, of the likes these children and young people have faced, increase the chances of poorer mental and physical health both in childhood and adulthood. It is up to us as Corporate Parents to help change that path.

The proposal6. It is proposed that Surrey County Council pays for the Surrey County Council’s

proportion of council tax for care leavers aged 18-25 year old (up to their 25th birthday) who are living in ‘independent’ or ‘semi-independent’ accommodation.

7. It is proposed that this is for Surrey’s Care Leavers whether they live inside the local authority’s boundaries or in another local authority area.

8. It is proposed that the full amount of the Surrey County Council proportion of council tax is paid between these ages. The Surrey County Council proportion of council tax is around 75% of the total Council Tax bill.

9. For a Care Leaver living outside of the Surrey County Council local authority area, they will be eligible to claim 75% of their council tax bill.

10. This scheme will be eligible to any Care Leaver that is being supported by our Care Leaving Service, where they are in independent or semi-independent living

Page 234

15

arrangements and are responsible to pay council tax. For example if they are a student at university then they are not responsible for Council Tax payments.

11. This proposal will put Surrey County Council in line with many other local authority areas that are proving Council Tax relief for Care Leavers including East Sussex County Council, whose Children’s Services are rated Outstanding by Ofsted. Other areas doing this include Nottinghamshire, Birmingham, Brighton and Hove, Walsall, and Hartlepool.

CONSULTATION:

12. This scheme has been developed in conjunction with: Lead Officers and Councillors in Surrey’s District and Borough Councils (some of

which already provide relief to care leavers) The Children in Care Council, which has representatives of children in care and

care leavers The Senior Leadership Team of the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and

Culture Directorate The Corporate Parenting Operational Group, which is made up of the operational

leads across partners in Surrey with a responsibility for looked after children and care leavers

The Corporate Parenting Board comprises of cross-party Surrey County Councillors, a foster carer representative and a foster carer that also has experience of the care system. This board provides the governance for the outcomes of looked after children and care leavers.


13. The main two risks associated with this scheme are:

Risk Mitigation1. Financial risk of ongoing funding for the scheme: This will cost the County Council more each year as well as potentially changing based on the level that council tax is set and any change in numbers of care leavers.

Through the budget setting process each financial year, which is approved by Cabinet

2. Fair implementation that does not stigmatise care leavers and provides a simple process to ensure care leavers can access the scheme

It is being asked to implement the scheme from 2020/21 allowing the Council to develop a fair, transparent and simple process of implementation that does not stigmatise these young people – including for those living outside of the county and eligible to pay.

3. Financial ‘cliff edge’ at age 25 The service and in particular the work of personal advisors, will continuously work with care leavers to support their transition to adulthood, which includes financial and budgeting skills. This includes being prepared to take on the cost of Council Tax when Care Leavers reach their 25th birthday.

Page 235

15


14. The estimated cost of the proposal for the next 3 years (2020/21 to 22/23) is as follows:

2020/21 - £181,160 2021/22 - £207,150 2022/23 - £228,070

A breakdown of costs for those placed inside and outside of Surrey County Council local authority area in these years, and the assumptions made in preparing the estimated cost, can be found in Annex 1.


15. The Council is facing a very serious financial situation, whereby there are still substantial savings to be delivered to achieve a balanced budget in the current year and a sustainable budget plan for future years. Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture is on a major transformation journey to improve services for children and families. The section 151 officer acknowledges that this initiative is part of the Council’s Corporate Parenting responsibilities.

16. For the care leavers living in Surrey, this will be a reduction in the council tax yield. For those where we are paying 75% of the council tax where they live outside Surrey, this will result in a £0.1m increase to expenditure, this will need to be managed from within existing budgets.


17. The duties for providing care and support for looked after children and care leavers are stipulated in the Children Act 1989 as amended by the Children and Social Work Act 2017.

18. The Children and Social Work Act 2017 specifically outlines that care leavers are entitled to support from the local authority, where needed, up until the age of 25 years old. There is a requirement to publish a Local Offer for care leavers, providing information about services which the Local Authority offers that may assist care leavers in, or preparing for adulthood and independent living. This proposal assists Surrey County Council to fulfil and deliver on its statutory responsibilities.

19. There is no specific legal duty to provide Council Tax relief for care leavers. The legislation outlined above clearly outlines the duty of care and legal responsibilities to support and care for looked after children. This proposal supports the intentions outlined in this legislation.


20. Looked after children and care leavers are some of the most vulnerable residents in our society and can experience some of the worst outcomes as children and moving into adulthood. They are not one of the protected groups outlined in the Equality Act 2010.

21. A full Equalities Impact Assessment was not deemed necessary as this proposal is designed to have a positive impact on a cohort of young adults (care leavers) where

Page 236

15

only age (due to legislation) has been used as a criteria to accessibility, in a positive way.

22. This proposal will impact positively on care leavers as the removal of this payment will improve their ability to manage their finances and thus reduce barriers that exist. Care leavers with protected characteristics will be entitled to this exemption alongside all other care leavers. Care leavers should be prioritised and referenced as a protected or vulnerable group.


23. This proposal has a direct implication for care leavers currently in and moving into independent and semi-independent living arrangements (as outlined above).

24. The Corporate Parenting Principles outlined in the Children and Social Work Act 2017 set out seven principles that local authorities must have regard to when exercising their functions in relation to looked after children and young people, as follows:

to act in the best interests, and promote the physical and mental health and well-being, of those children and young people

to encourage those children and young people to express their views, wishes and feelings

to take into account the views, wishes and feelings of those children and young people

to help those children and young people gain access to, and make the best use of, services provided by the local authority and its relevant partners

to promote high aspirations, and seek to secure the best outcomes, for those children and young people

for those children and young people to be safe, and for stability in their home lives, relationships and education or work; and

to prepare those children and young people for adulthood and independent living.

25. This proposal is actively seeking to promote these principles

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT:

26. If Cabinet approves this proposal the next steps are:a. Work with all Surrey’s District and Borough Councils and the Surrey Police

and Crime Commissioner to to deliver full Council Tax Relief for children leaving care across the whole county (December 2019)

b. Work with the relevant Surrey County Council departments and District and Borough Councils to implement the scheme for 2020/21 (by December 2019)

c. Communicate with children and young people, and key staff and carers that support looked after children and care leavers about this scheme, including placing proposal on the Care Leavers local offer webpages (December 2019)

d. Come back to Cabinet in 2021 (as part of the budget setting process) to review the impact for 2020/21 and agree the scheme for 2021/22. (January 2021)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 237

15

Contact Officer:

Andrew Evans, Policy, Planning and Projects Officer, 01372833992

Consulted:

Lead Officers and Councillors in Surrey’s District and Borough Councils The Children in Care Council The Senior Leadership Team of the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and

Culture Directorate The Corporate Parenting Operational Group The Corporate Parenting Board.

Annexes:

Annex – Council Tax Relief for Surrey Care Leavers in Independent and Semi-Independent Living – SCC Costs


Children Act 1989 Children and Social Work Act 2017 Applying corporate parenting principles to looked-after children and care leavers:

Statutory guidance for local authorities, Department for Education, February 2018

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 238

15

Annex

Council Tax Relief for Surrey Care Leavers in Independent and Semi-Independent Living – SCC Costs

Full relief from 18th birthday until 25th birthday (ages 18-25)

2020/21 2021/22 2022/23

Ages 18-21

(£)

Ages 22-24

(£)

Ages 18-21

(£)

Ages 22-24

(£)

Ages 18-21

(£)

Ages 22-24

(£)

Total Cost Placed within Surrey CC 69,240 15,830 82,800 25,710 94,400 33,630

Total Cost Placed outside Surrey CC 70,090 26,000 56,530 42,110 44,930 55,110

Total Cost for all ages 181,160 207,150 228,070

Assumptions This is based on the SCC proportion of council tax for a band B property in Surrey - £1,130.50 Out of County based on the Surrey CC band B property For independent living a single person 25% discount has been applied and for semi-independent this is based on 4 sharing The number of care leavers increases in line with estimated trajectory The numbers of care leavers placed out of county reduces by 20% a year with more young people being placed in county. It has not been possible to ascertain the district and borough for every child, and so for those where there isn’t a D&B available this has been added to the out of

county total.

Page 239

15


CABINET

DATE: 16 JULY 2019

REPORT OF: MRS SINEAD MOONEY, CABINET MEMBER FOR ADULTS

LEAD OFFICER: SIMON WHITE, INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ADULT SOCIAL CARE

SUBJECT: ADULT SOCIAL CARE ACCOMMODATION WITH CARE AND SUPPORT STRATEGY FOR EXTRA CARE HOUSING FOR OLDER PEOPLE AND INDEPENDENT LIVING SCHEMES FOR ADULTS WITH A LEARNING DISABILITY AND/OR AUTISM

SUMMARY OF ISSUE:

The care and support system in Surrey is under significant strain and is facing long and sustained financial challenges. This is due to the following reasons.

Firstly, Surrey’s population is growing rapidly. By 2030 over 22% of its residents will be aged 65 and over compared to 19% in 2018. In addition the number of adults with a learning disability and/or autism in Surrey is projected to rise in line with the general population. The 2017 Surrey Joint Strategic Needs Assessment estimated an increase of circa 10% over the next 10 years for this population group1.

Secondly, there is a shortage of affordable residential and nursing care home beds that are in line with Surrey County Council’s (SCC) guide price. Currently approximately 40% of placements are made within our guide price. The largest area of expenditure in terms of types of care provision for Adult Social Care (ASC) are specialist home care and residential placements.

Thirdly, there is insufficient specialist accommodation provision for both older people and working age adults with a learning disability and/or autism, and additional capacity is required urgently to support them to remain in their communities. National benchmarking suggests that, for accommodation options for older people, Surrey’s biggest gap in provision is extra care. It also shows that SCC funds a much higher percentage of people with a learning disability and/or autism in residential care than most. Furthermore there are growing numbers of young people with learning disabilities and/or autism who will need appropriate accommodation arranged as they transition from Children’s Services to ASC.

This paper sets out SCC’s strategy to deliver accommodation with care and support by 2030 that will enable people to access the right health and social care at the right time in the right place, with appropriate housing for residents that helps them to remain independent, achieve their potential and ensures nobody is left behind.

1 https://www.surreyi.gov.uk/jsna/

Page 241

16

Item 16

https://www.surreyi.gov.uk/jsna/

RECOMMENDATIONS:


1. Confirms its commitment to the Adult Social Care Accommodation with Care and Support Strategy as approved by Cabinet on 30 October 2018.

2. Endorses its ambition to deliver:

a. sufficient units of affordable extra care housing to reduce SCC’s reliance on traditional residential and nursing care over the next ten years; and

b. sufficient additional units of independent living to support people with a learning disability and/or autism over the next five years.

3. Agrees that the existing pipeline schemes that have been identified as suitable for extra care housing:

a. are assessed against the criteria and the process set out in the Asset and Place Strategy; and

b. have full business cases developed and submitted to Cabinet for consideration and (if appropriate) approval at its meeting in October 2019

4. Endorses the use of available delegated powers to acquire individual units in existing or new developments, and for larger acquisitions to be brought forward to Cabinet for approval.

5. Agrees that the overall programme should be included in the budget report and capital programme to be brought forward in January 2020.

6. Agrees that all other existing vacant sites are reviewed in accordance with the Asset and Place Strategy for their potential development as extra care or independent living accommodation, and that suitable sites are brought forward to Cabinet for approval once the business case is developed.

7. Agrees to resource a dedicated team within Adult Social Care to deliver the project in line with the Accommodation with Care and Support Strategy.


The above recommendations have been made to ensure we deliver our Accommodation with Care and Support Strategy and our Community Vision for Surrey 2030.

DETAILS:

A Community Vision for Surrey in 2030

8. In 2018 SCC embarked on a large scale engagement activity with residents, staff, members, partners and businesses to shape our vision for Surrey in 2030. Together we agreed that;

‘By 2030 we want Surrey to be a uniquely special place where everyone has a great start to life, people live and healthy and fulfilling lives, are enabled to

Page 242

16

achieve their full potential and contribute to their community, and no one is left behind.’ 2

9. It is essential that the care and support provided by ASC enables us to deliver our Community Vision for 2030 and promotes the independence of the individual in all scenarios. Through our Accommodation with Care and Support Strategy we will actively work to enable people to access the right health and social care at the right time in the right place through the delivery of the most suitable accommodation with care and support for Surrey residents.

Our new delivery model for accommodation with care and support

10. Across ASC we are taking a ‘strengths based’ approach to the delivery of care and support. This means we will work with residents focussing on their wellbeing, setting goals and outcomes. We will have high expectations that the people we work with will reach the highest level of independence that is possible for them.

11. Due to a lack of alternative options, SCC currently relies too heavily on placing older people and individuals with learning disabilities and/or autism in a residential setting. This institutional approach limits our ability to support individuals to increase their independence, enable them to live healthy and fulfilling lives, and achieve their full potential in the community. This is especially true for a significant number of people who must be placed outside of Surrey due to the lack of suitable alternatives.

12. There are 1,075 (at May 2019) individuals with a learning disability and/or autism in residential care and 2,896 older people that are placed in SCC funded residential and nursing setting. The average cost of placing an individual with a learning disability and/or autism in a residential setting is £77,000 per annum and for an older person it is £38,000. Furthermore SCC has one of the highest spends per capita for learning disabilities in the country. These figures are presented in Annex 1. For avoidance of doubt this does not include individuals with physical and sensory disabilities or a long term mental illness.

13. SCC’s ambition is to commission accommodation with care and support for both adults with a learning disability and/or autism and older people that is focused on enabling independence and maximising individual choice and control. There are a variety of sustainable accommodation with care and support models in existence and SCC intends to commission independent living and extra care. These are defined in Annex 2.

Strategic Ambition

Extra Care

14. The Housing Learning and Improvement Network (HLIN) has set out a consistent methodology for calculating extra care future demand. This states that demand for

2 https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/finance-and-performance/our-performance/our-organisation-strategy/community-vision-for-surrey-in-2030

Page 243

16

https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/finance-and-performance/our-performance/our-organisation-strategy/community-vision-for-surrey-in-2030


extra care is likely to be required at 25 units per 1,000 population aged 75 plus, and that the rental element of this demand is based on local market factors.3

15. Based on Surrey’s population metrics, it has been calculated that extra care rental provision will need to expand by an additional 725 units across the county so that, by 2028, over 1,150 units will be available. This information is presented in Annex 3.

Independent Living

16. SCC currently funds 1,075 people with a learning disability and/or autism in residential care and spends £84m per year. Benchmarking undertaken shows that SCC is a very significant outlier both in terms of the total amount spent on supporting people with learning disabilities and/or autism and the proportion spent on supporting people in residential care. Our strategic ambition is to reduce the number of people with a learning disability and/or autism in residential care by 40-50% over the next 5 years by expanding the development of new independent living provision. As set out in the financial implications section below, this strategy will also deliver significant financial benefits to SCC. If this strategy is not pursued then SCC’s expenditure on learning disability residential care provision will continue to grow at an unsustainable rate, severely limiting the ability to meet future demand without additional resources.

17. ASC has undertaken a review of the current cohort of people with a learning disability and/or autism in residential care and has identified circa 550 people who are likely to be suitable to move to alternative independent living provision. SCC spends £49m on their care and support. It is estimated that around 75% of these people could move to independent living. Therefore it is estimated that a minimum of circa 410 independent living places will be required. Everyone currently in residential care will be offered the opportunity and encouraged where appropriate to move into independent living and so more additional units may be required. The identified cohort will be the main focus of the programme.

18. In addition to the people already funded by SCC, it is estimated that around 90 new people per year with a learning disability and/or autism will require accommodation funded by SCC. The vast majority of these people will be individuals who transition from services funded by Children’s, Families, Learning and Culture. The aim will be to support all of these individuals to live in independent living settings unless very exceptional circumstances apply. We will work with district and borough councils to help enshrine these ambitions in their local plans, sharing data as necessary and ensuring understanding and alignment with their housing and planning policies.

19. In total, taking into account independent living places in Surrey that are currently empty but are suitable to be used, it is estimated that over the next 5 years a substantial number of new independent living units will need to be made available. This will deliver the additional independent living placements for both the 40-50% shift of people already living in residential care and for new people to ASC who require specialist accommodation.

3 www.housinglin.org.uk/_assets/Resources/Housing/Housing_advice/Extra_Care_Housing_-_What_is_it_2015.pdf

Page 244

16

http://www.housinglin.org.uk/_assets/Resources/Housing/Housing_advice/Extra_Care_Housing_-_What_is_it_2015.pdf


Soft market engagement insight for independent living

20. In June 2019 representatives from ASC Commissioning and Learning Disabilities Team came together with colleagues from property and finance, and the district and borough councils, to meet with a small group of independent living providers and developers. The purpose of the meeting was to establish an ongoing dialogue and test out ideas about how to embed a new approach to independent living in the Surrey marketplace.

21. As discussed above over the next 5 years SCC wants to commission a substantial number of additional independent living units for people with a learning disability, and this needs to be delivered at pace, through a mix of new and adapted properties. A number of questions were presented for discussion and debate. These covered the themes of partnership working and co-development; identifying challenges, risks and solutions; addressing the practicalities of financial viability, planning requirements, the opportunities to de-register existing residential services; and what help might be most useful from SCC. In response to these potential barriers SCC may be required to provide assurances around access to borrowing and mitigating risks on voids.

Links to the Asset and Place Strategy

22. At the Cabinet meeting of 30 April 2019 a new Asset and Place Strategy up to 2030 was adopted. This strategy establishes principles to embed a corporate approach to property rationalisation, consolidation, investment and management.

23. Part of the means to deliver this will be a review of all assets, operational and non-operational to identify its appropriate future use. The first part of this review process is to identify whether a future service need is required for these assets. Within SCC’s asset portfolio there are many buildings and areas of land that may be suitable for extra care or independent living. Each of those should be assessed against the criteria set out in Annex 4.

Development principles and site specifications

24. The delivery of extra care schemes will adhere to the following fundamental principles:

Care provision and housing management functions will be separated. Only sites that are assessed as suitable for extra care will be progressed. The financial benefits attributable to SCC must clearly outweigh the costs.

These costs include any subsidy or grant offered by SCC and in the case of developments on SCC owned sites, the opportunity cost of not using the land for alternative purposes or otherwise disposing of the land.

25. Market insight work that was undertaken in May 2019 identified a range of delivery models for extra care housing, from SCC controlled delivery to schemes that are fully commissioned to the housing development market. The key findings of this report are appended in Annex 5.

26. A mixed delivery model approach is recommended which ensures that SCC are not reliant on a single delivery vehicle. This will afford SCC the ability to be flexible and

Page 245

16

responsive to wider market changes. The proposed delivery models can be found in Annex 6.

27. An alternative approach to securing extra care provision at pace would be to develop relationships with the private development market. This may involve SCC purchasing existing vacant units or to pre-purchase units in planned developments. There is already a number of ‘private extra care’ developments in Surrey operating through a variety of care models but which offer extra care solely on a leasehold basis and a list of these can be found in Annex 7. Once again this approach will require full business cases and inclusion in SCC’s capital programme. The rents and service charges for any units purchased in such developments would also have to meet the Local Housing Allowance criteria to qualify for housing benefit in the relevant borough or district to ensure they are affordable to SCC and the wider public purse.

Our default approach to the development of specialist accommodation

28. SCC’s primary focus is on developing the required number of affordable units as quickly as possible and avoiding capital investment unless this is the only way to enable developments to proceed. However SCC recognises that some sort of investment or grant may be required. A separate business case will be compiled for each specialist accommodation site applying the site criteria set out in Annex 4 to ensure there is the right long term demand for a site in that location and to ensure the costs of developing the site stack up against the projected financial savings to SCC.

29. For extra care SCC will commission the development of sites to secure nomination rights for a sufficient number of affordable units to ensure the financial benefits outweigh the development costs to SCC.

30. For independent living SCC will work closely with care providers through its market engagement and procurement processes to shape the development of accommodation at a suitable location and of an appropriate nature to meet people’s needs. This will include ensuring that new care settings are filled quickly to limit any risk exposure for developers. SCC will also support providers in accessing grant funding where this is available.

31. SCC will develop a procurement framework that facilitates the necessary increase in independent living capacity. This framework will include sharing a cohort of possible individuals that would be suitable for independent living with our providers and developers. Therefore providing the reassurance to the market that there is sufficient demand to be placed in the additional independent living placements.

32. To ensure the accommodation is developed at the pace SCC requires to generate the necessary savings, some form of pump priming of construction costs may be required by SCC for certain independent living schemes. If any investment of this nature is proposed then the business case will need to clearly demonstrate that SCC’s outlay would be paid back in a suitable timeframe incorporating the care savings expected to be delivered an ongoing basis.

Page 246

16

Partnership working district and borough councils to deliver at scale and pace

33. As the Accommodation with Care and Support Strategy is being implemented, it is proposed that SCC works closely with district and borough planning and housing departments through the Planning Working Group and other engagement channels. This is to:

Ensure a consistent approach to planning policies and proposed developments across the county.

Agree consistent definitions for extra care and independent living accommodation.

Explore the potential for affordable housing contributions to pay for accommodation with care through Section106 agreements and Community Infrastructure Levy.

Where necessary ensure identified sites are allocated in Local Plans and Infrastructure Delivery Plans as they are approved.

Provide consistent information and guidance to developers who may wish to develop accommodation with care schemes, whether in partnership with public authorities or privately.

Demonstrate how the development of a range of accommodation with care options can assist in managing the supply of housing.

Next steps and the decision making process for future specialist housing schemes

34. Three potential pipeline schemes have been identified as suitable for extra care housing will be assessed against the criteria and the process set out in the Asset and Place Strategy and where applicable full business cases will be developed for approval. Soft market testing will now commence with a view to determine the appropriate delivery model for each of the sites. Once completed the business cases will be submitted to Cabinet for consideration and (if appropriate) approval at its meeting in October 2019

35. SCC will explore the opportunity to develop relationships with the private development market. This may involve SCC purchasing existing vacant units or to pre-purchase units in planned developments. This approach will require full business cases and inclusion in SCC’s capital programme. The rents and service charges for any units purchased in such developments would also have to meet the Local Housing Allowance criteria to qualify for housing benefit in the relevant borough or district to ensure they are affordable to SCC and the wider public purse.

36. The financial modelling undertaken thus far has estimated the likely scale of potential savings through the development of a substantial number of additional units of independent living for people with a learning disability and or autism. Further work will now be taken forwards to refine the expected care costs for people moving into the new independent living accommodation, in the short and longer term, and therefore the savings compared to traditional residential care. This more detailed business case will also assesses the viability of any proposed investment by SCC in the context of the updated and profiled care savings.

37. We will now engage further with local providers to inform the development of the independent living procurement framework.

Page 247

16

38. SCC will now begin a process of assessing all potential SCC sites against the site and commercial criteria for independent living and extra care accommodation.

39. Once a potential site has been identified for development a full business case will need to be prepared, which determines the appropriate route to market. This will be approved by the Executive Director for Adult Social Care and the Executive Director for Resources in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Adults and the Cabinet Member for Property. If a procurement process is required it will be noted on the annual procurement forward plan for Cabinet to agree.

40. The ASC Accommodation with Care and Support Strategy is a complex and ambitious programme and dedicated resources will be required to deliver this ambition. It may be possible to transfer some existing resources into this programme but it is anticipated there will be a request to draw down funding from SCC’s overall transformation programme.

CONSULTATION:

41. Discussions have taken place at the local joint commissioning groups held in each clinical commissioning group area (CCG) area in Surrey, looking at the overall strategic intentions and detailed demographic projections of future need. All the CCGs in Surrey, as well as the districts and boroughs consulted to date, have indicated their support for the strategy and have welcomed the opportunity to be involved from an early stage. Health colleagues recognise the whole system benefits of this approach and see this strategy as a key part of health and social care integration. A number of district and boroughs have also highlighted accommodation with care and support as a key element within their strategies in terms of future housing needs and planning policy and are therefore keen to work with SCC on developing this approach.

42. Residents in extra care housing have been consulted twice in recent years; once in 2012 prior to two new schemes opening and again in 2014 following the opening of the two new schemes. Both consultations revealed high resident satisfaction with both the accommodation and service offer. Key themes emerged focusing on personal sense of security, safety, wellbeing, reduction in loneliness and community participation. People’s reasons for choosing extra care housing in 2014 reflected those identified in the previous consultation in 2012. Residents also told us about their need for reassurance, peace of mind, feeling less isolated and making new friends, as well as being nearer to family.

43. For independent living, there has been a number of meetings with Surrey Care Association learning disability providers and the Learning Disabilities Partnership Board to advise them on our ambitions.

44. Further consultation will be planned as necessary, in line with best practice and as progress is made in delivering the strategy.


45. In the current financial climate, there are significant challenges for both the public and private sector and a resulting risk that there is not the level of investment/development funding needed to adequately increase our provision of accommodation with care and support. The next phase of the programme will

Page 248

16

validate the viability of the various schemes, ensuring any potential solutions for new delivery models are fully costed and evidence based.

46. There are also risks in being able to identify sufficient sites within Surrey of a suitable size with close proximity to public transport, particularly when looking at extra care housing schemes which require more space than independent living settings. The programme will continue to be developed, working closely with colleagues in property services and also the districts and boroughs, to ensure that effective local solutions are found.

47. There is a potential risk that we have overestimated demand and future models of care may change. We will mitigate this through continuous review.


Extra Care

48. In addition to the personal wellbeing and community benefits of enabling people to live in their own homes well into their old age, the expansion of extra care settings in Surrey will also deliver financial savings to SCC and the broader health and social care system.

49. Local and national modelling clearly shows that extra care offers better value than alternative forms of care. There are two main reasons for this.

50. Firstly, the design and nature of extra care settings means that in the vast majority of cases people should be able to live there throughout their elderly life and will not need to go into residential and nursing care homes when their care needs increase. It is estimated that the circa 725 affordable units that SCC plans to develop and have nomination rights for would avoid the need to commission between 210-440 residential care beds and 23 nursing beds per year depending on the needs mix in SCC’s commissioned extra care units. As extra care is more affordable than residential and nursing care this will reduce the amount that SCC spends in meeting their care and support needs.

51. Secondly, the cost of providing care in people’s own homes is typically cheaper in extra care settings compared to normal residences, due to a combination of the avoidance of travel costs for care providers, economies of scale that allow improved rota management by care providers and the average number of hours of care typically being lower for people in extra care settings.

52. On the basis of the above it is expected that on average each additional affordable extra care unit will save SCC between £4,500-9,200 per year compared to alternative forms of care, working on the basis of 90% average occupancy of the units. The actual savings will depend on the needs mix of people who move into extra care, but it is SCC’s intention to reserve the affordable extra care units for people with high or very high levels of need, in which case the care savings would be at the higher end of the modelled range. This represents the reduction in net care expenditure, taking into account that assessed charging income will on average be lower in extra care than alternative forms of care. Therefore once the 725 planned affordable units are all fully operational then the total financial benefits to SCC are expected to be £3-6m per year.

Page 249

16

53. Beyond the direct savings to SCC it is also important to recognise the wider financial benefits to the health and social care system. Evidence indicates that well managed extra care sites will typically result in fewer people requiring admission to hospital which saves both in immediate healthcare costs and higher levels of social care expenditure typically required following hospital discharge.

Independent Living

54. As set out in the strategic ambition section above, SCC currently funds 1,075 people with a learning disability and/or autism costing £83m per year. The plan to reduce this number by 40-50% is anticipated to deliver savings to SCC in two main ways.

55. Firstly, SCC would no longer pay for the hotel and accommodation cost for individuals placed in independent living. Based on detailed cost information gathered as part of a cost of care exercise undertaken, it is estimated that hotel and accommodation costs account for on average 21% of the total cost of the current cohort.

56. When the average reduction is assessed charging income anticipated to arise from the shift from residential care to independent living is factored in, the average cost reduction relating to ceasing to pay for hotel and accommodation costs alone is estimated to be 18% of the net expenditure of each residential care placement currently funded. Savings of £6.7m per year are anticipated to be achieved once all of the transfers to independent living have taken place in line with our expectations in paragraph 12. This relates to the hotel and accommodation costs only and does not factor in any potential reduction in care costs.

57. Secondly, it is anticipated that the cost of providing care and support beyond the hotel and accommodation cost will over time be lower in independent living compared to residential care. Supporting people into employment will be a key part of raising aspirations behind this change of direction. SCC will continue to work closely with Surrey Choices in continuing to expand employment and vocational support services for people with a learning disability and/or autism.

58. It is too early to robustly predict the scale of savings that may be achievable in relation to care costs between residential care vs independent living. However, if care costs were reduced by 10% in independent living compared to residential care then further savings of £2.8m could be achieved for the identified cohort on top of the accommodation cost saving. The total cost reduction saving to SCC would therefore be £9.5m per year.

59. It is important to remember that reduction of care and support costs for people with a learning disability and/or autism represents a lifetime saving as people with this level of need will typically receive funded care and support over their entire adult life. The cumulative cash saving of funding care for the cohort of individuals that move from residential care to independent living could be more than £210m based on the average age of and average life expectancy for this client group. Further cost avoidance would be achieved on top of this by ensuring new people requiring support funded by SCC are placed in independent living as opposed to residential care. It is clearly evident therefore that the development of independent living has the potential

Page 250

16

to deliver huge financial benefits for SCC in addition to leading to better outcomes for people.

Summary financial and value for money implications

60. The financial analysis set out above presents the estimated scale of potential care savings attributable to SCC. At this stage this is estimated to be in the region of £10-16m per year once all of the 725 affordable extra care units and a substantial number of independent living units are developed and operational.

61. The scale of these savings will be defined more precisely as the work to confirm delivery models and routes to market is taken forwards. This will include the anticipated profile of savings, which will enable savings to be included in the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy.

62. Clearly achieving these care savings will be very important to ensuring the longer sustainability of ASC in Surrey. At the same time, it will be equally important to clearly identify the net financial benefit to SCC after factoring in the cost of any proposed investment that is necessary to enable developments to proceed and the opportunity cost of using SCC land for developments. The care savings must exceed any proposed investment as well as the opportunity cost of using SCC’s land for ASC developments. SCC will only take forwards development where this is the case.

63. It will be important to track the actual care savings achieved as development of extra care and independent living units progresses and to continue to update the business case. If for any reason care savings proved to be lower than estimated in the relevant business case to the point that SCC’s costs were not being covered by the savings, then action would need to be taken to amend the approach to ensure savings are achieved at satisfactory levels in the future. If that was not possible then the programme would need to be brought to a halt.


64. SCC faces a very serious financial situation whereby there are still substantial savings to be delivered in the current financial year and identified for future years to achieve a sustainable budget.

65. The Section 151 Officer recognises the importance of delivering the shift in the care model towards extra care for older people and independent living for people with a learning disability and/or autism to secure the longer term financial sustainability of ASC provision in Surrey. Given previous attempts to achieve this shift have stalled and/or not delivered significant financial benefits, it is essential this refreshed strategy is taken forwards at pace and implemented effectively to ensure that the expected financial benefits are realised.

66. Given the severity of SCC’s current financial position it is sensible that SCC’s exposure to potential financial risks is limited. The Section 151 Officer therefore supports the proposal to commission services wherever possible in such a way that the construction costs of accommodation are funded by external parties who will recoup these costs through operating the sites in the medium to long term.

Page 251

16

67. Equally the Section 151 Officer recognises that SCC may be required to provide some form of investment to help deliver developments at the pace that is desired. If it is believed that SCC should invest its own capital resources in order to construct new accommodation, then a robust business case must be taken to SCC’s Capital Programme Panel for consideration. If deemed appropriate this investment would then be recommended to Cabinet or Cabinet’s agreed delegated authority for approval.


68. In 2017 SCC did a procurement exercise for the provision of extra care accommodation using SCC land at a peppercorn rent. That concept was similar to what is being proposed in this Cabinet paper. No legal challenges were made to the concept. This indicates that the concept has already been tested. As such Legal can say that there is no legal obstacle to giving the go ahead for a new procurement.

69. Any new procurement SCC does would need to be compliant with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. There is also a duty on SCC to secure best value. That duty is set out in the Local Government Act 1999 and requires SCC to secure continuous improvement in the way in which functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. The proposal to use unused land for the provision of extra care and independent living accommodation seems to be an example of how best value might be secured.

70. A suggestion has been made that SCC could use funds to buy accommodation in privately owned buildings. The Public Contracts Regulations 2015 does not prevent this being done. Regulation 10 (1) states that Part 2 of the Regulations (Rules Implementing the Public Contracts Directive) do not apply to public service contracts (a) for the acquisition or rental, by whatever financial means, of land, existing buildings or other immovable property, or which concern interests in or rights over any of them. What this means is that SCC may buy properties in existing buildings or take a lease.


71. An initial Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) is included as Annex 8, examining areas of consideration for any implementation of the Accommodation with Care and Support Strategy. Identified impacts at this stage centre on improved resident experience and outcomes, more people remaining independent within their own homes for longer and further consideration needed of people's natural communities, recognising that communities do not necessarily fit with statutory boundaries. A full EIA evaluating the impacts of the local implementation plans will be brought back to Cabinet for further discussion as individual business cases develop.

SAFEGUARDING RESPONSIBILITIES FOR VULNERABLE CHILDREN AND ADUTLT IMPLICATIONS

72. Improving the accommodation options available for people with care and support needs could have a positive impact in terms of safeguarding, ensuring that vulnerable adults can live within safe, secure environments with appropriate care and support services designed around them.

Page 252

16


Energy

73. For extra care, schemes will be required to achieve an Energy Performance Certificate of Grade B, or above, for each development, when completed. This, combined with stringent building regulations, will ensure that the buildings are sustainable, with low energy consumption and minimal ongoing impact on the environment.

Transport

74. Due to care provision within the extra care facilities, the number of trips by individuals to receive care by conventional means and trips to their own homes by nursing and auxiliary care staff, will be substantially reduced, thus reducing energy consumption, emissions and numbers of vehicles on the road.

Property

75. The sites are to be landscaped and planted with trees, to increase biodiversity and support increased levels of flora and fauna in the vicinities.

Waste

76. Waste is to be separated at source, and stored externally in appropriate storage areas away from the buildings to mitigate against any risk of spread of fire, ingress of vermin etc. Separated waste will be collected separately, and recycled where possible.

Water and Drainage

77. Facilities will include water conservation measures such as a water meter on the incoming main to enable monitoring for any leakages, spray heads / use of percussion taps to ensure water use is minimised and use of dual flush low volume toilets. Surface water drainage will utilise attenuation tanks to ensure water is stored on sites and released at set volumes, in the event of prolonged rainfall, to guard against flooding in the area. In addition porous paving / tarmac will be used to enable water to percolate through to the soil and thus enable tree roots to access moisture.

PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS

78. Accommodation with care and support can positively impact on public health outcomes, including reductions in social isolation and/or loneliness; improved nutrition and hydration; increased wellbeing for residents participating in activities, such as exercise classes, and minimising the ill effects of fuel poverty and/or seasonal health risks.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT:

Please refer to paragraphs 33 to 39.

Page 253

16

Contact Officer:

Simon Montgomery, Project Manager, 02082132745

Annexes:

Annex 1 Learning Disabilities Residential Nursing Expenditure Per Head Of +18 Population – With ComparatorsAnnex 2 Specialist Accommodation DefinitionsAnnex 3 Existing Extra Care Provision And Required Additional UnitsAnnex 4 Site Criteria For Specialist Accommodation SitesAnnex 5 Extra Care Market Insight ReportAnnex 6 Recommended Delivery Models And AssumptionsAnnex 7 Private Accommodation With Care Settings – As At June 2019Annex 8 Accommodation With Care And Support Strategy Equality Impact Assessment


Surrey Joint Strategic Needs Analysis https://www.surreyi.gov.uk/jsna/

Community Vision for Surrey in 2030 https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/finance-and-performance/our-performance/our-organisation-strategy/community-vision-for-surrey-in-2030

Extra Care Housing – What is it? www.housinglin.org.uk/_assets/Resources/Housing/Housing_advice/Extra_Care_Housing_-_What_is_it_2015.pdf

Page 254

16

https://www.surreyi.gov.uk/jsna/






ANNEX 1 LEARNING DISABILITIES RESIDENTIAL NURSING EXPENDITURE PER HEAD OF +18 POPULATION – WITH COMPARATORS

Page 255

16

ANNEX 2 SPECIALIST ACCOMMODATION DEFINITIONS

Independent Living

1. An independent living arrangement is one that maximises independence and self-determination; where an individual can make choices and decisions without excessive influence or interference by others; and where an individual can access the practical assistance and support that they need to participate in society and live an ordinary life. This assistance can include adaptations to the living space, personal care, and social support that promotes the ability to live independently. Such an arrangement can be delivered in self-contained owner-occupied or rented accommodation.

2. Other housing options exist for people who may require a greater level of support or who prefer a group living environment, but want to exercise a greater degree of choice and control over their daily lives than would be possible in a care home setting. A supported living arrangement is where an individual is provided with some form of accommodation and organised support by a provider. This can include support with developing daily living skills, and can sometimes include personal care. Shared supported housing (in a traditional domestic setting) is the most common model but supported living can also be delivered in small purpose built blocks of self-contained flats. These models often offer a mix of shared and personalised support with the individual having greater choice and control over the personalised element.

Extra Care Housing

3. Our definition for extra care housing is the nationally accepted definition from the Housing Learning and Improvement Network (HLIN).

4. ‘Extra care housing is housing with care primarily for older people where occupants have specific tenure rights to occupy self-contained dwellings and where they have agreements that cover the provision of care, support, domestic, social, community or other services. Unlike people living in residential care homes, extra care residents are not obliged as a rule to obtain their care services from a specific provider, though other services (such as some domestic services, costs for communal areas including a catering kitchen, and in some cases some meals) might be built into the charges residents pay1.

5. The common and fundamental feature of all these types of accommodation with care and support is that there is a clear and distinct separation between the housing provision and the care provision - if it were otherwise such schemes would be liable to register as care homes. Whilst on site services may be shared a key component is that occupants have security of tenure and housing rights and cannot be required to move, unless in breach of the occupancy agreement.

1https://www.housinglin.org.uk/_assets/Resources/Housing/Housing_advice/Extra_Care_Housing_What_is_it.pdf

Page 257

16

https://www.housinglin.org.uk/_assets/Resources/Housing/Housing_advice/Extra_Care_Housing_What_is_it.pdf

https://www.housinglin.org.uk/_assets/Resources/Housing/Housing_advice/Extra_Care_Housing_What_is_it.pdf

ANNEX 3 - EXISTING EXTRA CARE PROVISION AND REQUIRED ADDITIONAL UNITS

District and borough council Number of existing

affordable extra care units

Providers of affordable extra care Number of additional extra care units to fill

gap (for projected 2028 population)

Elmbridge 51 Whitely Homes 60

Epsom and Ewell 0 n/a 50

Guildford 40 Surrey County Council 75

Mole Valley 0 n/a 88

Reigate and Banstead 60 Housing & Care 21 99

Runnymede 72 Surrey County Council 32

Spelthorne 124 Transform, A2 Dominion Housing Group 21

Surrey Heath 0 na 77

Tandridge 0 na 80

Waverley 30 Surrey County Council 111

Woking 58 Woking Borough Council, Kettlewell

Housing Ltd

32

Total 435 na 724

Page 259

16

ANNEX 4 - SITE CRITERIA FOR SPECIALIST ACCOMMODATION SITES

Scheme Independent Living Extra Care

ScaleDomestic housing a maximum of 6-8

units per scheme

1 acre (minimum 45 units)

Affordable unitsMust generate sufficient care savings to outweigh the opportunity cost of the land

Rents and service charges must fall within Local Housing Allowance limits

Assets

Cost neutral in respect of the asset.

Potential care savings must be greater than the opportunity cost.

If we provide financing of any kind (through the Joint Venture or subsidising individual projects) we must be in the position

whereby the total care savings outweigh the level of subsidy or grant value as well as the opportunity cost of the land.

Alternatively, the agreement to fund must include a repayment plan.

Site topography

Appropriate access to local amenities and community facilities (e.g. shops, banks, cafes, libraries, leisure centres, public

transport)

Access to employment and training

Sustainability

Sufficient workforce in the vicinity to

resource the service delivery.

Local demand for extra care

Sufficient workforce in the vicinity to resource the service delivery.

Location and performance of existing schemes, benchmarking rental costs

Affluence and demographics, which impact proportion of private sale/private market

units achievable (therefore how attractive this is to the private market who will use their

own feasibility models)

Planning

NA New large scale developments are

not the preferred model.

In line with planning policy with the local

district and boroughs

Neighbours and adjoining uses.

Cannot be in green belt unless the development is being promoted in the local plan.

Appropriate planning designation – in principle we have the ability to develop extra

care on that site.

In line with planning policy at the local district and boroughs.

Neighbours and adjoining uses.

Page 261

16

ANNEX 5 EXTRA CARE MARKET INSIGHT REPORT – KEY FINDINGSA detailed market insight report was produced in May 2019 that outlined national drivers and trends for delivering extra care schemes. It ratified our working understanding that:

• Although becoming increasingly popular there are only a limited number of extra care housing schemes in most areas. Under-supply of high quality, affordable or desirable accommodation in the right locations

• Most developments are now mixed-tenure: a combination of leasehold apartments, which residents can buy to give them long-term security, and apartments for rent

• Urgent need to better provide a range of housing options to meet ageing population needs

Along with a number of case studies and a review of SCC spend data, the report gave detailed information on the following:

Care Market

• The combined care market value for care for older people, including local authority funded, voluntary and private expenditure, is estimated to be worth £22.2 billion, of which £13.4 billion is attributable to residential care and £8.8 billion to non-residential care

• Approximately 30% of people use some form of local authority funded social care in the last year of life

• As the single largest purchaser of home care, local authorities have significant influence on markets

Delivery Models and Other Local Authorities

The bulk of the report outlined a number of delivery model options and case studies from a number of other local authorities, including:

• Delivery through a council-owned Limited Liability Partnership (Eastbourne and Lewes)

• Self-delivery and development (Bournemouth Borough Councils)

• Shared Income model (Barnet Borough Council)

• Corporate Joint Ventures (Brighton Council / Hyde Group Limited Liability Partnership)

• Transfer of land to a provider at nil value (Norwich City Council)

• Capital and Revenue Investment (Essex County Council)

• Fully commissioned (Cornwall Council, Leeds Council)

A typical trend is that local district and borough with housing responsibilities have greater control of the housing element through their chosen delivery models, whereas county councils tend to commission the delivery of extra care schemes.

Nominations Arrangements

Page 263

16

“Nomination arrangements” refer to the eligibility criteria, processes and formal agreements that control the nomination of service users to extra care housing schemes. The report emphasised the importance of nominations agreements, particularly when it is tied into land disposal. Due consideration must be made to age and care eligibility profiles, the level of control held by the local authority and implications of a delay to fill a vacancy. Nomination arrangements are one small part of the framework of agreements that define the relationships between the parties involved in an extra care housing scheme

Main Providers

Providers fit into a number of broad categories:

o Housing Associations are not-for-profit organisations providing rented social housing.

o Voluntary sector and charitable organisations which provide extra care housing:

o Local council housing department to access Local councils’ extra care housing. Councils normally have a set eligibility criteria for extra care housing places and it is also likely that an assessment from the social services would be required.

o Private sector extra care housing schemes are operated by private companies for profit. If care is required then it could be provided either by a company contracted, by the housing provider or through the local council’s social services department

A copy of the report is available upon request

Page 264

16

ANNEX 6 RECOMMENDED DELIVERY MODELS AND ASSUMPTIONSIn 2018 a failed procurement for Extra Care prompted officers to undertake greater market insight to reconsider Surrey County Council’s (SCC) preferred delivery model. Reflections on the previous procurement process have teased out a number of assumptions that officers will work towards in Extra Care Delivery:

Assumption Rationale Delivery Model DiscountedThere must be a separation of the care provision and housing management functions

This separation of function is important to ensure that a scheme does not fall foul of regulation

A DBFO model that includes the care provision as part of the contract award

SCC does not wish to assume the Facilities Management, Housing Management or Landlord responsibilities for the extra care schemes

SCC is not sufficiently skilled or geared to do so, and the role may conflict with our responsibilities as the commissioner of care delivery

This has ruled out a SCC controlled delivery model whereby SCC operates the schemes themselves

SCC is not planning to pursue opportunities to partner with districts and borough councils in the delivery of the schemes or to support the housing objectives

For affordable units SCC must have full control of Nomination Rights which would be weakened by a collaborative approach with district and borough councils

SCC put in the land, district and borough councils put in the funding in exchange for savings on the social care rent.

SCC will not pursue opportunities to privately sell extra care units

SCC does not possess the in-house skills or expertise to operate in the private sale housing market.

This has ruled out a SCC Control Delivery model whereby SCC fund, build and retain some of the sites and directly sell others on the private market, thereby funding the build

SCC’s financial position must be safeguarded in respect to Extra Care development and any financing or funding must be recouped by either direct repayment or savings achieved on the costs of care provision

SCC’s current financial position renders this untenable.

This has ruled out SCC grant funding significant capital into developing schemes without a strong return on investment business case.

Include the option to directly purchase private extra care units

Could help speed up the delivery of the required affordable units, but the business case must stack up

It is envisaged that whichever model is chosen, a developer and/or housing provider must have both the capital investment viability in terms of balancing build costs with rental income and/or sale values. If the scheme is wholly or partly affordable housing, they must also have operational viability associated with providing the required housing support services.

The care delivery partner must have operational viability associated with providing the care and support packages required by residents of the scheme. Procurement processes must be structured on a site-by-site and case-by-case basis to determine the best route to identifying suitable partners.

Page 265

16

RECOMMENDED DELIVERY MODELS Many Local Authorities are engaging in housing delivery to meet local need and demand. It allows them to respond to their own problems in ways that work within the culture and operating style of their own organizations.

SCC are seeking to use their land as a means to leverage development of Extra Care schemes in the county. If the land is ‘gifted’ the care savings must outweigh the opportunity cost of the land.

To achieve this, many councils do not tend to rely solely on one model. The best approaches change over time and are affected by multiple factors, including, the wider economy, public sector funding and the availability of capital grants.

A mixed model approach is recommended which includes permeations of the below broad approaches

Developer Design Build Finance Operate (DBFO)o Fully commissionedo Award care contract separatelyo Encourage a mixed tenure schemeso Could include some grant subsidy from SCC, but must have repayment

conditions or cost avoidance benefitso Asset may be offered at peppercorn or with ground rent attached

Purchase existing or planned private extra care units Developer Design Build and (Operate) (DBO)

o SCC funds, return on investment through ground rent, repayment or gain sharing

o Award care contract separatelyo Could award housing management / operation aspect in the same process or

build with a construction partner and tender the lease/housing management aspect separately

Places for People Joint Venture (see below)

Land asset/sale in return for SCC nominations rights

Places for People Financial Modelling

SCC has an existing delivery route to develop accommodation on Surrey owned sites.

SCC has established the Joint Venture South Ridge LLP with its partner PfP. While this partnership is still in its early stages PfP, who are a well-resourced, diverse and broad housing association group, have significant experience in the provision of all types of accommodation with support and care.

The Group includes supported living specialist company, Living+, retirement living company Brio Retirement Living and retirement rentals company, Girlings.

During the procurement process for the Joint Venture Partner PfP have demonstrated their capability against a wide range of activities which could include the provision of extra care accommodation, and the tender response from them made explicit reference to how they could provide specialist accommodation.

Page 266

16

The important thing to note about this model is that PfP believe that to deliver these units a subsidy is required from the local authority in terms of land or financial resources as well as grant from Homes England. This SCC subsidy, if required, will need to be included in the local authority’s capital programme and where required form part of our budget planning and setting. In addition to any local authority subsidy PfP are confident that they would be able to achieve additional Homes England Grant funding in most circumstances.

These are of course indicative figures and PfP note that each site, and the delivery vehicle, will be considered based on its own specific circumstances It is important to note that other providers have in the past been willing to fund the entire development cost of extra care sites in return for access to SCC land at peppercorn rent. The most appropriate delivery model will therefore need to be determined for each extra care development.

Specialist accommodation for independent living can potentially be developed by PfP without subsidy.

Page 267

16

ANNEX 7 - PRIVATE ACCOMMODATION WITH CARE SETTINGS – AS AT JUNE 2019

Category Name Status Landlord Care provider Care provider CQC No. of units Postcode Ward District/ Borough

Assisted Living

(leasehold extra care)Austin Place Open Anchor Hanover Anchor Hanover

https://www.cqc.org.uk/l

ocation/1-227741556665 KT13 9JA

Oatlands and

Burwood ParkElmbridge

Close care

(apartments allied to

care home)

Birtley House - west

wing apartmentsOpen

Birtley House

Nursing HomeBirtley House Nursing Home


ocation/1-12164191511 GU5 0LB

Bramley, Busbridge

and HascombeGuildford

Close care

(apartments allied to

care home)

Furze Hill Court Open Premier EstatesMaria Mallaband Care

Group (Furze Hill Lodge NH)


ocation/1-12400001211 KT20 6EP

Kingswood with

Burgh HeathReigate and Banstead

Extra Care (nursing)Rodwell House

Care SuitesOpen HC One

Graham Care (as part of HC

One)


ocation/1-13673114146 KT15 1HH Addlestone Runnymede

Extra Care (nursing)Kettlewell House

Care SuitesOpen HC One

Graham Care (as part of HC

One)


ocation/1-484275168010 GU21 4HX

Horsell East and

WoodhamWoking

Retirement Living Plus Edward Place Open McCarthy & StoneYourLife Management

ServicesTBC 54 KT12 2TY Walton on Thames Elmbridge

Retirement Living Plus The Clockhouse Open McCarthy & StoneYourLife Management

Services


ocation/1-534071187744 GU1 1UW Christchurch Guildford

Retirement Living Plus Augustus House Open McCarthy & StoneYourLife Management

Services


ocation/1-647474354240 GU25 4AB Virginia Water Runnymede

Retirement Living Plus Barnes Wallis Court Open McCarthy & StoneYourLife Management

ServicesTBC 50 KT14 7HJ Byfleet Woking

Retirement Village

(not extra care)Mayford Grange Open

Retirement Villages

GroupN/A N/A TBC GU22 9QR

Mayford and Sutton

GreenWoking

Retirement Village

(not extra care)Elmbridge Village Open

Retirement Villages

GroupN/A N/A TBC GU6 8TR

Alfold, Cranleigh

Rural and Ellens

Green

Waverley

Retirement Living Plus McC&S Bagshot

Subject to planning

- SHBC planning

ref. 18/1083

McCarthy & StoneYourLife Management

ServicesTBC 46 GU19 5HL Bagshot Surrey Heath

Assisted Living

(leasehold extra care)Audley Cobham

Subject to planning

- Elmbridge

planning ref.

2019/0329

Audley Audley TBC 76 KT11 2BUOxshott & Stoke

D'AbernonElmbridge

Assisted Living

(leasehold extra care)

Audley Cooper's

Hill

To open Autumn

2019Audley Audley TBC 128 TW18 3BA Englefield Green Spelthorne

Retirement Living Plus McC&S Weybridge To open Winter

2019McCarthy & Stone

YourLife Management

ServicesTBC 43 KT13 9UX Weybridge Elmbridge

Page 269

16

Annex 8 Equality Impact Assessment (EIA)

1. Topic of assessment EIA title Accommodation with Care and Support Strategy

EIA author Simon Montgomery – Programme Manager


Approved by Simon White 24.06.2019

3. Quality controlVersion number V0.1 EIA completed

Date saved 24.06.19 EIA published


Simon Montgomery Programme Manager Surrey County Council Programme Manager

Mike BoyleAssistant Director ASC Commissioning and Transformation

Surrey County Council Accountable Executive

Page 271

16


Surrey County Council (SCC) has set out a clear vision for Accommodation with Care and Support that seeks to reshape adult social care’s accommodation options for older people, people with learning disabilities and mental health. The vision outlines the need to develop accommodation choices that meet residents’ health and wellbeing needs and supports them to live as independently as possible as part of their local community.

The council has a responsibility to meet the needs of people eligible for care, to support both them and their careers, and to fund care for those people with needs who meet financial eligibility criteria.

The Accommodation with Care and Support programme is the vehicle for developing local partnerships and identifying opportunities to create a range of flexible and financially self –sustaining accommodation with care and support that will enable adults to live and age well in Surrey.

Older People

The predicted trend for accommodation needs shows a declining demand for ‘traditional’ residential care for frail, elderly people with the focus of residential services being predominately on people living with dementia and/or other complex needs If SCC were to continue to deliver ‘traditional’ residential care as it has historically, by 2030 the number of residents aged over 65 who will be living in a care home is predicted to increase by 47% as a direct result of people living longer with more complex needs.

There is a growing popularity for extra care type accommodation, which is known to provide better outcomes for older people compared with residential care homes and is a more sustainable option for SCC. Individuals living in an extra care setting have a greater sense of independence and the ability to live much more flexibly and privately, yet with the knowledge that care and support is on their doorstep.

There is a need for new models of accommodation that appropriately meet care needs, encourage independence and are financially sustainable. The programme aims to achieve this through developing increased extra care type provision.

People with Learning Disability

SCC currently funds 1,075 people with a learning disability and/or autism in residential care and spends £84m per year. Benchmarking undertaken shows that SCC is a very significant outlier both in terms of the total amount spent on supporting people with learning disabilities and/or autism and the proportion spent on supporting people in residential care. Our strategic ambition is to reduce the number of people with a learning disability and/or autism in residential care by 40-50% over the next 5 years by expanding the development of new independent living provision.

Nationally there is a drive to move away from high cost ‘one size fits all’ residential placements, towards independent living facilities that offer increased choice and control. Independent living is personalised and results

Page 272

16

in only paying for the care and support actually needed, with increased potential to access existing community supported offered within the county.

Where possible this EIA will outline the potential impacts that the strategy / proposals could have on current users on accommodation based services; those who may choose or require a form of accommodation with care and support as their preferred option in the future; and families, carers and other associated stakeholders. Where potential impacts are identified, this EIA will seek and propose ways of enhancing them (positive impacts) or mitigating those (negative impacts) as far as possible. This EIA is important in ensuring all stakeholders have had their views considered and will inform local commissioning arrangements


Older People

The proposals are to provide circa an additional 725 affordable extra care units by 2028. This will be achieved through commissioning units and stimulating the extra care accommodation market.

For the residential market, this will be achieved through the setting up of a framework for nursing and residential care beds, jointly with health to establish a financially viable, sustainable solution for residential and nursing care.

People with Learning Disability

For people with a learning disability and/or autism, the aim is to work with the market to sustainably deliver accommodation which is integrated into local communities, person centred, flexible and improves and maintains independence.

The objectives are to:

Transition circa 550 people that are currently in residential care and who are likely to be most suitable to move to alternative independent living.

Reduce the number of people with a learning disability and/or autism in residential care by 40-50% over the next 5 years by expanding the development of new independent living provision.

Aim to support all new cases (circa 90 a year) that transition from services funded by Childrens, Families, Learning and Culture in an independent living setting.


The people who may be affected by proposals emerging from the Accommodation with Care and Support Strategy are:

Current residents of accommodation with care and support Older people Families and friends Carers Clinical Commissioning Groups Adult Social Care Locality Teams Borough and District Housing Departments Landlords and providers of existing schemes and services Providers SCC commission

Page 273

16

Care providers SCC workforce

Page 274

16


Engagement carried out There has been comprehensive and ongoing engagement with existing users of accommodation with care and support, potential future users, carers, stakeholders, Clinical Commissioning Groups, Borough and District Partners - specifically housing and planning departments.

Wide scale engagement with providers of both extra care and residential nursing care has been undertaken with positive feedback at this stage.

SCC staff have also been heavily engaged with regarding this process specifically locality teams, hospital teams, SCDC’s and officers from procurement, legal, finance, property services and Adult Social Care.

SCC have worked closely with health partners to thoroughly understand the demand for supported living across the county, collectively engaging with providers and service users.

Data used Improving Housing with Care Choices for Older People: An Evaluation of Extra Care

Housing’ – Netten, Darton, Baumker & Callaghan, 2011 Various Housing LIN (Learning & Innovation Network) Bulletins Chestnut Court & Anvil Court Evaluation Report (2014 & 2015) Individual Resident Feedback Forms Group Consultation with Extra Care Residents (various schemes – 2012) Surrey CC - Extra Care Pathway Comparison Report 2015 Surrey County Council Corporate Strategy 2015-2020 The Future Direction of Extra Care Provision in the South East Region – Housing LIN,

March 2011 Accommodation with Care & Support Demographic Profiles covering each of the 6 NHS

Clinical Commissioning Groups Updated data from Business Intelligence September 2018 to validate the

commissioning statements Data from PLD commissioning August 2018 regarding demand and supply

Page 275

16


Potential Positive Impacts

Potential Negative Impacts

Evidence

Age 1. Resident will have increased choice with more accommodation options available to meet their care needs.

2. Flexible care that can adapt to individual needs, enabling them to remain in extra care housing as they age and their care needs change.

3. Accommodation that offers longevity with purpose built buildings that are fit for the future.

4. Evidence suggests residents in extra care type accommodation have better experiences and outcomes than in residential care settings.

5. Individual with

1. Individuals and their families may experience uncertainty and anxiety with potential changes to the current service they receive

2. Consideration of resident’s natural communities will need to be recognised, especially as these can cross over political/health boundaries.

3. People may feel isolated living independently in extra care housing

4. People may experience some disruption during any redevelopment and building work to expand the provision of extra care services

Chestnet Court and Anvil Court Evaluation Report (2014 & 2015) Surrey CC - Extra Care Pathway Comparison Report 2015 Housing LIN: Improving housing with care choices for older people –

an evaluation of extra care housing.

Page 276

16

more complex needs will be able to access more bespoke support locally.

6. Individuals will be able to live with appropriate care and support near their families and friends, continuing as part of their community in Surrey. Thus avoiding the risk of social isolation

7. Individuals will receive high quality care and support, in an integrated way between health and social care.

8. Preventative approach, reducing risk of being admitted to hospital, or needing to stay longer than necessary.

5. The shift towards community based provision may mean a decline in residential provision and consequently less choice for those individuals who want and need to be in a residential setting unless there needs are more complexP

age 277

16

Disability

9. People with learning disabilities who are currently in residential care, but for whom Supported Living is considered a viable option during their reassessment process, will have the opportunity to live more independently, with support from family, friends and their community network

6. It will be more difficult for people with some particular disabilities to access community networks and appropriate supported living as their disabilities are less well understood and are more challenging to support.

7. Individuals and their families may experience uncertainty and anxiety with strategic shift.

8. It may be challenging for staff to have difficult conversations with service users and their families who may have a certain level of expectation and anxiety around their transition accommodation arrangements

Page 278

16

Gender reassignment

10. Accommodation with care and support options strive towards increased independence in which people will be empowered to shape their own lives. This approach will enable people who wish to do so, to access support from their friends, family and community which reflect their culture, race, lifestyle and personal choices.

9. There is limited specialist community provision for gender reassignment.

Pregnancy and maternity 11. As above

10. Planned or actual changes in service provision for people who use services, who are pregnant or have a young child, may cause anxiety

Page 279

16

1 POPPI/PANSI 20112 AIS 01 2016

Race 12. As above 13. There are relatively small concentrations of people of particular races in Surrey. This makes it more difficult to reach the critical mass needed to provide a range of community support networks.

In the 2011 census, the proportion of the Surrey population who do not describe themselves as white was 8.6%. This proportion is currently concentrated amongst those below the age of 651.

White

Mixed/ multiple ethnic group

Asian/ Asian British

Black/ African/

Caribbean/ Black British

Other Ethnic Group

18-64 620,578 10,472 44,546 9,163 6,529

18-65 as % 89.77% 1.51% 6.44% 1.33% 0.94%

65+ 189,260 676 3,532 437 561

65+ as % 97.32% 0.35% 1.82% 0.22% 0.29%

Open ASC cases as at Jan 20162

Arab 4

Asian / Asian British 506

Black / Black British 200

Chinese 47

Mixed 169

Other 217

Unknown / Not Recorded / Information Refused 800

Page 280

16

3 AIS 01 20164 Surreyi (Jan 2014) Census 2011

White British 20626

White Other 976

23545

Religion and belief 14. As above

Open ASC cases as at Jan 20163

Christian (all types) 16,280

Other 1,391

Declined 1,847

Non-religious 4,028

23,545

Break down by over 65 population?

Sex 15. As above

Sexual orientation 16. As above

Marriage and civil

partnerships17. As above

According to census data from 2011 there are 482,257 people in Surrey who are married or in a civil partnership 1,602 of whom are in same-sex civil partnerships

Carers

(protected by association)

18. Extra care provides a collaborative setting in which family, partners or friends, who are providing unpaid care,

19. Carers may feel care they’re providing is no longer needed

In Surrey, 10% of Surrey residents were providing unpaid care. Of these, 2% provided more than 50 hours unpaid care per week4

There are 188,433 carers in Surrey who look after family, partners or friends in need of help because they are ill, frail or disabled - the care they provide is unpaid

In Surrey, in the first two quarters of 2015/16, there were 23,496 carers

Page 281

16

7b. Impact of the proposals on staff with protected characteristics

5 JSNA Chapter: Carers

can get the added support needed particularly as an individual’s care needs increase. This is without having to remove an individual from established community and networks that already support.

getting some form of information advice or support from social care through services commissioned from the voluntary sector.

This compares to over 29,000 people caring for more than 20 hours a week of whom over 18,000 are caring for more than 50 hours a week5

Those caring for 50 hours a week or more are twice as likely to be in poor health as those not caring (21% against 11%). This can be due to a range of factors including stress related illness and physical injury

Page 282

16


POTENTIAL POSITIVE IMPACTS

POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS EVIDENCE

Age

1. Opportunity to work in a setting built to best practice

2. New opportunities, roles and responsibilities. Staff will have the opportunity to deliver a range of care and support services giving them more job enrichment (Expansion of extra care services)

3. Staff will develop a wider range of skills and experience

4. A joined up specification between health and social care will have positive benefits on care staff in accessing help and support for residents

5. Staff will have access to training provided by the local health and social care system.

1. There may be some level of uncertainty for staff during any change process

Feedback from Providers as part of previous extra care tender process

Disability As Above As above The disability workforce profile in Adult Social Care is 3.34% (3.5% in Senior Management roles) compared to 2.7% in the larger Surrey County Council.

Gender reassignment

As above As above-


As above 2. Women away on maternity leave may return to work untrained and unprepared for the new way of working

The Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) profile of the Adult Social Care workforce (12.7%) is higher than the Surrey County Council workforce (7.6%) and the Surrey

Page 283

16

population (approx 8%). However, there is a significant drop from front line staff (13.75%) compared with Senior Management (5.3%).

Race As above As above -

Religion and belief

As above As above Approximately 50% of staff in Adult Social Care did not state their religion and belief – similar to Surrey County Council. In Adult Social Care 30.3% of staff said they were Christian, 20% have no religion or belief - all similar to Surrey County Council

Sex

As above As above There are a higher proportion of female workers in Adult Social Care (84.1%) than in Surrey County Council (73.5%) and both are higher than the count of females in the Surrey population (51%).

43.6% of the Adult Social Care workforce are women working part-time 85.9% of frontline staff are female, compared to 68.4% at Senior Management level. In the larger Surrey County Council, this is 81.1% and 50.1% respectively.

Sexual orientationAs above As above 54% of staff in ASC of staff undeclared compared to

53.1% in SCC

Marriage and civil partnerships As Above As Above -

Carers

(protected by association)

As Above As Above -

Page 284

16



Widescale consultation with residents regarding any change to service.

To minimise and mitigate the impact of any change on them.

Establish and validate site criteria with Growth team

To ensure that future provision is done so in an area that needs it and that is suitable to provide good quality care and support.

9. Action plan



By when Owner

Potential positive Impact on residents, service users and carers

1. Resident will have increased choice with more accommodation options available to meet their care needs.

Work to ensure residents, service users and carers are fully informed of their accommodation options.

Continue developing our own and stimulating the market to provide appropriate accommodation options within the county that accurately reflect need.

2. Flexible care that can adapt to individual needs, enabling them to remain in extra care housing as they age and their care needs change.


Continue developing our own and stimulate the market to provide appropriate accommodation options within the county that accurately reflect need.

3. Accommodation that offers longevity with purpose built buildings that are fit for the future.

Continue developing our own and stimulate the market to provide appropriate accommodation options within the county that accurately reflect need

4. Evidence suggests residents in extra care type accommodation

Work to ensure residents, service users and carers are

Page 285

16

have better experiences and outcomes than in residential care settings.

fully informed of their accommodation options.


5. Individual with more complex needs will be able to access more bespoke support locally.



6. Individuals will be able to live with appropriate care and support near their families and friends, continuing as part of their community in Surrey. Thus avoiding the risk of social isolation



7. Individuals will receive high quality care and support, in an integrated way between health and social care.

Continue to work as part of the Local Joint Commissioning Group to establish local integrated community-based health and social care services

8. People with learning disabilities who are currently in residential care, but for whom Supported Living is considered a viable option during their reassessment process, will have the opportunity to live more independently, with support from family, friends and their community network

Locality teams to re-assess individuals to confirm if supported living would be a viable option

Page 286

16

9. Accommodation with care and support options strive towards increased independence in which people will be empowered to shape their own lives. This approach will enable people who wish to do so, to access support from their friends, family and community which reflect their culture, race, lifestyle and personal choices.

Continue to ensure that when accommodation is developed, commissioned, negotiation and nominated it is focused on the outcomes for the individual and that the inclusion of family, friends and local community support services in a support plan meets the needs of the individual

10. Potential Negative Impact on residents, service users and carers

11. Individuals and their families may experience uncertainty and anxiety with potential changes to the current service they receive

Culture change will be embedded into SCC and the consideration of different accommodation options will form part of practice change.

Ensure clear communication/marketing is in place in which people fully understand their accommodation options.

12. Consideration of resident’s natural communities will need to be recognised, especially as these can cross over political/health boundaries.

Continuing to take a person centred approach.

13. People may feel isolated living independently in extra care housing

Explore ways to stimulate community support networks for people living in extra care housing in Surrey

14. It will be more difficult for people with some particular disabilities to access community networks and appropriate supported living as their

Explore ways to stimulate community support networks for people living in supported living housing in Surrey

Page 287

16

disabilities are less well understood and are more challenging to support.

15. Individuals and their families may experience uncertainty and anxiety with strategic shift.

Culture change will be embedded into SCC and the consideration of different accommodation options will form part of practice change.

Ensure clear communication/marketing is in place in which people fully understand their accommodation options.

16. There is limited specialist community provision for gender reassignment.

Explore ways to stimulate community support networks for Surrey’s gender reassignment community, which will also provide opportunities for inclusion of a protected communities

17. Planned or actual changes in service provision for people who use services, who are pregnant or have a young child, may cause anxiety

Practitioners will continue to take all aspects of an individual’s social care needs into account when support planning and considering accommodation actions

18. There are relatively small concentrations of people of particular races in Surrey. This makes it more difficult to reach the critical mass needed to provide a range of community support networks.

Continue review of areas for targeted effort and development, considering protected characteristic groups within that. This will also provide opportunities for inclusion of a protected community.

19. Carers may feel care they’re providing is no longer needed

Ensure clear communication/marketing is in place in which people fully understand their accommodation options. Highlighting key links and collaboration with established community network

Page 288

16



People may experience some disruption during any redevelopment and building work to expand the provision of extra care services

The shift towards community based provision may mean a decline in residential provision and consequently less choice for those individuals who want and need to be in a residential


Page 289

16



Flexible care and support services that are self-sustaining and value for money

Improved experience and outcomes for the individual Individuals will be able to live with specialist care and

support near their families and networks in Surrey.


Widescale consultation with residents regarding any change to service.

Establish and validate site criteria with Growth team


Potential negative impacts that cannot be mitigated None identified at this stage

Page 290

16


CABINET

DATE: 16 JULY 2019

REPORT OF: MR COLIN KEMP, DEPUTY LEADER

LEAD OFFICER: JASON RUSSELL – EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY PROTECTION, TRANSPORT & ENVIRONMENT

SUBJECT: HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE FUND – FUNDING ALLOCATION OF £95 MILLION TO WOKING TOWN CENTRE

SUMMARY OF ISSUE:

The Housing Infrastructure Fund is a £5.5 billion government capital grant programme launched in summer 2017 to help to deliver up to 300,000 new homes in England in response to the national shortage of good quality accessible housing. Funding is awarded to local authorities on a highly competitive basis, providing grant funding for new infrastructure that will unlock new homes in the areas of greatest housing demand.

The Housing Infrastructure Fund aim is to help local authorities bring forward more land, more quickly, to considerably boost the supply of new homes across England. This funding will allow local authorities to build the much needed infrastructure including roads, transport links, flood defences, environmental mitigations and other infrastructure requirements that will unlock new strategic housing sites. It will help the southeast region make the most of limited strategic land opportunities. These homes will be built in areas where people want to live and work, will boost our economic growth and remove potential barriers to further growth, and help local authorities to realise significant housing ambitions and support their local plans.

In responding to the challenge of delivering much needed new housing and tackling the associated infrastructure deficit that currently blocks its delivery, Surrey County Council in conjunction with Woking Borough Council submitted a bid to the Housing Infrastructure Fund in the second round of bidding submissions on 3 December 2018. On behalf of Surrey County Council, Woking Borough Council led on all aspects and fully funded the bid. Following a comprehensive and detailed due diligence process by government this bid has now been approved. On 11 June Government announced (see annex 1) that it will invest £95 million in Woking town centre to provide critical road and rail infrastructure to support delivery of 4,550 new homes in the town centre by unlocking strategic development sites. It will pay to widen the Victoria Arch Railway Bridge, which will support Network Rails intention to increase capacity on the mainline to and from London, pay for major road improvements south of Victoria Arch, buy land required to deliver the project and connect utilities.

Subject to a legal agreement between Surrey County Council and Woking Borough Council this project will delivered by Woking Borough Council, working in close partnership with Surrey County Council and Network Rail. It is expected to reduce congestion in the area, as well as opening up land for housing.

Three other bids to the fund by Surrey County Council have also been submitted, namely:

Page 291

17

Item 17

The Slyfield Area Regeneration Project (SARP) scheme – developed in partnership with Guildford Borough Council

A320 North of Woking scheme - developed in partnership with Runnymede Borough Council

Unlocking Strategic Development Sites, A22 South scheme - developed in partnership with Tandridge District Council

These bids were submitted in the final round of HIF bidding by the deadline of 23 March 2019. Decisions on these three bids are subject to current and planned bid scrutiny by Homes England. Funding decisions are likely to be known in November 2019.

RECOMMENDATIONS:


1. Surrey County Council accepts the funding award of £95million for the A320 Woking Town Centre project from the Housing Infrastructure Fund allocated by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, subject to Woking Borough Council entering into a legal agreement with this Surrey County Council to deliver the project and accept all grant conditions as set by Homes England as well as indemnifying Surrey County Council against all financial and legal risks.

2. Surrey County Council enters into appropriate legal agreements with Woking Borough Council to allow the Woking Borough Council to act as agent to deliver the project, accept all bid grant conditions as set by Homes England.

3. Delegate any further decisions relating to this project to the Executive Director Community Protection, Transport & Environment and the Deputy Leader.

4. Delegate any future decisions on the three remaining HIF bids should they be successful and subject to meeting relevant and similar terms and conditions as set for the Woking Town Centre grant award to the Executive Director Community Protection, Transport & Environment and the Deputy Leader.


To accept the grant funding awarded by government to the A320 Woking Town Centre project and enter into appropriate legal agreements to pass on all financial and legal risks in delivering the project to Woking Borough Council.

The grant funding will allow Woking to continue to prosper as a town and provide much needed housing for the local community.

To fast track decisions on the remaining three HIF bids should they be successful.

DETAILS:

1. The Housing Infrastructure Fund will: deliver new physical infrastructure to support new and existing communities; make more land available for housing in high demand areas, resulting in new

additional homes that otherwise would not have been built; support ambitious local authorities who want to step up their plans for growth

and make a meaningful difference to overall housing supply; and

Page 292

17

enable local authorities to recycle the funding for other infrastructure projects, achieving more and delivering new homes in the future.

A320 Woking Town Centre Bid - (Victoria Arch Railway Bridge and road network south of the railway line)

2. Central government has awarded £95 million to Surrey County Council to deliver significant highway and rail infrastructure improvements that will unlock 13 future housing development sites in Woking Town Centre

Background

3. In recent years, Woking Town Centre has benefited from significant investment transforming it into a modern, forward-thinking town. Recognised by Enterprise M3 as a transport and economic hub, Woking has the potential to become a regional economic powerhouse.

4. To support this ambition, Woking Borough Council, working with its partners must deliver the necessary infrastructure – roads, rail capacity and most importantly affordable housing – that will support the town centre’s continued growth. Woking’s Core Strategy, adopted in 2012 identified Woking Town Centre (Policy CS1 and CS2) as a primary location to deliver homes for the future, whilst safeguarding precious green space.

5. By providing the necessary infrastructure, additional capacities on the existing 13 identified local plan sites within the town centre can be unlocked (Annex 2). 42% of the homes delivered on these sites will be affordable. Each development site will be subject to detailed planning applications.

Fundamental barriers

6. Yet there are fundamental barriers to such development that has blighted the town for years - Victoria Arch Railway Bridge and the inadequate highway infrastructure that runs through it is a barrier to both road and rail improvements in this area, which is itself a barrier to growth for Woking.

7. The A320 is the main arterial road through Woking, and because of the restrictions imposed by Victoria Arch and the historic road lay-out, the area acts as a pinch-point for traffic which leads to significant congestion. This infrastructure deficit has stifled local growth and housing development opportunities for many years.

8. Highway modelling demonstrates that without removing these barriers, development within the town centre is unsustainable and will not meet local need and demand. Therefore, the current situation in Woking represents a clear market failure because:

there is high demand for housing there is a high cost of housing beyond the national average there is unmet affordable housing need developers are willing to develop but this cannot happen because of a lack of

infrastructure which places a significant burden on development viability.

Page 293

17

The Proposal

9. Through a partnership approach between Surrey County Council and Woking Borough Council, central government has recognised this market failure by approving a grant of £95 million in funding to enable the delivery of three critical elements that will support the delivery of 4,555 homes in Woking Town Centre’s continued growth, each dependent on each other.

10. This successful grant award has been as a result of an 18 month commitment by Woking Borough Council in leading and fully funding the bid team and bid process.

Project Details

Highways improvements

11. The proposed improvements include the removal of the one-way gyratory system south of Victoria Arch (Guildford Road northbound, Victoria Road eastbound and Station Approach southbound) and the introduction of a two-way carriageway. It will also include enhanced pedestrian/cycle paths as well as four new controlled crossings for pedestrians and cyclists.

12. The introduction of an additional lane is essential for maximising traffic flow in and out of the town centre. This can only be achieved by extending the highway footprint to land currently occupied by ‘The Triangle’.

Replacement of Victoria Arch

13. The proposal is to replace the existing Victoria Arch with a new modern widened bridge. This will provide four traffic lanes under the new bridge as well as 5metre wide footway/cycleway on both sides. This will improve traffic flow in the area as well as provide much needed safe and user friendly extra space for pedestrians and cyclist. The new bridge will also support Network Rail’s longer term objective of delivering additional rail capacity on the main lines through Woking.

Property acquisition and demolition

14. To achieve these objectives, all property located on land known as ‘The Triangle’ must be acquired. The Triangle site is surrounded by Guildford Road, Victoria Road and Station Approach immediately south of Victoria Arch.

Delivery partners

15. Surrey County Council, Woking Borough Council and Network Rail are the key partners in developing and delivering this project. There are already very well established joint governance arrangements in place between the parties and all are fully engaged. Woking Borough Council has trusted professional teams in place that have the necessary expertise to deliver the scheme. These teams have formed the core of the successful bid team as well as the projects currently being delivered in the town centre as part of the Victoria square development.

Page 294

17

Project milestones

16. The bid team as part of the funding bid process has developed a detailed schedule of works, which covers all aspects of the project. This has been scrutinised in detail by Homes England bid assessment team.

17. A commencement date for the project, however, is yet to be confirmed due to the fact that funding conditions from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are yet to be determined. The HIF criteria requires the project to be delivered by March 2024. In order to achieve successful delivery, Woking Borough Council, as project lead has already appointed appropriate professional teams in the different project areas and preliminary work is under way to develop and support delivery of the project. WBC has also placed Network Rail in funds to continue with the design development for the new bridge.

18. At this stage it is anticipated that the project will be delivered by August 2023 and the housing provision will be delivered by 2030. This is all in line with the HIF criteria.

CONSULTATION:

19. Local consultation on the feasibility design for the realigned road network south of Victoria Arch has been undertaken.

20. All further relevant local consultation as part of delivering the project will be carried out by Woking Borough Council.


21. There are no risks to Surrey County Council associated with this project. Woking Borough Council will indemnify Surrey County Council against all risk through a legal agreement between both parties.


22. The financial aspects of this project has been scrutinised in detail by homes England bid assessment team. The project will be delivered by Woking Borough Council on behalf of Surrey County Council. Woking Borough Council will indemnify Surrey County Council against all financial risk through a legal agreement between both parties.


23. The Woking Town Centre development scheme set out in this paper is expected to cost £115m, and is funded through a Housing Infrastructure Fund grant of £95m, and contributions from Woking Borough Council and Network Rail. The scheme has been developed by, and will be managed and delivered by, Woking Borough Council. The Housing Infrastructure Fund is open to applications from upper tier authorities. Therefore the bid was submitted by Surrey County Council, who will now become the accountable body and will receive the grant funding. Surrey County Council therefore needs to enter into a legal agreement with the Woking Borough Council setting out the terms under

Page 295

17

which the project will proceed. These terms will include how grant funding received by Surrey County Council will be transferred to the Woking Borough Council, and that project risks, including the risk of cost increases and of delay, will be borne by the Woking Borough Council. Surrey County Council’s costs arising from the scheme, such as employees, agents, officers, consultants or sub-contractors involved in the delivery of the project and future highway maintenance costs (commuted sums), have been included in the project cost.


24. Section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 provides Surrey County Council with the power to do anything an individual may do, subject to a number of limitations. This is referred to as the "general power of competence". A local authority may exercise the general power of competence for its own purpose, for a commercial purpose and/or for the benefit of others. This general power of competence provides sufficient power for the Surrey County Council to apply for the funding described in this report and to procure a contractor/contractors to undertake the works described.

25. Surrey County Council will be responsible for ensuring that any funding awarded is spent in accordance with all applicable legal requirements, to include state aid, public procurement law, wider public law (including the Public Sector Equality Duty), and planning law. Surrey County Council must comply with its obligations under the overarching funding agreement, including with respect to delivery of objectives within agreed timeframes. Surrey County Council will enter into a back to back funding agreement with WBC whereby all liabilities, risks, indemnities and legal obligations in the overarching funding agreement are passed on to Woking Borough Council. Any procurement required as a result of the funding must be conducted in accordance with Surrey County Council’s Constitution, including the Procurement & Contract Stranding Orders and the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 as the case may be.


26. A detailed Equality Impact Assessment was completed for this project, approved by the directorates EIA team and submitted to Homes England as part of the bid process. The EIA is attached as Annex 3.

EIA Summary of Key Impacts and Actions


Our analysis is underpinned by working with officers and protected characteristic representation groups to determine the needs of minority groups.

The public consultation has also informed our assessment of the scheme by analysing the views of the public.


The impact of the scheme is anticipated to be positive for the significant majority of the network, its users and the residents of Woking and the wider area.

Specific positive impacts as follows:

Page 296

17

Improved safety and accessibility for young people, older people, those with disabilities, pregnant women and those with young children.

Increased independence for young, older and disabled people who feel more confident and able to negotiate the redesigned highway network.

A reduction in the number of casualties amongst young people.

Encourage modal shift across all age ranges freeing up the road network.

Improved air quality, through reduced congestion, will improve the overall health of the community.

Improved journey time reliability and more resilient highway network.

Negative impacts are as follows: Temporary disruption of current infrastructure and

facilities during the construction of the scheme. Possible conflict between pedestrians and cyclists on

shared use paths.


We have ensured that equalities issues are considered in every part of the scheme. We will continue to do so as the scheme design evolves.

Our principles for commissioning designing and delivering infrastructure schemes includes considering the needs of all vulnerable users, specifically, older, younger and disabled people.


To mitigate the negative impacts outlined above:

The proposed works will be advertised and communicated locally in accordance with Surrey County Council’s CESP (Customer and Stakeholder Engagement Plan); communications will be held locally and with key stakeholders in advance of the works and upon completion to provide clarity of the new highway layout. Appropriate signage will be used to advise accordingly.

The Traffic Management required to enable the construction of the works will be implemented to ensure the efficient and safe delivery of the works in accordance with the requirements of Surrey County Councils Streetworks Team. This will assist in minimising journey delays and maximising road safety for all highway users.

Implementation of best practice and minimum width design standards where possible when implementing pedestrian and cycle improvements to reduce conflict.

Surrey County Council’s Road Safety Auditing process will consider the works against national and local guidance and policy to ensure that good design principles are implemented. Where Road Safety Audit recommendations cannot be met,

Page 297

17

these will either be mitigated through other road safety engineering options or where appropriate shall be the subject of a robust Exception Report.


There are no anticipated negative impacts that cannot be mitigated.

This EIA has been based upon the works outlined on drawing 70018229-SK-28 F titled ‘GUILDFORD ROAD IMPROVEMENTS NORTHERN JUNCTION GENERAL ARRANGEMENT’. Any changes to the proposed highway layout that exacerbate any existing negative impacts or create additional negative impacts may require an updated EIA.


27. Following a screening exercise an Environmental Sustainability Assessment is not required in this instance. It does not meet the tests requiring an ESA as this report is to accept a funding grant and pass all liabilities onto Woking Borough Council as the body that will deliver the project. All elements of the project to be delivered will go through relevant statutory processes including planning approvals.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT:

Within 6 months:

Legal agreement between Surrey County Council and Homes England encompassing all relevant terms and conditions of the award to be completed.

Legal agreement between Surrey County Council and Woking Borough Council passing all liabilities, including all terms and conditions set by Homes England to be completed.

There are no further decisions required from Cabinet.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contact Officer:

Dominic Forbes, Planning Group Manager

Tel: 020 8541 9312

Consulted:

Details of who has been consulted on the issue (including officers, members, public, stakeholders, partners, etc.)

Surrey County Council Deputy Leader Woking Borough Council members Woking town centre residents and businesses Network Rail Enterprise M3 LEP

Page 298

17

Annexes:

List the annexes attached to this report.

Annex 1 – Grant award letter from Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government

Annex 2 – Map of Woking Town Centre Strategic Housing sites

Annex 3 - Equality Impact Assessment


•All background papers used in the writing of the report should be listed, as required by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.

•A copy of any background papers which have not previously been published should be supplied to Democratic Services with your draft report.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 299

17

OFFICIAL SENSITIVE - COMMERCIAL

Joanna Killian Surrey County Council Contact Centre Room 296-298 County Hall Penrhyn Road Kingston upon Thames KT1 2DN

11 June 2019

Dear Joanna, Housing Infrastructure Fund, Forward Funding bid A320 Woking Town Centre, HIF/FF/609 I am pleased to confirm that Surrey County Council has been successful in its £95m ‘A320 Woking Town Centre’, Housing Infrastructure Fund Forward Funding bid. We will work with you and your team over the coming weeks and months to progress this scheme through further due diligence and into contract. As part of the contract, you will need to agree to a set of funding conditions. These include both standard conditions for all Forward Funding schemes, and bespoke conditions for each project. In addition, you will need to sign up to an Assurance Framework, which will be proportionate for the size and complexity of this scheme. A list of the conditions for your scheme will be sent by my team. Thank you for leading housing growth in this area, we look forward to working with you and my team, led by Ben Llewellyn, will be in contact with you shortly to discuss next steps. Yours sincerely,

Simon Ridley Director General, Decentralisation and Growth

Simon Ridley Director General, Decentralisation and Growth Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Tel: 0303 444 3430 E-Mail: [email protected] www.gov.uk/mhclg

Page 301

17

98 43

6

72

1

113

32a

HORSELL MOOR

32

VALE FARM ROAD

El Sub Sta

3

28

31

97

SL

83 to 84

StudioThe

ED & Ward Bdy

ED & Ward Bdy

Und

ED Bdy

Grove Court

1 to 15

24

Spiritualist Church

Beaufort Lodge

1 To 46

Und

CR

ED & Ward Bdy

1 to 41

Jarman Court

1 to 20

Place

William Booth2

1 to 6

CourtHannah

99 Place

1 to 38Bramwell

Gloster Court

HouseChertsey

14

47

10

39

Yard

BURLEIGH GARDENSCourt

1

1

3

Pembroke

Claverley

House

5 to 10

26

4

Sandgate

6

House

Bridge

28

27

El Sub Sta

Goldvale

36

1 to 13

30.1m

VICTORIA WAY

27

22

1

1 to 27

21 to 25

Shelters

8

House

5

24

CALLUNA COURT

STAT

ION

APPR

OACH

85

41

ST ANDREWS GATE

Court

69

85 to 9270 to 84

50

to

Hill View

to

13 to 24

1 to 6

45

Horsell Moor

FORGE END

Hogan House33

7

Basingstoke Canal

Path (um)

The Victoria

D1 to F1

6

Centre

Ramp

A1 to C1

1a

1 to 5

Bank

1

13

15 to 29

48

Place

36.7m

12 to 21

7 to 12

76

Centre

VICTORIA ROAD

GUILDFORD ROAD33.5m

1

House

1 to 11

1a

37.4m

Medical

8 to 21

Rave

nswo

od C

ourt

32

Export

Allianz

37

56

Wolsey Walk

(Shopping Centre)

Ramps

35

HORSELL MOOR

25

Cornhill

The

Business

CHURCH STREET WEST

1

34 2

25 to 42

12

Mountside

The Crescent

Somerset

FS

1 to 18

L Twr

Phillip's Quadrant

Orion Gate

CR

The Living Planet Centre

FB

1 to 27

28

Entertainments Centre

2

29 to 51

6

Bank

24

24

11

2120a

8

12

Library

24 to 48

3

33.3m

63

42

Homebeech House

1 to 8

9 to 14

27 to26

73

Court

8 to 15

2

Tow Path

Pond

3 4 12 to 14

Posts

1

53 to 61

34

36

38

5

The Town

43 to 49

Signal Box

35 to 41

Bank

TCBs

Exchange

42

28

40

75

STATION APPROACH

CHAPEL STREET

30 24 to

Surgery

6 5

to37

1

12

Court

FAIRVIEW CLOSE

Horsell Moor

Kingswood

Court

15 16 26 27

32.6mHouse

1

Commercial Way

Harland House

4 to 5

11

12

COMMERCIAL WAY

War Memorial

4b

4d

4c

3

51

25 to 41

16

7

29 to 33

Walk

House

Woodridings

Birches

LB

House

House

House

41

CottageOrchard

Marldon

AVEN

UE

Woodpeckers

CottageRyden

Pentlands

Meldreth

Cintra

HEAT

HSID

E GA

RDEN

S

3 9

Place

Southview

911 to 18

4 8

4

Southview

29

16

5

7 19 to 26

22 to 25

5 to 7

The YPod

Kingswood

The Lightbox

1 2

4a

Gate

2

26

34.1m

Wolsey

Bank

1

1

Mercia Walk

ChristChurch

Telephone

Bank

2a

4e

14

1 to 15

28a

10

9

15 14

12

8

Clyde House

Acorn

The Laurels

LB

1 to 55

6

El

Westview

to23

11

1 6

6

6

13

1

HILL VIEW ROAD

7

1

2110 11

1 to 12

Court

Chobham Road

4

Concorde

22

Church Path

18

13

35.0m

HIGH STREET

Signal Gantry

2

20

20

15 to 23

Multistorey Car Park

PremierHouse

Park

FAIRVIEW AVENUE

27 to 34

Queens Court

7

COURT

1

5 421

18 to 28

6

Sub Sta

1

23

PARK

Bridge

19 20

Victoria Gate

32.3m

SL

PARK DRIVE

10

15

7

Sandringham Court1 to 8

Sta

BUTTS ROAD

ElSub Tank

Tower

Thacker Mews

1 to 13Chataway House

1 to 52Bradfield House

8 9 17 18

2

28 to 30

1

Path

(um)

El Sub Sta

1 to 179Nankeville Court

El Sub Sta

1 to 80

Woking Hospice

1 to 138Cardinal Place

Littlefields

Olympian Heights

Und

Und

20a

20g

20c

20j

Poole House

9 to 24

20

15

3

BREWERY ROAD

Centre

Subway

13 to 37

35

45

47

43

41

33

35a

27

Tow Path1

Format House

38.7m

El Sub Sta

Southern

Depot

Jubilee

Hill ViewCourt

TCB

RSPHouse

House

12

to

House

Waverley The R

etrea

t

The

Sub Sta

VICTORIA WAY

Martian

House

41a

Woking1

6

33

41

1

TheSt Andrews WEST STREET

Cleary Court

Civic Offices

House

CHRISTCHURCH WAY

CHURCH STREET EAST

Central Buildings

4

36.9m

4a

2 ClinicYORK ROAD

BRADFIELD

38.6m

The Hollands

37.1m

33

1 to 14

CLOSE

El

22

27

20

21

32

45

32.8m

Griffin

Square

Hollywood

Gloucester

4

10

The Peacocks

S Gantry48 to 54

Ward Bdy

CRWard Bdy

El

8

WB

25

L Twr

10

(PH)

GUILD

FORD

ROA

D

1110

Court

26

20

1

37

27

15

S Gantry

Hillview

THE BIRCHES

Sub Sta

Woking Fire Station40

44

GreenwoodHouse

32.5mTCB

Car ParkMultistorey Car Park

Albion House

9 to 11

5

LB

15 to 19

8 to 10

Hotel

19 to 24

3

5

Police Station

13 to 18

1

Lynto

n Hou

se

1 to 15

Oliver House

1 to 9

16 to 51

Consort Court

26

36.1m

6

to

to 32

15

45 to 49

Woking Station

ED & Ward Bdy

PO

Eastgate

Centrium

1 to 181

1 to 61

The Exchange1 to 49

30

CAWSEY WAY

ROAD

CHURCH STREET WEST

30.7m

Coign

Gate

8 to 22

13

44

31

43

119

47

9a

11

10

11

34

14

9

5

367

14

36.5m

Sovereigns

3

MP 24.5SL

Church

Railway Athletic Club

Systems

Arch

House

4

The Peacocks

1

26

4a

House

Victoria

27 to 41

Capgemini House

8GOLDSWORTH

Middle Walk

1 to 32

37.0m


27 to 34 Monkswood

35.1m

Church

The White

Hall

1

Little Gables

TCB

Arden

Beresford

3

19

1

26

Crown

1

9 10

3a

8

House

9

Car Park

LOCKE WAY

ORIENTAL ROAD

(PH)

ADDISON ROAD

14

House

5

12

Lodge

1

Signal Box

House

2

PARK ROAD

Aldwick

Wayside

EscroftLittle

Devoncot

LittleHatchett

The Pines

24

36

14

TreetopsRoxbourne

ESS

9

WHITE ROSE LANE Oaklands

PO

Sorting Office

Goldhanger

5

Ramblers

Rydal

Crofton

High TorLittle Coombe

Rothesay

Sharon Limerick

23a

Epworth

21

5

49

34

18

3

9

SL

33

The Duke

ViscountHouse

11 to 17

38.1m

Subway

THE BROADWAY

23

1

Saltwood

ROAD

ORIENTAL CLOSE

Pentons

20

PARK

The

Almrausch

Barnwood

El Sub Sta

22

3028

26a26

2

11

24a

HEATHSIDE GARDENS

St Clair

House

The Moorings

CopperPenylan

Greystones

HEATHSIDE PARK ROAD

Thirteenth

Heath House

Innisfayle

El

The

Amber Hill

Westering

The Witherns

White GatesBroadoak

Shelter

House

WOKING

FB

LB

13

24

ONSLOW CRESCENT

St Jude

3

Suncroft Afton

TUDOR CLOSE

Cottage

LB

22

20d

20f

57 to 67

Carmel Close

Club

Arca

CLOSE

Leeward

37.1m

BeechesAvalon

Sub Sta

Pebbles

10

Harwood

Chelwood

COLE

Y

Little Oslo

Linden

House

Pendeen

Cranford

Cairnsmore

ChantryHeathside

ESS

37.2m

LB

LAMPETER

Tamarind

Barnard

37.7m

44a46a

86

44

56

8

14

11 to 25

4648 47 to 56

ROAD

9

13

Town Ho

CR

COLE

Y AVE

NUE

DINSDALE

38.7m

HEATHSIDE ROAD

2

1

1 to 21

5

5

4

1

37a

31

35

CLOSE

25

29

36.2m

29a

Silver

1 to 10

37.9m

MONTGOMERY

18

5

40

38

30

41

23

Castle

59

81

71

to

15 to 22

68

26 to 46

TCB

1 to 4Bell CourtRadstone

5

Court

6

The

Briarfield

House

Chinthurst

3129

Beit

1 to 4

Waterman

6

Lampeter HouseMOUNT HERMON ROAD

ASHWOOD ROAD

St Michael'sFelcot

Pendle

ParkstoneAubrey CottageThe HurstHouse

LB

Oldlands

Giverny

Brummell2

WALTON ROAD

33

9

51

GROVE ROAD

5

2

2

61

House

41

Aarron11 to 16

The Cornerstone

93 13

7 to 14

7

24

30

Farthings

1 to 12

17

OCKENDEN ROAD10

Chakana

Windrush HillsideSeymours

21

FIRCROFT CLOSE

35.9m

Court

Court

MAYBURY ROADDUKE STREET

6

S Gantry

25 to 32

STANLEY ROADDukes

1 to 8

PLACE

45 to 48

GROSVENOR

17 to 24

37.3m

39 to 44

33 to 38

77 to 82

738.2m

70

ED & Ward Bdy

CR ED BdyED & Ward Bdy

LB

Melrose

9

97

20

FIRCR

OFT C

LOSE

Sub Sta

1

Fircroft Court

El

Wetherby

Abercorn

OCKE

NDEN

GDN

S

26.9m

York Mews

OCKENDEN CLOSE

Park Gate12

1

16

22

63

Works

33

29

LB

49to47

Def

Def

15

12

13

ESS

1 to 63

The Metro

C

D

111b

109

KingfisherCourt

5

19

15

Orchards

5

13

23

Lindos

1 to 16

11

8

13

18 to 23

Birch House

Red Tile House

Shelter

MARLBOROUGH ROAD

14

Works

2

510

CLOSE

WOODSTOCK

Delamere

Abinger

Silverwood

Sidorin

Maresfield

House

Balvenie

Woking UnitedReformed Church

ED Bdy

CR

Hereford House

Coley House

Armerina Summerley

The BungalowHotel

Abingdon Court

Emmanuel

Works

33.5m

127

64

Chapel

Ramsey

Craigmore

Horsell Mede

The Barn

Aston

Orplid

9

Valliers

Radbourne

Marie

Northbury

Carlile

1 to 6

1 to 6

House

1 to 54

House

1 to 24

BeechCopper

Oak House

1 to 18

Holly Lodge

WHI

TE R

OSE

LANE

PORTUGAL ROAD

Hindover

35

40a

109

7

9

Timbe

rs

3

Path

(um)

WoodcoteWa

rehou

se

POOLE ROAD

MP 24.75

8 to 10

1 to 7

HEATHSIDE PARK ROAD

Rosehill

CottageBurford Oak Tree

Lodge

15

17

47

35 to 46

4926

15

Northover

Wildbank Court

58to

to

69

38a

79

89

99

40

ORIENTAL ROAD

60

Car Park

BrendonBracara

Dower

Inyanga

Amberley

Cottage

34.4m

Bramshill

El Sub Sta

CHERRY STREET

OAK'S ROAD

1 to 8

69

17

79

GOLDSWORTH ROAD

3

30.3m

30.7m

5

76

89 to 93

1

65

15

64

26

35.3m

White

Heath

side

12

Cartref Woodstock

24

16

Cotta

ge

HEATHSIDE ROAD

GREENHEYS PLACE5

El

10

36.8m

21

Sherwood

Heath Gorse Bank

CHOBHAM ROAD

ED Bdy

1

565250

ED & Ward Bdy

11

Enterprise Place1 to 129

1

BREWERY ROAD

4

18

77

8

HORSELL PARK

87

65

75 73

VALE FARM ROAD

20

2716Craiglie

67

Oaks

23

14

Cottage

MARC

US C

OURT

Southbank

9

Cottage

Cottage

15 to 1719(Health Centre)

5

21

to

56a

Holiday Inn

58

54a


35

30

Pod

PCs

The Big Apple

Vale House

29

Picketts

TheCentre

2

to

1 to 33

13

101

68 66

2

83

LOCKFIELD DRIVE

77

54

Moor House

Acorn

11

BRAC

KEN

CLOS

E

Lanesway

Sub Sta

York House

5

Foxs Lodge

1

W oking Com m unity Hospital

HOLBRECK PLACE

50 to 57

Ashley House

House

Crosslee

Owen

Stoneharrow

Surgery

Ranibagh

19

5448

46

1

6

14

24

46

3

1

51 to 57

12

59

11

23

13

38.1m

20

CHER

TSEY

ROAD

1 to 16

Wisteria

School

Park School

3a

8

51

10

18

9

3Grove

Whitewater

39

CottageHoneysuckle

67

4

65

5

ONSLOW CRESCENT

Holly House

1 to 5

Tarn House

MeadowsPark

31a

31b

29a

9

2

Amaala

Catholic PrimarySt Dunstan's

Mipur

ONSLOW

HatterMillville

White

Olivos

DOWNSIDE ORCHARD

Tugela

4

Rushington

WoodsideBeg Meil

Squirrel

House

CRESCENT

27

Parkstones

Aymon

Little Holt

Corner

36

26 to 339 to 25

1 to 8

34

1

38

Alderley

Concarneau

2

Railwaymens Homes for

The Foxes

ONSLOW

House

3

El Sub Sta

Abbot

CLOSE

8

St Anne's

Holtwood

8

133

32.6m

7CLOSE

Sycamores

Arden

5

4

2

ABBOTSFORD

1

South Lodge

House

House

White Oaks

44

46

117

123123a

125a

127129

125

House

LB

Wickets

Strathmore

44a

46a

44b

Builders

4

Langley

ROAD

Sefton

Magnolia

Hockering Gate

HOCKERING

HEATHFIELD

Hockering Corner

HEAT

HFIE

LD R

OAD

Blue Cedars

Henley House

Hedge Corner

GrangeAshwood

TilesteadFoyers

Klanhagan

Hocombe HouseFairlawn

Nashdom

Tangletrees

GarthHigh Farthings

Whittlesey

Loudon

1

Pin Mill

St Andrew's

40.2m

CLOSE

Rive nde ll

Beauregard

Courthope

House

Tarvit

Lullington

4

13 2

1

8

6

Trillium

Hafan

Normanhurst

ASHW

OOD

PARK

56

ASHWOOD ROAD

Aurora Lodge

Selacourt

RISE

FRIARS

Southwinds

41.2m

PEMBROKE GARDENS

Silver Wood

44

36

RavennaEl Sub Sta

Greensand

42

35

34

Allen Edwards

GDNS

913

139

10

11

7

23

15

16 12

1

Denton House

House

Children and Old People

14

The Southern1

143

10

17

18 to 29

El Sub Sta

30

FOXHANGER

TINTAGEL WAY

11

ORIENTAL ROAD

31 to 42

Bandstand

Constantia

White

12

Trees

Flats (above)

O' Neils

15

Flats (above)

56 to 73

S Gantry

El Sub Stas

Play

Tembani

Area

Tank

ESS

Mast (Telecommunication)

ESS

WB

St

Merriewood

Compton

Littlecroft

Canal Bank

The Linnets1

Mews

HEATHSIDE CRESCENT

Patterdale House

Cornerways

Applegarth

Barn End

Depot

Kenwood

Eversleigh

111a

29

Dunsley

OakFair

White Walls

June Orchard

Crispin

Wychcombe

The Mascot

Asha

ESS

ESS

ULC

TCBs

1 to 6

Car Park

Drain

Shelter

Shelter

Shelter

12

Linden

S Gantry

TCBs

ULC

The Limes

Stanway

House

Woodpeckers

St Domingo

Lodge

S Gantry

Horsington

Conifers

The Rowans

8

Oakle

igh

37

El

Wych-Elm

Ormondhurst

Kirkstone Hestia

ESS

Xaghra

Alderley

Sub

Car Park

Sta

Quatzalan

House

Beechvale

HouseGrace Groom

RisingBollards

1

CHURCH PATH

Market Walk

Jubilee Square

02

03

08

04

11

07

05

13 01

09

06

12

10

W oking Town Ce ntreJuly 2019

© Crown copyrig h t and database rig h ts 2019 Ordnance Surve y 100025452. Th is product is produce d in part from P AF and m ultiple re side nce data wh ich is owne d by Royal Mail Group Lim ite d and / or Royal Mail Group P LC. All Rig h ts Re se rve d, Lice nce no. 100025452.

W oking Boroug h CouncilCivic Office sGlouce ste r SquareW oking , Surre y GU21 6Y L

±80 0 8040 Me tre s

SCALE 1:3,500

Site s unlocke d by HIF

Victoria Arch Bridg e Re place m e nt - bridg eand e m bankm e nts owne d by NR

A320 Hig h way W orks – h ig h ways owne d by SCC

Train Station

01 - Royal Mail De pot02 - Ex Station Car P ark03 - Ne w Ce ntral Exte nsion04 - P olice Station/Mag istrate s Court05 - Station P laza06 - St. Dunstan's P h ase 307 - Th e Triang le08 - Goldsworth Road09 - BHS Re side ntial/Com m e rcial10 - Concorde /Griffin House11 - P lane ts/Rat & P arrot12 - Th am e swe y P oole Road13 - Ch urch Gate

LocationKEY

Page 303

17

of 15

I:\EAI\PD all\TDP\Resources - Information\Equality & Diversity\A320 Woking Town Centre HIF Equalities Impact Assessment Final v1.3 Approved.docx

1. Topic of assessment

EIA title: A320 Woking Town Centre HIF

EIA author: Andy Stokes

2. Approval

Name Date approved

Approved by1

Lisa Creaye-Griffin

29 November 2018

3. Quality control

Version number 1.3 EIA completed 21/11/2018

Date saved 21/11/2018 EIA published

4. EIA team

Name Job title (if applicable)

Organisation Role

Andy Stokes West Team Manager

SCC (HT&E) Author

Dominic Forbes Planning Group Manager

SCC (HT&E) Contributor

Tony Otterson

Project Manager – Woking Town Centre

SCC (HT&E) Contributor

Lisa Creaye-Griffin

(H&T Directorate Equalities Group)

Countryside Group Manager

SCC (HT&E) Support, acting as critical friend and EAI approver

1 Refer to earlier guidance for details on getting approval for your EIA.

Page 305

17

of 15


5. Explaining the matter being assessed

What policy, function or service is being introduced or reviewed?

This assessment is of the Guildford Road/ Victoria Arch/ Station

Approach improvements forming part of the A320 Woking Town

Centre HIF. The package comprises increased road space and

capacity for all pedestrians, cyclists and vehicular traffic through the

‘Victoria Arch’ rail bridge, improvements to provide junction capacity,

plus enhanced and additional walking and cycle route facilities.

The specific objectives of the scheme are:

1. Remove the network capacity restrictions currently

experienced around the A320 Guildford Road to the south of

the Railway, facilitating future residential development within

the town centre.

2. Improved quality and extent of sustainable travel options to

Woking town centre and the rail station.

3. Increased travel via sustainable modes into Woking town

centre from its suburbs to the south of the town.


This assessment looks at the equality issues in relation to the

following vehicular, pedestrian and cycle and passenger transport

measures:

Victoria Arch: The widening of Victoria Arch, the railway bridge

over Victoria Way, allowing:

- an increase in the number of vehicular traffic lanes from 2

to 4 (2 northbound and 2 southbound); and

- The provision of a 5m wide footway / cycleway on both

sides of the carriageway.

Station Approach: The control of traffic from Station Approach

by means of traffic signal control, allowing traffic to turn right

directly towards the town centre without the need to negotiate

the gyratory.

Guildford Road: The provision of a new traffic signal controlled

junction at Guildford Road and Victoria Road (currently leading

to Station Approach), allowing pedestrian and cycle crossing

facilities across both Guildford Road and Victoria Road, and

the closure of Station Approach to vehicular traffic between

Victoria Road and Heathside Road.

Pedestrian and Cycle Improvements: The provision of shared

pedestrian / cycle links on both sides of A320 Guildford Road,

on the western side between Victoria Arch and the access to

The Sovereign public house and on the eastern side between

Page 306

17

of 15


Victoria Arch and the Woking Park access in Constitution Hill.

The scheme also provides a new Toucan crossing on

Guildford Road adjacent to its junction with Heathside Road

together with an improved uncontrolled pedestrian crossing

south to the junction with York Road.

The outcomes of the improvements are expected to include:

Facilitating increased residential development within Woking

Town Centre, close to its existing wide range of public

transport and leisure facilities, and employment areas.

Reduced and more reliable vehicle journey times to and from

Woking Town Centre, including the existing bus services

accessing to and from the south.

Additional road crossing options for pedestrians and cyclists

without the need to dismount.

New cycle and pedestrian links to and from Woking station and

the town centre, connecting to Woking Park, the suburbs of

Woking to the south and other amenities, including Woking

Leisure Centre and Pool in the Park.

An increase the availability of sustainable transport options,

leading to a greater number of people walking and cycling,

encouraging healthier living.

Other long-term outcomes sought from the project are:

The regeneration of land within the existing gyratory, enabling

the delivery of an accessible high quality sustainable

development site.

A more resilient highway network and reduced congestion

giving rise to improved air quality.


The proposals could potentially affect anyone living or travelling in or

around the Woking area, including:

Individuals

Anyone who travels through the Woking area (any and all

modes).

Visitors to, and residents of, Woking.

Anyone who currently cycles for transport, leisure or sport.

Anyone who currently walks for transport, leisure or sport.

Individuals who use the bus or train.

Other road users including motorists.

Page 307

17

of 15


Organisations

Businesses located in Woking, and those within close

proximity to the town centre.

Bus operators who operate in or around Woking, particularly

those serving areas in and around the town centre.

Businesses that transport goods through or near Woking.

Train operators who operate services through Woking Rail

Station.

Event organisers.

The above list includes all protected characteristics groups. The

impact of the proposals on groups with protected characteristics have

been considered at a high level. The procedure for engaging with

protected characteristics groups in the lead up to and during

construction is considered by the Surrey Highways Customer and

Stakeholder Engagement Plan (CSEP). However, specific aspects

that should be taken into account during the design of the measures

that make up the HIF are considered as part of this impact

assessment.


Engagement carried out

Engagement carried out included:

Update reports provided to Woking Joint Committee (March and June 2018)

The scheme has been developed by the Officer Project Board, through

workshops and consultations with both Borough and County officers.

A public consultation was carried out during September and October 2018 in

conjunction with other related Woking transport schemes in plan for delivery

across the same timeframe.

Officer Engagement has included:

Woking Borough Council Officers

SCC Road Safety team

SCC Passenger Transport team

SCC Transport Studies team

SCC Traffic Operations Team

SCC Transport Development Planning

SCC Local Area Highways officers

SCC Highways Design & Delivery team

Page 308

17

of 15


Data used

Data and information used in the Woking HIF has been sourced from:

Information from review of Cycle Woking cycle demonstration towns

Census (Surrey-i, 2011)

Surrey Economic Partnership, Local Economic Assessment (2010)

Woking Borough Draft Local Transport Strategy and Forward Programme (2014)

Woking Borough Core Strategy (2012) / Local Development Framework

Woking Borough Economic Development Strategy (2017)

Surrey County Council Accident Data (2016)

Modelling data for cycle concept design work on Oriental Road (2018)

Woking Integrated Transport Project (ITP) EM3 business case submission

(2016)

Strategic Economic Plan - published (Enterprise M3, 2014)

Draft Strategic Economic Plan – for consultation (Enterprise M3, 2018)

WebTAG Unit A5.1 (Department for Transport, 2014)

Feedback gathered from previous public consultations on bus improvement

schemes and the Local Transport Review.

SCC Customer and Stakeholder Engagement Plan (CSEP).

Page 309

17

of 15


7. Impact of the new/amended policy, service or function

7a. Impact of the proposals on residents and service users with protected characteristics

Protected characteristic2

Potential positive impacts Potential negative impacts

Evidence

Age

The package of measures has the potential to deliver the following positive impacts:

Easier and more convenient walking and cycling routes to and from Woking town centre, its suburbs and the railway station, for all ages.

A safer road environment is likely to be of particular benefit for vulnerable older and younger users.

Improved access between homes, the town centre and rail station, thereby decreasing isolation within older residents.

Improved network management and reliability will help to ensure more reliable bus journeys for all ages.

Older people may be more likely to be affected by physical, sensory or cognitive impairments that may affect their ability to drive. The transport needs of older people, and other vulnerable populations

During the construction of the improvements, the works may disrupt existing pedestrian and cycling routes, leading to a temporary reduction in sustainable travel use. Measures will be taken to minimise disruption and ensure optimum levels of accessibility to and from the town and the rail station is maintained. Shared cycle and pedestrian routes may increase the vulnerability of older and younger people using these facilities. A significant change in the arrangement of the highway network may create initial uncertainty amongst road users upon completion of the works as they learn the new highway layout.

Evidence is sourced from: National Child Management Programme (NCMP) 2011/2012 results for obese and overweight children by borough/district Compliancy with Safe Routes to School initiatives - FPH Transport and Health Briefing statement Issues identified through engagement with the Local Committee, borough and county officers. Vulnerability factors of older people taken from AgeUk – What makes older people vulnerable. Data for the population growth of older people is sourced from the 2011 Census data on population estimates Concessionary bus journey statistics - Annual Bus Statistics 2014/15

2 More information on the definitions of these groups can be found here.

Page 310

17

http://www.fph.org.uk/uploads/briefing%20statement%20transport%20V2.pdf

http://www.fph.org.uk/uploads/briefing%20statement%20transport%20V2.pdf

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/brandpartnerglobal/lancashirevpp/documents/linking%20communities/background%20paper%20what%20makes%20older%20people%20vulnerable.pdf

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/brandpartnerglobal/lancashirevpp/documents/linking%20communities/background%20paper%20what%20makes%20older%20people%20vulnerable.pdf

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Population+Estimates

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Population+Estimates

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/annual-bus-statistics-year-ending-march-2015

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/new-equality-act-guidance/protected-characteristics-definitions/

of 15


experiencing disability and/or impairment need to be considered and prioritised. The lack of transport options can affect independence and social isolation, which may impact on health and social care needs. Without careful planning and good design a heavily trafficked town centre environment can be intimidating to vulnerable users and limit the growth in sustainable travel modes. The creation of enhanced and additional pedestrian/cycle routes separate from the carriageway in combination with the other highway network improvements will increase the likelihood of all ages choosing walking and cycling as a viable and attractive mode of travel. Active travel has a significant impact on physical activity, which in turn impacts on the prevalence of obesity and overweight. Over a quarter of Surrey’s children are overweight or obese by the time they are 10-11 years old. More than 1 in 5 adults are obese.

Statistics on the method of travel to education for secondary school children - National Travel Survey of 2014 1 in 3 children would like to cycle to school - BikeHub

Disability

The scheme seeks to support sustainable travel movements within the area The new cycle and pedestrian routes into the town centre and rail station will also

Those with disabilities may be negatively impacted whilst works are ongoing to deliver some of the infrastructure improvements. This might

Evidence is sourced from:

Figures on disabled people taking part in cycling from Active Surrey3.

3 Active Surrey / British Cycling: Creating a legacy of cycling participation in Surrey

Page 311

17

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-travel-survey-2014

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-travel-survey-2014

http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-to-school/

of 15


benefit those in wheelchairs or with mobility problems though improved footways, enhanced and new pedestrian and cycle crossings and a considerably enhanced environment for non-motorists road users.

Cycling is the third most popular sport among disabled people, with just under 10% of cycling participants having a disability. Therefore actions to enable more and safer cycling through encouraging modal shift will have positive impacts for this group.

Improving sustainable travel options and reducing the number of vehicles on this particular approach to Woking would help improve the overall Air Quality within the town centre, benefiting those who suffer from chronic respiratory illnesses.

include diverted access routes or reduced width of available routes. Measures would be taken to ensure the lowest inconvenience possible as part of the construction process. There are differing views on the impact of shared use pedestrian cycle paths and disability groups have expressed concern that these can lead to conflict. The routes provided are compliant with relevant guidance and provided at a minimum width of 3m increasing to 5m through Victoria Arch where usage and therefore potential for conflict is greater. A significant change in the arrangement of the highway network may create initial uncertainty amongst road users upon completion of the works as they learn the new highway layout.

Issues identified through engagement with the Local Committee and borough and county officers. 2011 ONS Census data National research shows that cycling is the third most popular sport among disabled people, with approximately 10% taking part in cycling.

Estimating local mortality burdens associated with particulate air pollution, PHE April 2014

Poor air quality is a significant public health issue. The burden of particulate air pollution in the UK in 2008 was estimated to be equivalent to nearly 29,000 deaths at typical ages and an associated loss of population life of 340,000 life years lost. – Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution December 2010.

Gender reassignment

No impact No impact

The proposed improvements are not anticipated to advantage/disadvantage users with this protected characteristic any more than users without it.


Pregnant women and parents with young children on bike seats may have particular safety or access concerns

While works are ongoing to deliver improvements, pedestrian/pram access may be restricted. Measures would be

Research, published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine journal, found that exposure to air pollutants increased the risk of babies being

Page 312

17

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/census/2011/index.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

http://www.hpa.org.uk/Publications/Environment/PHECRCEReportSeries/PHECRCE010/



https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/comeap-mortality-effects-of-long-term-exposure-to-particulate-air-pollution-in-the-uk

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/comeap-mortality-effects-of-long-term-exposure-to-particulate-air-pollution-in-the-uk

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/issue/current

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/issue/current

of 15


when sharing the highway with vehicles. Therefore the provision of new safer cycle routes should be beneficial to this group.

Improving sustainable travel options within Woking Town Centre and its approaches would improve the overall air quality which in particular would benefit pregnant women and babies.

taken to ensure the lowest inconvenience possible as part of the construction process.

born weighing less than 2.5kg, and reduced their average head circumference.

The Transport for London, 2009, Smoothing the Traffic Flow paper found that school runs are often mentioned as contributing greatly to the amount of traffic on the roads and that the implementation of school buses or dedicated public transport, similar to the USA, could improve traffic flow.

Race No impact No impact


Religion and belief

No impact No impact


Sex Female safety issues No impact


Sexual orientation

No impact No impact



No impact No impact The proposed improvements are not anticipated to advantage/disadvantage users with

Page 313

17

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/smoothing-traffic-flow-report.pdf

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/smoothing-traffic-flow-report.pdf

of 15


this protected characteristic any more than users without it.

Carers4

It is possible that the scheme may improve accessibility for carers. Increased accessibility through pedestrian, cycle and network improvements will make journeys and travel for carers easier and more reliable, and certainly should not disadvantage this protected group.

While works are ongoing to deliver improvements, pedestrian/wheelchair access may be restricted at certain times during construction. Measures will be taken to ensure the lowest possible level of inconvenience as part of the construction process.

Carers are currently able to claim back their travel costs through the NHS if a doctor can confirm the person being looked after needs someone to travel with them.

7b. Impact of the proposals on staff with protected characteristics


Potential positive impacts

Potential negative impacts

Evidence

Age

SCC staff that work at Quadrant Court will benefit from an enhanced transport work, which will offer increased opportunities to travel to work by sustainable travel modes and benefit from more reliable journey times, benefitting the employee and the organisation.

During the height of construction, the presence of traffic management measures may create short periods of disruption, creating journey delays and inconvenience to staff working at Quadrant Court. Traffic Management measures will be implemented to ensure the safe construction of the works, whilst minimising disruption to all users as far as is reasonably practicable.

Other than those positive and negative impacts described, the proposals are not expected to have any specific other impacts on staff from any protected group.

4 Carers are not a protected characteristic under the Public Sector Equality Duty, however we need to consider the potential impact on this group to ensure that there is no associative discrimination (i.e. discrimination against them because they are associated with people with protected characteristics). The definition of carers developed by Carers UK is that ‘carers look after family, partners or friends in need of help because they are ill, frail or have a disability. The care they provide is unpaid. This includes adults looking after other adults, parent carers looking after disabled children and young carers under 18 years of age.’

Page 314

17

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/social-care-and-support-guide/Pages/transport-and-mobility-issues.aspx

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/social-care-and-support-guide/Pages/transport-and-mobility-issues.aspx

of 15


A significant change in the arrangement of the highway network may create initial uncertainty amongst road users upon completion of the works as they learn the new highway layout.

Disability See above See above See above.

Gender reassignment

See above See above See above.



Race See above See above See above.

Religion and belief


Sex See above See above See above.

Sexual orientation




Carers See above See above See above.

Page 315

17

of 15




No changes have been made to the Woking Town Centre HIF scheme as a result of the Equalities Impact Assessment. All protected characteristics have been considered from the start of the development of the scheme. Whilst limited short term impacts will arise as described under the heading of each protected characteristic, the implementation of the works will be actively managed to ensure that the negative impacts are addressed during the evolution of the scheme design, through construction and upon completion.

Overall, the proposals are expected to have a positive impact on the protected groups.

9. Action plan


Action needed to maximise positive impact

or mitigate negative impact

By when Owner

Improve safety and accessibility for young people, older people, those with disabilities, pregnant women and those with young children.

Ensure standards for new cycling, pedestrian and vehicular infrastructure is of sufficient quality that all users will feel safe and are able to use the facilities safely both during construction and upon completion.

During the design and delivery of the relevant part of the works.

Project manager

Conflict between pedestrians and cyclists

Consider as part of the scheme design and evolution. Ensure that designs standards are met and where unachievable, measures are taken to mitigate any consequential impacts. Undertake and action (where it is reasonably practicable) the appropriate Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage

During the design and delivery of the relevant part of the works.

Project Manager

Page 316

17

of 15


3 Road Safety Audit Process.

While works are ongoing to deliver improvements, pedestrian/pram access may be restricted. During the construction of transport infrastructure improvements, there may be disruption to routes and services for users.

During the delivery of individual schemes, measures will be taken to minimise the impact of works on routes by providing where possible, additional signage, maximised available footway and cycleway widths, safe crossing points and/or alternative routes and provisions.

During the delivery of an individual scheme.

Project Manager/ contractor

During the scheme construction, bus users from this protected group may experience short term inconvenience as works disrupt normal routes and services (e.g. bus stop suspensions).

Communications to mitigate any potential impact to be coordinated via the Surrey County Council Customer and Stakeholder Engagement Plan.

Pre and during construction

Works Communications Team

Disability groups have expressed concern that shared footway/cycleways can be dangerous.

Shared footway cycleways will be constructed to a minimum width of 3.0m will be provided and increased to a width of 5.0m where the level of usage and potential impact is high. Undertake and action (where it is reasonably practicable and feasible) the appropriate Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3 Road Safety Audit Process.

Design stage Project Manager

A significant change in the arrangement of the highway network may create initial uncertainty amongst road users upon completion of the works as they learn the new highway layout.

Communications will be held locally to provide advance warning of the new road layout coming into effect. This will be supplemented by ‘new road layout ahead’ signage and other appropriate road signage to be agreed between the SCC/WBC and the Contractor.

During and post construction.

Works Communications Team and Project Manager.

Page 317

17

of 15



Potential negative impact Protected characteristic(s)

that could be affected

There are no negative impacts identified within this analysis that cannot be mitigated.

N/A



Our analysis is underpinned by working with officers and protected characteristic representation groups to determine the needs of minority groups. The public consultation has also informed our assessment of the scheme by analysing the views of the public.


The impact of the scheme is anticipated to be positive for the significant majority of the network, its users and the residents of Woking and the wider area. Specific positive impacts as follows:

Improved safety and accessibility for young people, older people, those with disabilities, pregnant women and those with young children.

Increased independence for young, older and disabled people who feel more confident and able to negotiate the redesigned highway network.

A reduction in the number of casualties amongst young people.

Encourage modal shift across all age ranges freeing up the road network.

Improved air quality, through reduced congestion, will improve the overall health of the community.

Improved journey time reliability and more resilient highway network.

Negative impacts are as follows:

Temporary disruption of current infrastructure and facilities during the construction of the scheme.

Possible conflict between pedestrians and cyclists on shared use paths.


We have ensured that equalities issues are

considered in every part of the scheme. We will

continue to do so as the scheme design evolves.

Our principles for commissioning designing and delivering infrastructure schemes includes

Page 318

17

of 15


considering the needs of all vulnerable users, specifically, older, younger and disabled people.


To mitigate the negative impacts outlined above: The proposed works will be advertised and communicated locally in accordance with the County Council’s CESP (Customer and Stakeholder Engagement Plan); communications will be held locally and with key stakeholders in advance of the works and upon completion to provide clarity of the new highway layout. Appropriate signage will be used to advise accordingly. The Traffic Management required to enable the construction of the works will be implemented to ensure the efficient and safe delivery of the works in accordance with the requirements of the County Councils Streetworks Team. This will assist in minimising journey delays and maximising road safety for all highway users. Implementation of best practice and minimum width design standards where possible when implementing pedestrian and cycle improvements to reduce conflict. The County Council’s Road Safety Auditing process will consider the works against national and local guidance and policy to ensure that good design principles are implemented. Where Road Safety Audit recommendations cannot be met, these will either be mitigated through other road safety engineering options or where appropriate shall be the subject of a robust Exception Report.


There are no anticipated negative impacts that cannot be mitigated. This EIA has been based upon the works outlined on drawing 70018229-SK-28 F titled ‘GUILDFORD ROAD IMPROVEMENTS NORTHERN JUNCTION GENERAL ARRANGEMENT’. Any changes to the proposed highway layout that exacerbate any existing negative impacts or create additional negative impacts may require an updated EIA.

Page 319

17


CABINET

DATE: 16 JULY 2019

REPORT OF: MR COLIN KEMP, DEPUTY LEADER

LEAD OFFICER:

JASON RUSSELL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY PROTECTION, TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT

SUBJECT: TRANSPORT FOR THE SOUTH EAST PROPOSAL TO GOVERNMENT

SUMMARY OF ISSUE:

This report sets out the County Councils position and basis for agreement to a draft proposal to Government agreed by the Transport for the South East (TfSE) Shadow Partnership Board in December 2018 setting out the powers that TfSE wishes to secure should it be offered statutory status in the future.

At present the Secretary of State has subsequently written to all Sub National Transport Bodies informing them that he is not minded to grant statutory status to any shadow STBs for the foreseeable future. The Government’s preference for the time being is to continue with the partnership working TfSE already has in place. The recent letter from the Secretary of State clearly states that Department for Transport will continue to take account of TfSE’s views in developing national transport policy and investment decisions regardless of any formal status.

RECOMMENDATIONS:


1. Agree the consultation draft of the Proposal to Government (Annex 1) including the powers and responsibilities requested by TfSE and the proposed governance arrangements with the following amendments to Annex 1 (Table 1),

a. Rail - The powers being sought for rail should be for strategic schemes only and the County Council must still be consulted directly on the terms of the franchises and any matters that affect us locally (including infrastructure and service enhancements)

b. Bus Service Provision - The powers being sought for bus service franchising. Although we agree to this it should be with the caveat that that any conversations and delivery are done in partnership and with the agreement of the County Council

2. Agree to delegate any final changes to the TfSE proposal submitted to Government to the Deputy Leader and Executive Director for Community Protection, Transport and Environment.

Page 321

18

Item 18


The TfSE Proposal to Government is a constructive way for Authorities in the South East Area to exercise a common voice to government through the use of the powers sought in Annex 1.

DETAILS:

Background

1. TfSE was formed as a shadow sub-national transport body (STB) in June 2017 and is planning to request statutory status later in 2019. If approved by parliament, TfSE will become the second statutory STB alongside Transport for the North (TFN), which was confirmed in April 2018.

2. Should it obtain statutory status in the future, TfSE will have powers and responsibilities that are required to support the work of its constituent authorities and partners. It will have twin purposes to facilitate the development of transport strategy for the region and to promote economic growth.

3. The statutory basis for STBs is set out in Part 5A of the Local Transport Act 2008 as amended by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016, which states that “the Secretary of State may by regulations establish a sub-national transport body for any area in England outside Greater London” (s102E(1)).

4. To achieve statutory status, TfSE is required to develop a Proposal to Government which will need to demonstrate the strategic case for the creation of a sub-national transport body and set out how TfSE will fulfil the statutory requirements for such a body as outlined in the enabling legislation.

5. The draft proposal will also need to identify the types of powers and responsibilities that the STB will be seeking, as well as identifying the proposed governance structures.

6. The legislation requires that a new sub-national transport body will be promoted by, and have the consent of, its constituent authorities, and that the proposal has been the subject of consultation within the area and with neighbouring authorities.

7. The full membership of the proposed subnational transport body is listed below:

Bracknell Forest Borough CouncilBrighton and Hove City CouncilEast Sussex County CouncilHampshire County CouncilIsle of Wight CouncilKent County CouncilMedway CouncilPortsmouth City CouncilReading Borough CouncilRoyal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead CouncilSlough Borough Council

Page 322

18

3

Southampton City CouncilSurrey County CouncilWest Berkshire CouncilWest Sussex County CouncilWokingham Borough Council

8. In July 2018, the Shadow Partnership Board agreed that a small Member subgroup should be formed to lead the development of the Proposal to Government. The Member sub-group has met regularly since September 2018 and has guided the process for identifying possible powers and responsibilities, as well as informing the development of governance proposals, such as voting mechanisms. The Members of the sub-group are as follow:

Cllr Tony Page – Berkshire Local Transport Body Cllr Rob Humby - Hampshire County Council Cllr Michael Payne – Kent County Council Cllr Gill Mitchell – Brighton & Hove City Council Cllr Ian Ward – Isle of Wight Council Ross McNally – Enterprise M3 LEP

9. The Members of the sub-group have considered the feedback from the informal engagement and have used it to shape the draft proposal presented as Annex 1.

10. Since the launch of the formal consultation the Secretary of State has subsequently written to all Sub National Transport Bodies informing them that he is not minded to grant statutory status to any shadow STBs for the foreseeable future. The Government’s preference for the time being is to continue with the partnership working arrangements TfSE already has in place. The recent letter from the Secretary of State clearly states that the Department for Transport will continue to take account of TfSE’s views in developing national transport policy and investment decisions regardless of any formal status. In June 2019, the TfSE Shadow Partnership Board agreed to continue with the formal consultation process so that its proposal can be ready for submission to government should these circumstances change.

CONSULTATION:

11. The TfSE Shadow Partnership Board, the Chairman of TfSE and the secretariat have undertaken an informal engagement exercise with Elected Members and officers from the constituent authorities, LEPs, district and boroughs and protected landscapes. The purpose of the informal engagement was to offer Members and Officers an opportunity to fully understand the implications of specific powers and responsibilities and the circumstances in which they may be applied.

12. It was also important to engage representatives from the Department for Transport in this informal exercise and to ensure that their views were considered prior to the formal consultation on the draft proposal. Initial feedback has been received from the DfT and has highlighted where additional detail is needed to make the case for the powers that TfSE is likely to request. This feedback is set out in a paragraph below titled ‘Feedback

Page 323

18

from the Department for Transport’. The following meetings were held during the informal engagement period including the Meeting Title and date:

Berkshire Chief Executives Thursday 13 December 2018 Kent Joint Chief Executives Tuesday 08 January 2019 Kent District & Borough Leaders Meeting Thursday 17 January 2019 Brighton & Hove City Council Leaders Monday 21 January 2019 West Sussex Joint Chief Executives Wednesday 23 January 2019 East Sussex District & Borough Leaders & Chief Executives Meeting

Friday 25 January 2019 Kent and Medway Economic Partnership (SELEP) Monday 28 January

2019 Team East Sussex (SELEP) Monday 28 January 2019 Berkshire Local Transport Board Thursday 31 January 2019 Enterprise M3 LEP Board Thursday 31 January 2019 Surrey District & Borough Leaders Meeting Wednesday 06 February 2019 Brighton and Hove City Council Executive Leadership Team Wednesday

06 February 2019 Slough Informal Briefing Monday 11 February 2019 Isle of Wight informal briefing Thursday 14 February 2019 West Berkshire Transport Advisory Group Meeting Friday 15 February

2019 Solent LEP Informal briefing Monday 25 February 2019 West Sussex Cabinet Board Tuesday 26 February 2019 Wokingham Informal Briefing Wednesday 27 February 2019 Hampshire County Council Departmental Management Team Wednesday

27 February 2019 Hampshire & Isle of Wight District & Borough Leaders Meeting Friday 01

March 2019 Portsmouth Deputy Leader Friday 01 March 2019 Surrey Joint Chief Executives Friday 15 March 2019

13. Feedback from the informal consultation is as follows:-

Support for the creation of TfSE as a statutory body;

Throughout the informal engagement exercise, it has been clear that there is considerable support for TfSE and recognition that statutory status should be sought.

Powers and responsibilities

The constituent authorities feel that the powers and responsibilities set out in Annex 1: Proposal to Government (Table 1) are broadly in the right territory.

It needs to be clearly communicated that powers and responsibilities whilst concurrent can only be delivered following due consultation and with the consent of constituent authorities.

Page 324

18

5

Governance

It is recognised that the proposed governance arrangements reflect the requirements of DfT. Some comments were received in relation to the voting mechanism, but overall there was broad agreement that it was a sensible approach.

Setting the right level of ambition

Although there was broad agreement to the powers and responsibilities, some partners expressed views that the proposal was not sufficiently ambitious and that timescales should be accelerated.

There is a need to balance this feedback with the views of the DfT. TfSE is seeking powers and responsibilities that are tailored to the needs

of the region and can be effectively delivered.

Ensuring the proposal is future proofed

Although there are some powers that TfSE is not seeking in the current proposal, partners were keen that it is clear to Government that we may seek to request additional powers in the future, for example delivering rail franchises.

Engaging with district and borough partners

District and borough authorities will be key during the development of the proposal given their role in delivering housing and employment space to facilitate economic growth. It is clear that TfSE needs to continue to engage with these authorities through the following channels:

i. County representatives on the Shadow Partnership Board and Senior Officer Group to share regular TfSE updates with district and borough colleagues

ii. The district and borough representatives on the Transport Forum should disseminate information to other council Leaders; and

iii. Ongoing engagement with officers through the development of the Transport Strategy.

Presentation

Although the document is mainly a technical submission to Government, there is a need to ensure that the strategic economic case is engaging and sets out how the proposal will help to achieve the TfSE vision.

Surrey County Council position

The County Council agrees with the broad direction set out above by TfSE but also supports decision making, and appropriate powers, being devolved to the most immediate level consistent with their resolution.

On that basis we respond as follows in response to Annex 1:-

Page 325

18

General Functions

o Agreed

Rail

o The powers being sought for rail should be for strategic schemes only and the County Council must still be consulted directly on the terms of the franchises and any matters that affect us locally (including infrastructure and service enhancements)

Highways

o Agreed

Make Capital Grants for public transport facilities

o Agreed

Bus Service Provision

o The powers being sought for bus service franchising in partnership and with the agreement of the County Council. Same as recommendation.

Introducing Integrated Ticketing Schemes

o Agreed

Air Quality

o Agreed

Other powers

o Agreed

Incidental Amendments

o Agreed


14. No risks are envisaged as part of this proposal.

Financial and Value for Money Implications

15. Surrey County Council currently contributes £58,000 per annum towards the staffing costs to run TfSE. It is expected that any additional costs to set up and administer TfSE with the powers it is seeking will be provided by Government. In the Secretary of State most recent letter he has indicated that he is aware of TfSE engaging with his officials in the DfT to secure multi-year core funding via the forthcoming spending review. Core funding was

Page 326

18

7

secured by Transport for the North (TfN) which recently received statutory status. However, if funding is not provided then the constituent Authorities that make up the TfSE area may be required to contribute additional funding to enable TfSE to operate as intended by this proposal.

Section 151 Officer Commentary

16. There are no additional financial implications associated with approving the Transport for the South East proposal for Government report which is being prepared from within existing resources. At this stage it is assumed that the implementation and delivery of the proposals will be funded by Central Government. Should this position change then a further report will be produced for consideration of any financial implications that may arise. The establishment of TfSE as a statutory body would be expected to improve the region’s ability to influence major transport improvements that are strategically important across the area and to access additional funding

Legal Implications – Monitoring Officer

17. The Local Transport Act 2008, as amended, permits the establishment of sub-national transport bodies (STBs) for any area in England outside Greater London. The legislation requires that a new sub-national transport body will be promoted by, and have the consent of, its constituent authorities, and that the proposal has been the subject of consultation within the area and with neighbouring authorities.

Equalities and Diversity

18. There are no direct implications for equality and diversity arising from the decisions made on this report.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

Consultation

19. TfSE requires a formal response by Cabinet to the consultation by the end of July 2019

Formal consent

20. Following the conclusion of the consultation in July 2019, TfSE will revise the draft proposal to reflect the feedback received. The final proposal will be issued to all constituent authorities for them to offer formal consent for the submission of the proposal to Government in November 2019. Cabinet in July 2019 will be asked to delegate the final approval of the proposal to the Deputy Leader and Executive Director for Community Protection, Transport and Environment.

Contact Officer:Lyndon Mendes, Transport Policy Team Manager, 0208 541 9393

Consulted:

Page 327

18

Colin Kemp, Deputy LeaderJason Russell, Executive Director for Community Protection, Transport and EnvironmentLucy Monie, Head of Highways and TransportPaul Millin, Strategic Transport Group Manager

Annexes:Annex 1: TfSE Draft Proposal to Government

Page 328

18

Proposal to Government

Draft for consultation

March 2019

Page 329

18

1

1. Executive summary

1.1 Transport for the South East is a sub-national transport body (STB) established to

speak with one voice on the strategic transport priorities for the South East region. 1.2 Our aim is to support and grow the economy through the delivery of our transport

strategy – a programme of integrated transport projects and programmes to unlock growth, boost connectivity and speed up journeys while improving access to opportunities for all and protecting and enhancing our region’s unique environment.

1.3 By operating strategically across the South East on transport infrastructure – a role

that no other organisation currently undertakes on this scale – we will directly influence how and where money is invested and drive improvements for the travelling public and for businesses in a region which is the UK’s major international gateway.

1.4 Already we are commanding the attention of government, facilitating greater

collaboration between South East local authorities, local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) and government to shape our region’s future.

1.5 Our next step is to become a statutory body, which we aim to achieve in 2020. This

draft proposal will be subject to a public consultation from May to July 2019 before being submitted to Government by the end of 2019 for consideration.

1.6 Our draft proposal has been developed in partnership with TfSE’s members and

stakeholders and represents a broad consensus on the key issues facing the region and the powers required to implement our transport strategy.

1.7 The constituent authorities and LEPs have steered the development of the proposal,

with input from members of our Transport Forum, which brings together representatives of transport operators, transport users and other interest groups.

1.8 Our members and stakeholders are clear that a statutory sub-national transport body

for the South East is vital if we are to successfully:

Increase our influence with Government and key stakeholders;

Invest in pan-regional strategic transport corridors;

Enable genuinely long-term planning; and

Support the delivery of jobs, housing and growth. 1.9 We have only proposed those powers for TfSE which are proportionate and will be

effective in helping us achieve our strategic aims and objectives, complementing and building on the existing powers of local authorities.

1.10 These powers would enable us to deliver significant additional value at regional level

through efficient and effective operational delivery, better coordination of pan-regional schemes and the ability to directly influence and inform national investment programmes.

Page 330

18

2

2. The Ambition

“The South East is crucial to the UK economy and is the nation’s major international

gateway for people and businesses.

“We will grow the South East’s economy by facilitating the development of a high

quality, integrated transport system that makes the region more productive and

competitive, improves access to opportunities for all and protects the environment.”

Transport for the South East vision statement

2.1 Transport for the South East (TfSE) was established in shadow form in June 2017. In

the short period since, we have emerged as a powerful and effective partnership,

bringing together 16 local transport authorities, five local enterprise partnerships and

other key stakeholders including protected landscapes, transport operators, district

and borough authorities and national agencies to speak with one voice on the

region’s strategic transport needs.

2.2 Our shared vision is to ensure the delivery of a high quality, sustainable and

integrated transport system that:

Supports increased productivity to grow the South East and UK economy and

compete in the global marketplace;

Works to improve safety, quality of life and access to opportunities for all; and

Protects and enhances the South East’s unique natural and historic environment.

2.3 Our transport strategy, which covers the period to 2050, will form the basis for

achieving that vision. It will be supported by a targeted investment plan which will

identify how we can grow the GVA of the South East by up to £500 billion by 2050

and create almost three million additional jobs.

2.4 TfSE has already, in shadow form, added considerable value in bringing together

partners and stakeholders to work with Government on key strategic issues, securing

positive outcomes for the region in the Roads Investment Strategy 2 and Major Road

Network consultation, influencing rail franchising discussions and providing collective

views on schemes such as southern and western rail access to Heathrow.

2.5 The requirements within our draft proposal seek to provide TfSE with the initial

functions and powers to move to the next stage of our development – to begin

delivering the transport strategy and realising the benefits that a high quality,

sustainable and integrated transport system can unlock for people, businesses and

the environment.

2.6 We are clear that we only seek those powers and functions which are necessary to

deliver our strategy and achieve our vision. Our requirements differ from those of

other STBs and reflect the different geographic, economic, political, social and

environmental characteristics of our region and the strategic objectives of TfSE and

its partners.

Page 331

18

3

3. The Strategic and Economic Case

The Transport for the South East area 3.1 The South East is already a powerful motor for the UK economy, adding more than

£200 billion to the economy in 2015 – second only to the contribution made by

London and more than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined.

3.2 It is home to 7.5m people and 329,000 businesses including some of the world’s

biggest multinationals as well as a large number of thriving, innovative SMEs. It is a

world leader in knowledge intensive, high value industries including advanced

engineering, biosciences, financial services and transport and logistics.

3.3 The South East area includes both of the nation’s busiest airports in Heathrow and

Gatwick, a string of major ports including Southampton, Dover and Portsmouth,

many of the country’s most vital motorways and trunk roads and crucial railway links

to London, the rest of Britain and mainland Europe.

3.4 The South East’s international gateways support the economic wellbeing of the

whole of the UK. As we withdraw from the European Union, they will be integral to supporting a thriving, internationally facing economy.

3.5 Half of all freight passing through Dover going on to other parts of the country.

Southampton sees £71 billion of international trade each year and Portsmouth handles two million passengers a year. More than 120 million air passenger a year use Gatwick, Southampton and Heathrow airports.

3.6 Our people and infrastructure are not our only assets. With two national parks,

numerous areas of outstanding natural beauty and much of the region allocated as

green belt, the South East draws heavily on its unique and varied natural

environment for its success. It offers outstanding beaches, historic towns, dynamic

cities and unparalleled links to London, the UK, Europe and the rest of the world. It is,

in short, an amazing place to live, work and visit.

Page 332

18

4

The scale of the challenge and why change is needed

3.7 But we face a real challenge. Despite these enviable foundations – and in some

cases because of them – our infrastructure is operating beyond capacity and unable

to sustain ongoing growth.

3.8 Despite the economic importance of the region to the UK economy, contributing

almost 15% of UK GVA (2015), the South East has seen continued underinvestment

in transport infrastructure with a per capita spend that is significantly below the

England average and a third of that in London.

3.9 So while transport links to and from the capital are broadly good, elsewhere

connectivity can be poor – even between some of our region’s major towns and

cities. Train journey times between Southampton and Brighton (a distance of around

70 miles) are only marginally less than the fastest train journeys between London

and Manchester. The corresponding journey on the A27 includes some of the most

congested parts of the South East’s road network.

3.10 Underinvestment in road and rail infrastructure is making life harder for our residents

and businesses. New housing provision is being hampered by the lack of adequate

transport infrastructure. In our coastal communities, lack of access to areas of

employment and further education and higher education are major contributors to

high unemployment and poor productivity.

3.11 These are challenges that extend beyond administrative and political boundaries.

They require TfSE to have the powers to effectively join up transport policy, regulation and investment and provide clear, strategic investment priorities which will improve connectivity into and across the region, boost the economy and improve the lives of millions.

Planned transport infrastructure spending per head

Page 333

18

5

The powers to achieve our vision 3.12 To enable us to achieve our vision through the efficient and effective delivery of the

transport strategy, we propose that a range of functions exercisable by a local transport authority, passenger transport executive or mayoral combined authority are included in the regulations to establish TfSE on a statutory footing.

3.13 We have only sought those powers which we believe are proportionate and will be

effective in helping us achieve our strategic aims and objectives, complementing and building on the existing powers of local authorities. The powers will be sought in a way which means they will operate concurrently with – and only with the consent of – the constituent authorities.

3.14 These powers would enable us to deliver significant additional value at regional level

in three key areas:

Strategic influence: Speaking with one voice and with the benefit of regional scale and insight to influence the development of national investment programmes; a trusted partner for government, Network Rail and Highways England.

Coordination: Developing solutions which offer most benefit delivered on a regional scale; working with partners and the market to shape the development of future transport technology in line with regional aspirations.

Operational: Accelerating the delivery of schemes and initiatives which cross local authority boundaries, ensuring strategic investment happens efficiently and that the benefits for residents and businesses are realised as soon as possible.

The benefits of establishing TfSE as a statutory body

3.15 One voice for strategic transport in the South East

TfSE will provide a clear, prioritised view of the region’s strategic transport

investment needs. We already offer an effective mechanism for Government to

engage with local authorities and LEPs in the region; statutory status would take that

a step further, enabling us to directly inform and influence critical spending decisions

by Government and key stakeholders including Highways England and Network Rail.

3.16 Facilitating economic growth

The transport strategy will facilitate the delivery of jobs, housing and growth across

the South East and further build on our contribution to UK GVA. Implementation of

strategic, cross-boundary schemes, particularly investment in the orbital routes, will

connect economic centres and international gateways for the benefit of people and

businesses, regionally and nationally. TfSE also offers a route to engage with other

sub-national transport bodies and Transport for London on wider cross-regional

issues.

3.17 Delivering benefits for the travelling public

TfSE can support the efficient delivery of pan-regional programmes that will offer

considerable benefits to the end user – for example, integrated travel solutions

combined with smart ticketing will operate more effectively at a regional scale and

can best be facilitated by a regional body than by individual organisations.

Page 334

18

6

3.18 Local democratic accountability

Our transport strategy will be subject to public consultation and will, in its final form,

provide a clear, prioritised view of investments agreed by all the South East’s local

transport authorities and with input from passengers, businesses and the general

public. Delivery of the strategy will be led by the Partnership Board, comprising

elected members and business leaders with a direct line of accountability to the

people and organisations they represent.

3.19 Achieving the longer term vision

Securing statutory status offers TfSE the permanence and security to deliver the

transport strategy to 2050, providing a governance structure that matches the

lifecycle of major infrastructure projects. It will provide confidence to funders, enable

us to work with the market to ensure the deliverability of priority schemes and support

development of the skills needed to design, build, operate and maintain an improved

transport network.

Page 335

18

7

4. Constitutional arrangements

Requirements from legislation

Name 4.1 The name of the sub-national transport body would be ‘Transport for the South East

(“TfSE”)’ and the area would be the effective boundaries of our ‘constituent members’.

Members

4.2 The membership of the STB is listed below:

Bracknell Forest Borough Council Brighton and Hove City Council East Sussex County Council Hampshire County Council Isle of Wight Council Kent County Council Medway Council Portsmouth City Council Reading Borough Council Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council Slough Borough Council Southampton City Council Surrey County Council West Berkshire Council West Sussex County Council Wokingham Borough Council

Partnership Board

4.3 The current Shadow Partnership Board is the only place where all ‘const ituent

members’ are represented at an elected member level1. Therefore this Board will need to have a more formal role, including in ratifying key decisions. This would effectively become the new ‘Partnership Board’ and meet at least twice per annum. The Partnership Board could agree through Standing Orders if it prefers to meet more regularly.

4.4 Each constituent authority will appoint one of their councillors / members or their

elected mayor as a member of TfSE on the Partnership Board. Each constituent authority will also appoint another one of their councillors / members or their elected mayor as a substitute member (this includes directly elected mayors as under the Local Government Act 2000). The person appointed would be that authority’s elected mayor or leader, provided that, if responsibility for transport has been formally delegated to another member of the authority, that member may be appointed as the member of the Partnership Board, if so desired.

4.5 The Partnership Board may delegate the discharge of agreed functions to its officers

or a committee of its members in accordance with a scheme of delegation or on an

1 The six constituent members of the Berkshire Local Transport Body (BLTB) will have one

representative between them on the Partnership Board.

Page 336

18

8

ad hoc basis. Further detail of officer groups and a list of delegations will be developed through a full constitution.

Co-opted members

4.6 TfSE proposes that governance arrangements for a statutory STB should maintain

the strong input from our business leadership, including LEPs and other business representatives. The regulations should provide for the appointment of persons who are not elected members of the constituent authorities but provide highly relevant expertise to be co-opted members of the Partnership Board.

4.7 A number of potential co-opted members are also set out in the draft legal proposal.

Co-opted members would not automatically have voting rights but the Partnership Board can resolve to grant voting rights to them on such issues as the Board considers appropriate, for example on matters that directly relate to co-opted members’ areas of interest.

Chair and vice-chair

4.8 The Partnership Board will agree to a chair and vice-chair of the Partnership Board.

The Partnership Board may also appoint a single or multiple vice-chairs from the constituent members. Where the chair or vice-chair is the representative member from a constituent authority they will have a vote.

Proceedings

4.9 It is expected that the Partnership Board will continue to work by consensus but to

have an agreed approach to voting where consensus cannot be reached and for certain specific decisions.

4.10 A number of voting options were considered to find a preferred option that

represents a straightforward mechanism, reflects the characteristics of the partnership and does not provide any single authority with an effective veto. We also considered how the voting metrics provide a balance between county and other authorities, urban and rural areas and is resilient to any future changes in local government structures.

4.11 The steering group considered these options and preferred the population

weighted option based on the population of the constituent authority with the smallest population (the Isle of Wight with 140,000 residents).

4.12 This option requires that the starting point for decisions will be consensus; if that

cannot be achieved then decisions will require a simple majority of those constituent authorities who are present and voting. The decisions below will however require both a super-majority, consisting of three quarters of the weighted vote in favour of the decision, and a simple majority of the constituent authorities appointed present and attending at the meeting:

(i) The approval and revision of TfSE’s transport strategy; (ii) The approval of the TfSE annual budget; (iii) Changes to the TfSE constitution.

The population weighted vote would provide a total of 54 weighted votes, with no single veto. A table showing the distribution of votes across the constituent authorities is set out in Appendix 1. This option reflects the particular circumstances of TfSE, being based on the population of the smallest individually represented constituent member who will have one vote, and only a

Page 337

18

9

marginally smaller proportionate vote. It is considered that this option is equitable to all constituent authority members, ensures that the aim of decision making consensus remains and that smaller authorities have a meaningful voice, whilst recognising the size of the larger authorities in relation to certain critical issues.

4.13 The population basis for the weighted vote will be based on ONS statistics from

2016 and reviewed every ten years. 4.14 The Partnership Board is expected to meet twice per year. Where full

attendance cannot be achieved, the Partnership Board will be quorate where 50% of constituent members are present.

Scrutiny committee

4.15 TfSE will appoint a scrutiny committee to review decisions made or actions taken

in connection with the implementation of the proposed powers and responsibilities. The committee could also make reports or recommendations to TfSE with respect to the discharge of its functions or on matters relating to transport to, from or within TfSE’s area.

4.16 Each constituent authority will be entitled to appoint a member to the committee

and a substitute nominee. Such appointees cannot be otherwise members of TfSE including the Partnership Board.

Standing orders

4.17 TfSE will need to be able to make, vary and revoke standing orders for the

regulation of proceedings and business, including that of the scrutiny committee. This will ensure that the governance structures can remain appropriate to the effective running of the organisation.

4.18 In regards to changing boundaries and therefore adding or removing members,

TfSE would have to make a new proposal to Government under Section 102Q of the Local Transport Act 2008 and require formal consents from each constituent authority.

Miscellaneous

4.19 It may be necessary that certain additional local authority enactments are

applied to TfSE as if TfSE were a local authority, including matters relating to staffing arrangements, pensions, ethical standards and provision of services etc. These are set out in the draft legal proposal.

4.20 TfSE also proposes to seek the functional power of competence as set out in

section 102M of the Local Transport Act 2008. 4.21 TfSE will consider options for appointing to the roles of a Head of Paid Service, a

Monitoring Officer and a Chief Finance Officer whilst considering possible interim arrangements.

Funding

4.22 TfSE will work with partners and the Department for Transport to consider a

sustainable approach to establishing the formal STB and effectively and

Page 338

18

10

expeditiously as possible, bearing in mind the considerable support among regional stakeholders for TfSE’s attainment of statutory status.

Governance: Transport Forum and Senior Officer Group

4.23 The Partnership Board will appoint a Transport Forum. This will be an advisory

body to the Senior Officer Group and Partnership Board, comprising a wider group of representatives from user groups, operators, District and Borough Councils as well as Government and National Agency representatives.

4.24 The Transport Forum will meet quarterly and be chaired by an independent

person appointed by the Partnership Board. The Transport Forum may also appoint a vice-chair for the Transport Forum, who will chair the Transport Forum when the chair is not present.

4.25 The Transport Forum’s terms of reference will be agreed by the Partnership

Board. It is envisaged that the Transport Forum will provide technical expertise, intelligence and information to the Senior Officer Group and the Partnership Board.

4.26 The Partnership Board and Transport Forum will be complemented by a Senior

Officer Group representing members at official level providing expertise and co-ordination to the TfSE programme. The Senior Officer Group will meet monthly.

Page 339

18

11

5. Functions TfSE’s proposal is to become a statutory sub-national transport body as set out in section part 5A of the Local Transport Act 2008.

General functions 5.1 Transport for the South East proposes to have the ‘general functions’ as set out in

Section 102H (1) including: a. to prepare a transport strategy for the area; b. to provide advice to the Secretary of State about the exercise of transport

functions in relation to the area (whether exercisable by the Secretary of State or others);

c. to co-ordinate the carrying out of transport functions in relation to the area that are exercisable by different constituent authorities, with a view to improving the effectiveness and efficiency in the carrying out of those functions;

d. if the STB considers that a transport function in relation to the area would more effectively and efficiently be carried out by the STB, to make proposals to the Secretary of State for the transfer of that function to the STB; and

e. to make other proposals to the Secretary of State about the role and functions of the STB. (2016, 102H (1))5.

5.2 The general functions are regarded as the core functions of a sub-national transport

body and will build on the initial work of TfSE in its shadow form. To make further proposals to the Secretary of State regarding constitution or functions, Transport for the South East will need formal consents from each ‘constituent member’.

5.3 Transport for the South East recognises that under current proposals the Secretary

of State will remain the final decision-maker on national transport strategies, but critically that the Secretary of State must have regard to a sub-national transport body’s statutory transport strategy. This sets an important expectation of the strong relationship Transport for the South East aims to demonstrate with Government on major programmes like the Major Road Network and Railway Upgrade Plan.

Local transport functions

5.4 Initial work has identified a number of additional powers that Transport for the South

East may require that will support the delivery of the transport strategy. The table below provides an assessment of these functions.

5.5 The powers which are additional to the general functions relating to STBs will be

requested in a way that means they will operate concurrently and with the consent of the constituent authorities.

Page 340

18

12

Table 1: Proposed powers and responsibilities

POWER RATIONALE

General functions

Section 102 H of the Local Transport Act 2008 Prepare a transport strategy, advise the Secretary of State, co-ordinate the carrying out of transport functions, make proposals for the transfer of functions, make other proposals about the role and functions of the STB.

This legislation provides the general powers required for TfSE to operate as a statutory sub-national transport body, meeting the requirements of the enabling legislation to facilitate the development and implementation of a transport strategy to deliver regional economic growth. Government at both national and local level recognises that the solutions required to deliver regional economic growth are best identified and planned for on a regional scale by those who best understand the people and businesses who live and work there.

Rail

Right to be consulted about new rail franchises Section 13 of the Railways Act 2005 – Railway Functions of Passenger Transport Executives

We are seeking the extension of the right of a Passenger Transport Executive to be consulted before the Secretary of State issues an invitation to tender for a franchise agreement. The right of consultation is significant to TfSE as it confirms our role as a strategic partner, enabling us to influence future rail franchises to ensure the potential need for changes to the scope of current services and potential new markets identified by TfSE are considered. TfSE is uniquely placed to provide a regional perspective and consensus on the priorities for rail in its area. This would benefit central government as a result of the vastly reduced need for consultation with individual authorities. We recognise that changes to the current franchising model are likely following the Williams Review; regardless of these changes, TfSE is clear that it should have a role in shaping future rail service provision.

Set High Level Output Specification (HLOS) for Rail Schedule 4A, paragraph 1D, of the Railways Act 1993

TfSE requires a strong, formal role in rail investment decision making over and above that which is available to individual constituent authorities. We act as the collective voice of our constituent authorities, providing an evidence-based regional perspective and consensus on the priorities for investment in our rail network. This power would enable TfSE to act jointly with the Secretary of State to set and vary the HLOS in our area,

Page 341

18

13

POWER RATIONALE

ensuring TfSE’s aspirations for transformational investment in rail infrastructure are reflected in the HLOS and enabling an integrated approach across road and rail investment for the first time.

Highways

Set Road Investment Strategy (RIS) for the Strategic Road Network (SRN) Section 3 and Schedule 2 of the Infrastructure Act 2015

TfSE requires a strong, formal role in roads investment decision making over and above that which is available to individual constituent authorities. We act as the collective voice of our constituent authorities, providing an evidence-based regional perspective and consensus on the priorities for roads investment. This power would enable TfSE to act jointly with the Secretary of State to set and vary the RIS in our area, ensuring TfSE’s aspirations for transformational investment in road infrastructure are reflected in the RIS and enabling an integrated approach across road and rail investment for the first time.

Enter into agreements to undertake certain works on Strategic Road Network, Major Road Network or local roads Section 6(5) of the Highways Act 1980, (trunk roads) & Section 8 of the Highways Act 1980 (local roads)

We are seeking the power that local highway authorities currently have to enter into an agreement with other highway authorities to construct, reconstruct, alter, improve or maintain roads. These powers, operated concurrently with the local authorities, will enable TfSE to promote and expedite the delivery of regionally significant cross-boundary schemes that otherwise might not be progressed. They would overcome the need for complex ‘back-to-back’ legal and funding agreements between neighbouring authorities and enable us to reduce scheme development time and overall costs.

Acquire land to enable construction, improvement, or mitigate adverse effects of highway construction Sections 239,240,246 and 250 of the Highways Act 1980

This power, exercisable concurrently and only with the consent of the relevant highway authority, would allow preparations for the construction of a highways scheme to be expedited where highway authorities are not in a position to acquire land. Land acquisition by TfSE could facilitate quicker, more efficient scheme delivery, bringing forward the economic and broader social and environmental benefits.

Construct highways, footpaths, bridleways

The concurrent powers required to effectively promote, coordinate and fund road schemes are vital to TfSE. Without them, we would not be able to enter into any

Page 342

18

14

POWER RATIONALE

Sections 24,25 & 26 of the Highways Act 1980

contractual arrangement in relation to procuring the construction, improvement or maintenance of a highway or the construction or improvement of a trunk road. Granting of these powers would enable TfSE directly to expedite the delivery of regionally significant road schemes that cross constituent authority boundaries that otherwise might not be progressed.

Make capital grants for public transport facilities

Make capital grants for the provision of public transport facilities Section 56(2) of the Transport Act 1968

This concurrent power would enable TfSE to support the funding and delivery of joint projects with constituent local authorities, improving deliverability and efficiency. Constituent authorities would benefit from the granting of this concurrent power as they may, in future, be recipients of funding from TfSE to partly or wholly fund a transport enhancement within their local authority area.

Bus service provision

Duty to secure the provision of bus services Section 63(1) Transport Act 1985

Local transport authorities and integrated transport authorities have a duty to secure the provision of such public passenger transport services as it considers appropriate and which would not otherwise be provided. Travel-to-work areas do not respect local authority boundaries. TfSE is seeking to have this duty concurrently with the local transport authorities in our area, enabling us to fill in identified gaps in bus service provision within our geography or secure the provision of regionally important bus services covering one or more constituent authority areas which would not otherwise be provided.

Quality Bus Partnerships The Bus services Act 2017 Sections 113C – 113O & Sections 138A – 138S

TfSE is seeking powers, currently available to local transport authorities and integrated transport authorities, to enter into Advanced Quality Partnerships and Enhanced Partnership Plans and Schemes to improve the quality of bus services and facilities within an identified area. These powers would be concurrent with the local transport authority in the area. This would allow us to expedite the introduction of partnership schemes covering more than one local transport authority area which otherwise might not be introduced.

Page 343

18

15

POWER RATIONALE

Bus service franchising The Bus Services Act 2017

This power, currently available to Mayoral Combined Authorities, would enable TfSE to implement bus service franchising in its area with the consent of the affected local transport authorities. We believe extending this power to STBs is consistent with the intention of the legislation in terms of delivering passenger benefit across travel-to-work areas and could enable a level of bus provision which otherwise would not exist. It would only be implemented with the consent of the local transport authority.

Smart ticketing

Introduce integrated ticketing schemes Sections 134C- 134G & Sections 135-138 Transport Act 2000

We are seeking powers concurrently with local transport authorities to enable TfSE to procure relevant services, goods, equipment and/or infrastructure; enter into contracts to deliver smart ticketing and receive or give payments. This would enable us to expedite the introduction of a cost effective smart and integrated ticketing system on a regional scale which would dramatically enhance the journey experience and increase access to transport to support jobs and education.

Air quality

Establish Clean Air Zones Sections 163-177A of the Transport Act 2000 – Road User Charging

Local transport authorities and integrated transport authorities have the power under the Transport Act 2000 to implement road charging schemes. TfSE is seeking this general charging power as a mechanism for the introduction of Clean Air Zones, enabling reduced implementation and operating costs across constituent authority boundaries. This will be subject to the consent of the local transport authority. Transport is a major contributor to CO2 emissions and poor air quality; these are increasingly critical issues which our transport strategy will seek to address.

Other powers

Promote or oppose Bills in Parliament Section 239 Local Government Act 1972

Local authorities have the power to promote or oppose Bills in Parliament; granting the power concurrently to TfSE reflects the devolution agenda of which STBs are a key part.

Page 344

18

16

POWER RATIONALE

Under the Transport and Works Act 1992, a body that has power to promote or oppose bills also has the power to apply for an order to construct or operate certain types of infrastructure including railways and tramways. Granting of this power would enable TfSE to promote, coordinate and fund regionally significant infrastructure schemes, accelerating delivery of cross-boundary schemes which might otherwise not be progressed.

Incidental amendments Local Government Act 1972, Localism Act 2011, Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013

A statutory STB requires certain incidental amendments to enable it to operate as a type of local authority, with duties in respect of staffing, pensions, monitoring and the provision of information about TfSE. The incidental amendments sought are listed below in Appendix 2.

Powers and responsibilities not being sought 5.6 Transport for the South East does not propose seeking the following

functions/powers:

POWER RATIONALE

Set priorities for local authorities for roads that are not part of the Major Road Network (MRN)

TfSE will only be responsible for identifying priorities on the MRN

Being responsible for any highway maintenance responsibilities

There is no intention of TfSE becoming involved in routine maintenance of MRN or local roads

Carry passengers by rail There are no aspirations for TfSE to become a train operating company

Take on any consultation function instead of an existing local authority

Local authorities are best placed to seek the views of their residents and businesses

Give directions to a constituent authority about the exercise of transport functions by the authority in their area

Constituent authorities understand how best to deliver their transport functions to meet the needs of their residents and businesses

Page 345

18

17

5.7 The Williams Review, to which TfSE have submitted a response, could recommend significant changes to the structure of the rail industry, including the role of STBs in both operations and infrastructure enhancement. As a result, we will keep the following functions under review pending the Williams recommendations and subsequent White Paper.

POWER RATIONALE

Act as co-signatories to rail franchises

There are no current aspirations for TfSE to become involved in this area.

Be responsible for rail franchising

Page 346

18

18

6. Summary of support and engagement 6.1 The draft Proposal will be shaped and endorsed by the TfSE Shadow Partnership

Board in March 2019 prior to the launch of the consultation.

6.2 During the consultation process, the draft Proposal will be made available on the TfSE website and feedback sought via social media and other promotional activity. Meetings will be held with key stakeholders such as Network Rail, Highways England, Transport for London, England’s Economic Heartlands and the Transport Forum.

6.3 Following the consultation period, TfSE will update the draft Proposal and publish a summary of the comments received.

6.4 TfSE will seek consent from its constituent authorities and the final draft Proposal will be endorsed by the Shadow Partnership Board in autumn 2019.

6.5 The final Proposal will include a summary of engagement activities, including a list of the organisations engaged in the process and an appendix with a number of letters of support from key organisations and businesses.

Page 347

18

19

Appendix 1: Distribution of votes

TfSE constituent authorities Population2 Number of votes

3

Brighton and Hove City Council 287,173 2

East Sussex County Council 549,557 4

Hampshire County Council 1,365,103 10

Isle of Wight Council 140,264 1

Kent County Council 1,540,438 11

Medway Council 276,957 2

Portsmouth City Council 213,335 2

Southampton City Council 250,377 2

Surrey County Council 1,180,956 8

West Sussex County Council 846,888 6

Bracknell Forest Council 119,730

Reading Borough Council 162,701

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead 149,689

Slough Borough Council 147,736

West Berkshire Council 158,576

Wokingham Borough Council 163,087

Berkshire Local Transport Body (total) 901,519 6

Total 7,552,567 54

2 Population as per ONS 2016 estimates

3 Number of votes = population/140,000 (the population of constituent authority with the smallest

population, this being the Isle of Wight)

Page 348

18

20

Appendix 2: List of incidental powers sought This appendix sets out the incidental amendments that will be needed to existing legislation. They include areas relating to the operation of TfSE as a type of local authority with duties in respect of staffing, pensions, transparency, monitoring and the provision of information about TfSE. (1) Section 1 of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 has effect as if TfSE were a local authority for the purposes of that section. (2) The following provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 have effect as if TfSE were a local authority for the purposes of those provisions—

(a) section 101 Arrangements for discharge of functions by local authorities (b) section 111 (subsidary power of local authorities); (c) section 113 (secondment of staff) (d) section 116 (member of TfSE not to be appointed as officer); (e) section 117 (disclosure by officers of interests in contracts); (f) section 135 (standing orders for contracts); (g) section 142(2) (provision of information); (h) section 222 (power to investigate and defend legal proceedings); (i) section 239 (power to promote or oppose a local or personal Bill).

(4) Sections 120, 121 and 123 of that Act (acquisition and disposal of land) have effect as if—

(a) TfSE were a principal council; (b) section 120(1)(b) were omitted; (c) section 121(2)(a) were omitted.

(5) Section 29 of the Localism Act 2011 (registers of interests) has effect as if—

(a) TfSE were a relevant authority, and (b) references to “the monitoring officer” were references to an officer appointed by

TfSE for the purposes of that section. (6) In the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013—

(a) in Schedule 2 (scheme employers), in Part 2 (employers able to designate employees to be in scheme), after paragraph 14 insert— “15. Transport for the South East.”; (b) in Schedule 3 (administering authorities), in the table in Part 2 (appropriate administering authorities for categories of scheme members), at the end insert—

“An employee of Transport for the South East East Sussex County Council”

(7) The Local Authorities (Arrangements for the Discharge of Functions) (England) Regulations 2012 have effect as if TfSE is a local authority within the meaning of s 101 Local Government Act 1972.

Page 349

18


CABINET

DATE: 16 JULY 2019

REPORT OF: MR MATT FURNISS, CABINET MEMBER FOR HIGHWAYS

LEAD OFFICER: JASON RUSSELL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY PROTECTION, TRANSPORT & ENVIRONMENT

SUBJECT: TOWN CENTRE HIGHWAY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS SUMMARY OF ISSUE:

The county council, as the Highway Authority has a statutory duty to maintain the public highway in Surrey to a safe condition.

District/borough councils invest in their town centres and have local priorities, which may include bespoke or expensive materials. Maintenance or replacement of expensive materials is above our duty to keep the highway safe.

If a district/borough council chooses to enter into a “Town Centre Highway Management Agreement” with the county council, it will give them the ability to control an agreed defined area to higher locally determined standards.

RECOMMENDATIONS:


1. The Head of Highways and Transport, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Highways, be authorised to enter into “Town Centre Highway Management Agreements” with district/borough councils which request this arrangement.

2. The local / joint committees undertake operational oversight of any such agreements


The introduction of Town Centre Highway Management Agreements enable willing district/borough councils to manage and maintain their prestige locations according to local priorities and needs. Standards of maintenance will need to be as high as, or greater than that provided by the county council for the rest of the highway network. The agreements may help to attract additional investment in the highway network. Income from licensing will facilitate such investment.

Page 351

19

Item 19

They will build on close cooperation between the county council and district/borough councils in delivering services for Surrey residents.

DETAILS:

Background

1. Over the years, district/borough councils often in partnership with the county council have invested in their town centres. The use of premium surface materials, public art or quality street furniture enhances the feel of the area but it can be costly to maintain. Along with normal wear and tear, areas can become damaged through accidents, vandalism or utility works. The county council, as Highway Authority ensures an area remains safe for users, but is not always able to fund repairs to an enhanced level. If it is a local priority, ad hoc funding may be available from the district/borough councils or local Members / committees to “top up”.

2. Some district/borough councils seek to have greater control over how their town centres are managed. This may include the ability to manage gated access or license and enforce activities on the highway, such as placement of table and chairs and A-boards. This may, in future, be covered together with maintenance of highway infrastructure in any Town Centre Management agreement.

3. In 2013, Cabinet agreed to enter into a “Town Centre Management Agreement” with Woking Borough Council. This is a wide-ranging agency agreement and devolves responsibility for a comprehensive range of functions in a defined area to the Borough Council. It has operated successfully, with the Joint Committee receiving regular updates. Unlike some areas of Surrey, Woking has introduced on-street car park charging to help manage supply and demand of on-street parking places. This operates at a financial surplus and the Joint Committee agreed that some of this surplus can be used to fund operation of the agreement. It is supplemented with a small contribution from Highways budgets and Woking Borough Council funding. The agreement is due to expire in 2023.

4. Epsom & Ewell Borough Council are keen to enter into a similar arrangement to manage the “Market Place” in Epsom. The “Market Place” is undergoing a substantial revitalisation via a joint county and borough capital improvement scheme and will be completed next year. Other authorities have informally expressed an interest in similar arrangements linked to their recent or planned improvements.

Scope of delegation

5. Table 1 below details what could be considered for delegation to district/borough councils as part of any agreement.

Page 352

19

Table 1

Potentially included and in scope*Highway inspections Patching, repairsGully cleaning and drainage repairs Managing insurance risks / claimsFences Trees / Shrubs / vegetationRoad markings Parking enforcementSigns, posts, fingerposts Refuges, guardrailsGeneral street furniture including public art Accident and emergenciesSpecialist street cleansing Winter maintenance (footways only)Reconstruction or resurfacing of roads Reconstructions or resurfacing

footwaysLicenses / policy for A boards, tables & chairs, skips, scaffold, filming etc

Street works coordination – within SCC framework but local powers for area

Making temporary traffic regulation orders and promotion of permanent orders (through Joint / Local Committee)

Managing access to the highway

Excluded and out of scopeStreet lighting – SCC in existing PFI contract with Skanska

Illuminated street furniture / signs

Winter maintenance precautionary road salting

General highway structures

Traffic signal maintenance Transportation Development Planning advice on behalf of SCC

*Plus any other reasonable works agreed by both parties

6. Each Town Centre Management Agreement will be tailored to meet the local needs and resources of the district/borough councils. For example, the existing agreement with Woking Borough Council is very comprehensive and includes everything detailed as being in scope in the above table. Initial discussions with Epsom & Ewell have confirmed that they are looking for a different arrangement, giving them the ability to manage some functions they deem beneficial to running their town centre, but leaving most responsibility with the county council.

7. Under any agreement, the level of maintenance the district/borough councils provide must not be less that the level that the county council provides, although the intention of these agreements is to enable an enhanced level of service. Similar agreements with parish/town councils may be entered into if there is agreement from both the county council and the relevant district/borough council.

8. The county council currently receives an income from the licensing of highway activities. Most relevant for town centre locations are tables and chairs licences. Countywide, the county council received £28,000 (excluding parts of Woking Town Centre) from this activity in 2018/19. If district/borough councils take on the policy and management of this function, they will receive any income directly attributable to the defined area in the agreement. The level of income will depend on the work done to enforce licensing of activities on the public highway. It will be a condition of the agreement that any such income received by the district/borough councils must be reinvested in the operation of the agreement with details included in any operational update to the local / joint Committee.

Page 353

19

9. The intention is that the county council will not provide direct funding to any district/borough councils to operate any new agreement.

CONSULTATION:

10. Agreements will only be introduced where there is majority support from the district/borough councils and the local / joint committee.


11. If the recommendations are not approved, there is no immediate safety risk as the county council would continue to maintain the highway.

12. There will be the risk that funding opportunities may be missed and town centre locations will not be maintained to any locally agreed enhanced level if it is not approved.


13. There is no overall cost to the county council and potentially more funding could be spent on the highway asset. However there will be a loss of licensing income. Any licensing income passed to district/borough councils will be reinvested in the local area.


14. Each “Town Centre Highway Management Agreement” has the potential to be unique, allowing boroughs and districts to invest in local priorities while also meeting the county council’s highway standards and statutory requirements. The cost of drawing up and entering into Agreements will be met from existing budget envelopes. Such Agreements should not result in any additional costs for the county council, for example in terms of highway maintenance functions, however where an Agreement does result in additional costs they will be met within existing service budget envelopes.


15. The County council as highway authority has a statutory duty pursuant to s41 of the Highways Act 1980 to maintain highway maintainable at the public expense in Surrey to ensure that the public right to pass and repass safely is protected. Under s19 of the Local Government Act 2000 the Cabinet may authorise the discharge of certain functions including highway maintenance by another local authority. The county council may then delegate by agreement to that local authority those functions. An agreement governing the arrangements for that delegation before the delegation becomes effective will be required between the county council and the relevant district/borough councils.

Page 354

19


16. There are no equality implications.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT:

17. Officers will work with colleagues from Epsom & Ewell Borough Council to put in place a “Town Centre Maintenance Agreement” for the Market Place in Epsom.

18. Where there is district/borough council support, the county council will negotiate and enter into suitable agreements. Discussions will be held about the advantages of such arrangements at the early stage of any future district/borough councils promoted improvement works

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contact Officer:

Richard Bolton, Local Highway Services Group Manager, Tel. 020 8541 7140

Consulted:

Cabinet Member for Highways

Deputy Leader

Officers from the following SCC services: Highways & Transport, Legal, Finance

Annexes:

None


A new approach for highways maintenance, Cabinet paper March 2013

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 355

19


CABINET

DATE: 16 JULY 2019

REPORT OF: MR MEL FEW, CABINET MEMBER FOR FINANCE AND LEIGH WHITEHOUSE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE

LEAD OFFICER:

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RESOURCES (S151 OFFICER)

SUBJECT: MONTH 2 FINANCIAL MONITORING REPORT

SUMMARY OF ISSUE:

This report summarises the most significant issues for the Council’s 2019/20 financial position as at 31 May 2019 for revenue and capital budgets. Annex 1 provides further details on service budgets, expenditure to date and year-end forecast.

The Council set a balanced budget for 2018/19 revenue budget without relying on the use of one-off resources. This included a stretching savings target of £82m, while ensuring that the costs of increasing demand for services are contained.

The main points of this report are as follows.

o Without further management action, it is forecast that the General Fund revenue budget would overspend by £10.3m at year end, which represents just over 1% of the net budget.

o This is still early in the financial year, and in line with the new approach to budget accountability embedded in the budgetary framework for 2019/20, Directorates will take action to address this position by the end of the financial year, and the outturn delivered within budget.

o The forecast overspend of £10.3m is mainly due to:

£2.3m from growth in pupil numbers requiring SEN transport

£1.5m net overspending within Education, Lifelong Learning & Culture for increases in the volume of social care element of school placements, off-set by savings elsewhere in the service.

£8.6m savings gap/unidentified savings (Black), offset by

£2m additional government grants - Section 31 Business Rates grants and New Homes Bonus

o At the end of May 2019, expenditure was running below the year to date budget. This year to-date underspend is due to the profiling of the budgets, mainly for SEND expenditure where significant expenditure occurs later in the year. The profiling of the budgets will be adjusted in future months.

Page 357

20

Item 20

o The Council set a capital budget for 2019/20 of £129.2m in February 2019, and the cabinet approved the carry forward of underspent budgets from prior year of £19.5m in May 2019. In reviewing the programme, it is recommended that £34.7m of capital budget is re-profiled into future years to reflect current expectations of programming and delivery. This will result in an adjusted Capital programme of £114m.

The Council is committed to containing expenditure during the year through diligent planning and monitoring by officers and cabinet members, and through corrective actions undertaken in light of this. However, the expectation continues to be that the delivery of this year’s budget will be challenging.

The Council continues to face considerable challenges in future years from continuing rise in the need for services and the threat of further reductions in funding from the Fair Funding Review in 2020.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

The cabinet is asked to note;

1. The Council’s forecast revenue and capital budget positions for the year.

The Cabinet is asked to approve;

2. The re-profiled 2019/20 capital budget of £114m (paragraph 11)

3. The draw-down of revenue funding carried forward at outturn for;

i. £0.28m for bus planning (paragraph 7)

ii. £0.05m for completed local highways works (paragraph 7)

iii. £0.23m for Economic Development (paragraph 8)

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

This report is presented to comply with the agreed policy of providing a monthly budget monitoring report to Cabinet for approval of any necessary actions.

Page 358

20

Revenue budget

1. Table 1 below shows the revenue budget outturn for the year by Service. Annex 1 provides more detail of Service budget outturn.

Table 1 Summary revenue budget forecast variances as at 31 May 2019

Cabinet member(s)

Full year budget

£m

Fullyear forecast

£m

Full year forecast variance at Month

2£m

Children, Families, Learning & Culture (CFLC)

M Lewis/ J Iles 242.4 251.1 8.7

Health, Wellbeing & Adult Social Care (HWA)

S. Mooney 366.2 366.2 0.0

Community Protection, Transport & Environment (CTE)

D Turner-Stewrt/ M Furniss/ M Goodman

162.8 163.2 0.4

Resources (Res) M Few/ Z Grant-Duff 73.8 76.0 2.2

Transformation, Partnership & Prosperity (TPP)

T. Oliver/ Z Grant-Duff/ C Kemp 8.8 9.8 1.0

Central Income & Expenditure (CIE) M Few (854.0) (856.0) (2.0)

Deficit/ (Surplus) 0.0 10.3 10.3

Note: All numbers have been rounded - which might cause a casting difference

Savings

2. The Council included £82m of savings in the annual budget. Savings that are not now forecast to be achieved are classified as Black, (£8.6m) and are factored into the year end forecast. The assumption is that the balance of other savings (£73.4m) will be delivered.

3. At Month 2, £13.5m of savings were identified as unachievable. These were offset by £4.9m of alternative savings leaving a net gap of £8.6m (Black). It is expected that the level of ‘Black’ savings will reduce month-on-month as further alternatives are identified and plans put in place for delivery.

4. Of the total £82m savings programme; c£37m (45%) are Amber & Green, c£26m (32%) are Blue (achieved/delivered), and £9.6m (11%) Red with £8.6m (10%) deemed black at this at this point in the financial year.

.

Page 359

20

Table 2 – Revenue Savings Progress

Full Year

Target

Full Year Forecast

Forecast variance

BlueAchieved Green Amber Red

BlackUnidentified

Gap£m £m £m £m £m £m £m £m

Children, Families, Learning & Culture 21.7 16.9 (4.8) 3.3 8.4 2.1 3.2 4.8

Health, Wellbeing & Adult Social Care 21.1 20.9 (0.2) 7.0 4.3 3.5 6.1 0.2

Community Protection, Transport & Environment 11.9 11.4 (0.5) 5.3 1.8 4.3 0.0 0.5

Transformation, Partnership & Prosperity 2.5 1.5 (1.0) 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.0 1.0

Resources 11.7 9.8 (1.9) 4.1 2.8 2.6 0.3 1.9

Central Income & Expenditure 12.6 12.4 (0.2) 6.1 5.6 0.8 0.0 0.2

Total 81.6 73.0 (8.6) 26.2 23.4 13.9 9.6 8.6

Directorate

Adjustments to the Revenue Budget

5. In May 2019, the Cabinet approved a total of £4.4m to be carried forward from the 2018/19 budget in to the current year. These are held in an earmarked reserve and the Council’s Financial Regulations require that the Cabinet approve each drawdown to the service budget.

6. The Highways & Transport service request £0.28m to be drawn down for bus planning to cover the cost of a new bus operator. In addition, on Local Highways, the service request draw down of £0.05m as the works have been completed and is required to fund the expenditure.

7. For the Economic Development Service, there is a request for £0.23m to be drawn down to fund delayed Surrey Growth Fund Projects.

Capital Budget

8. Capital budgets are by nature multi-year and must cross over the year end dates. Services have reviewed, in detail, their capital budgets for the 2019/20 financial year in the context of when the expenditure is likely to be incurred, especially for those projects that have completion dates that may straddle the end of the financial year.

9. The Council Budget for 19/20 included £129.2m for capital. This was increased by £19.5m due the carry forward of underspent budgets in 18/19. Officers are requesting that c£35m of their 2019/20 budgets are re-profiled into future years’. This then sets a revised budget of £114m for 2019/20

10. In summary, the significant re-profiling requests are shown below.

i. Schools basic need £23.2m SBN programme reviewed and re-profiled over future years in line with reported requirements for School places. The total programme remains unchanged.

Page 360

20

ii. Cranleigh School £4.4m re-profiled into 2020/21 and 2021/22 due to planning delays

iii. Winter Maintenance Salt Barns £3.2m – Strategic review being undertaken and budget moved to 2020/21

iv. £2.5m of IMT projects re-profiled in to 2020/21

11. Table 3 below provides a summary of the forecast outturn for the 2019/20 capital budget, including the re-profile requests

Table 3 Summary capital programme budget forecast as at 31 May 2019

Cabinet member(s)

Full year budget

£m

Year to date

actual month 2

£m

Full year forecast

outturn at month 2

£m

Adult Social care S Mooney 1.9 0.0 1.9Children Services M Lewis/ J Ilies 7.2 0.0 7.2Environment & Planning M Goodman 1.5 0.1 1.5Highways & Transport M Furniss 51.7 7.6 51.7Information Management & Technology Z Grant-Duff 4.3 0.5 4.3Property Services M Few 21.7 8.0 22.6Schools Basic Need Julie Ilies 22.9 0.0 22.9Surrey Fire & Rescue Service D Turner-Stewart 2.9 0.1 2.9Total Capital 114.0 16.2 115.0

Note: All numbers have been rounded - which might cause a casting difference

CONSULTATION:

12. Executive Directors and Cabinet members have confirmed the forecast outturns for their revenue and capital budgets.


13. Risk implications are stated throughout the report and each relevant director or head of service has updated their strategic and or service risk registers accordingly. In addition, the Leadership Risk Register continues to reflect the increasing uncertainty of future funding likely to be allocated to the Council and the sustainability of the MTFP. In the light of the increased and significant financial risks faced by the Council, the Leadership Risk Register will be reviewed to increase confidence in Directorate plans to mitigate the risks and issues.

FINANCIAL AND VALUE FOR MONEY IMPLICATIONS:

14. The report considers financial and value for money implications throughout and future budget monitoring reports will continue this focus.

Page 361

20

SECTION 151 OFFICER COMMENTARY:

15. The Section 151 Officer confirms the financial information presented in this report is consistent with the Council’s general accounting ledger and that forecasts have been based on reasonable assumptions, taking into account all material, financial and business issues and risks.

16. The Council has a duty to ensure its expenditure does not exceed resources available. It is drawn to Members’ attention that the Council continues to face ongoing uncertainty about future funding, demand pressures, savings and the transformation programme. Within this context the Council is required to develop and implement plans to ensure that the forecast overspend of £10.3m is contained within resources.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS – MONITORING OFFICER:

17. The Council is under a duty to set a balanced and sustainable budget. The Local Government Finance Act requires the Council to take steps to ensure that the Council’s expenditure (that is expenditure incurred already in year and anticipated to be incurred) does not exceed the resources available whilst continuing to meet its statutory duties.

18. Cabinet should be aware that if the Section 151 Officer, at any time, is not satisfied that appropriate strategies and controls are in place to manage expenditure within the in-year budget they must formally draw this to the attention of the Cabinet and Council and they must take immediate steps to ensure a balanced in-year budget, whilst complying with its statutory and common law duties.

EQUALITIES AND DIVERSITY:

19. Any impacts of the budget monitoring actions will be evaluated by the individual services as they implement the management actions necessary In implementing individual management actions, the Council must comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 which requires it to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Act; advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; and foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

20. Services will continue to monitor the impact of these actions and will take appropriate action to mitigate additional negative impacts that may emerge as part of this ongoing analysis.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT:

21. The relevant adjustments from the recommendations will be made to the Council’s accounts.

Contact Officer:Leigh Whitehouse, Executive Director of Finance020 8541 7246

Page 362

20

Consulted:Cabinet, executive directors, heads of service.

Annexes:Annex 1 – Detailed Revenue Budget at 31 May 2019.

Page 363

20

Annex 1

Revenue Budget by Service - 31 May 2019

Cabinet Member Prior year to date actual

Year to Date

Budget

Year to Date

Actuals

Year to Date

variance

Full Year Gross

budget

Full Year Net

budget

Full Year Net

Forecast

Full Year Net

Forecast Variance

£m £m £m £m £m £m £m £mDelegated Schools Julie Iles 0.0 0.0 (0.0) (0.0) 314.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Education, Lifelong Learning & Culture Julie Iles 10.7 16.9 4.6 (12.3) 282.6 97.4 101.1 3.7 Family Resilience Mary Lewis 8.7 7.2 7.9 0.7 46.0 43.3 43.3 (0.0)Corporate Parenting Mary Lewis 13.3 15.5 14.7 (0.9) 103.7 90.2 90.2 0.0 Quality & Performance Mary Lewis/ Julie Iles 1.0 1.3 1.2 (0.1) 9.1 8.0 8.0 (0.0)Commissioning Mary Lewis/ Julie Iles 0.8 1.0 0.7 (0.3) 65.9 6.0 6.0 (0.0)Directorate wide savings 0.0 (0.4) 0.0 0.5 (2.5) (2.5) 2.5 5.0 Children, Families, Learning & Communities 34.5 41.6 29.1 (12.4) 819.3 242.4 251.1 8.7 Adult Social Care Sinead Mooney 54.6 60.5 56.3 (4.1) 488.4 364.4 364.4 (0.0)Public Health Sinead Mooney 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coroner Denise Turner-Stewart 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.1 2.3 1.8 1.8 0.0 Health, Wellbeing & Adult Social Care 55.1 60.8 56.7 (4.1) 526.4 366.2 366.2 0.0 Highways & Transport Matt Furniss 9.3 7.7 9.3 1.6 73.8 59.0 59.1 0.1 Environment Mike Goodman 8.0 11.5 9.0 (2.5) 73.6 69.0 69.3 0.3 Community Protection & Emergencies Denise Turner-Stewart 5.2 5.4 5.5 0.1 36.8 32.7 32.7 0.0 Trading Standards Denise Turner-Stewart 0.2 0.3 0.2 (0.1) 3.9 1.7 1.7 (0.0)Communities Support function Denise Turner-Stewart 0.1 0.1 0.0 (0.0) 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 Community Protection, Transport & Environment 22.8 25.0 24.0 (1.0) 188.5 162.8 163.2 0.4 Economic Growth Colin Kemp 0.2 0.2 0.0 (0.1) 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Strategic Leadership Tim Oliver 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 (0.1)Communications Zully Grant-Duff 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 (0.0)Insight, Analytics & Intelligence Zully Grant-Duff 0.4 0.6 0.5 (0.1) 3.5 2.7 2.7 (0.1)Human Resources & Organisational Development

Zully Grant-Duff 0.5 0.7 0.4 (0.3) 4.2 3.7 3.7 0.0

Transformation programme 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Cross County 0.0 (0.3) 0.0 0.3 (1.5) (1.0) 0.0 1.0 Transformation, Partnership & Prosperity 1.4 1.5 1.4 (0.1) 9.6 8.8 9.8 1.0 Property Mel Few 2.4 2.6 2.5 (0.2) 28.0 18.9 18.9 0.0 Customer Services Zully Grant-Duff 0.5 0.5 0.5 (0.0) 3.3 3.1 3.1 (0.0)Information Technology & Digital Zully Grant-Duff 1.6 1.8 1.5 (0.4) 11.7 11.0 11.3 0.3 Business Operations Zully Grant-Duff (0.0) (0.0) 0.0 0.0 (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.0)Joint Operating Budget ORBIS Zully Grant-Duff 5.9 5.3 5.5 0.2 31.9 31.9 33.3 1.4 Finance Mel Few 0.5 0.4 0.4 (0.0) 3.9 2.4 2.5 0.1 Legal Services Zully Grant-Duff 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.0 4.0 3.6 3.6 (0.0)Democratic Services Zully Grant-Duff 0.6 0.6 0.6 (0.0) 3.6 3.4 3.4 (0.0)Savings to find 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (0.5) (0.5) 0.0 0.5 Resources 12.1 11.9 11.5 (0.4) 85.8 73.8 76.0 2.2 Corporate Expenditure Mel Few (3.4) 1.8 (0.7) (2.5) 49.2 32.1 32.3 0.2 Total revenue expenditure 122.6 142.6 121.9 (20.6) 1,678.8 886.1 898.6 12.4 Corporate Funding Mel Few (165.2) (169.2) (169.9) (0.7) (886.1) (888.3) (2.2)Total Net Revenue Expenditure (42.6) (26.6) (48.0) (21.3) 1,678.8 0.0 10.3 10.3

Service

Page 364

20


CABINET

DATE: 16 JULY 2019

REPORT OF: DR ZULLY GRANT DUFF, CABINET MEMBER FOR CORPORATE SUPPORT

LEAD OFFICER:

LEIGH WHITEHOUSE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF RESOURCES

SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR BUILDING FABRIC MAINTENANCE IN WEST SURREY: DELEGATED AUTHORITY REQUEST

SUMMARY OF ISSUE:

On 26 March 2019, Cabinet approved the award of contracts for Building Maintenance and Statutory Building Maintenance & Responsive Building Repairs under the tender for Hard Facilities Management. Although included in the same tender exercise, the request for approval did not include the requirement for Building Fabric Maintenance in the West of Surrey area as the bids received did not provide value for money within the budget available.

The decision was made to re-tender this service as a stand-alone requirement.

Typical services to be provided include small building works and repairs to civic offices, historic buildings, operational and commercial buildings, social care premises, educational establishments and schools but exclude highways.

The existing contract for the provision of this service for Building Maintenance and Statutory Building Maintenance & Responsive Building Repairs Planned Maintenance Works expires on 30 September 2019. In order to maintain a continuous service and provide the new contractor with a reasonable mobilisation period, any new contract will need to be issued as soon as possible after the completion of the evaluation. Flexibility is therefore required on the timing of decision making to award contracts. Planning around the set monthly Cabinet dates especially over the summer period for the decision may delay this process and have an impact on maintaining continuity of service.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

It is recommended that Cabinet delegate authority to the Executive Director for Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Support, to award a contract to the winning bidder to provide Building Maintenance and Statutory Building Maintenance & Responsive Building Repairs – Building Fabric Maintenance to Surrey County Council Maintained Buildings in the Surrey West Area for up to 7 years.


We are requesting delegated authority, for decision making to award the contract, to the Executive Director for Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Support to ensure that a decision can be made flexibly and quickly to make sure that we can provide continuity of service and to maximise the mobilisation period available to the new Contractor.

Page 365

21

Item 21

DETAILS

1. Property Services is responsible for delivery of Building Fabric Maintenance in the West of Surrey. The value of this is contract over 7 years is estimated at £5.25 million. The services include statutory maintenance and responsive repairs as they arise.

2. The works and services relate to civic offices, historic buildings, operational and commercial buildings, social care premises, educational establishments and schools but exclude highways. The number of affected buildings to be covered by this contract is 365 (correct as at 7 June 2019)

3. This requirement has come about as a result of the decision not to award a contract from a previous exercise where the lowest evaluated bid fell considerably outside the available budget for the service.

4. An open competition through an Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) compliant process is being followed.

5. There is no guaranteed minimum value of spend or volume of work.

6. A contract will be awarded with a validity of 5 years with two possible extensions of one year each. Total maximum validity 7 years.

CONSULTATION:

7. The decision to re-tender was arrived at in consultation with Property Services.

Page 366

21


8. This contract does not commit the Council to purchase any works or services. Commitment to purchase will only be made by the Council when it enters into legally binding individual contracts under the terms of the Building Fabric Maintenance contract.

9. The contract includes a three month’s notice termination clause.

10. The winning contractor will have satisfied financial checks as well as checks on competency in delivery of similar contracts during the evaluation of the tenders. The Contract Manager will be carrying out financial and insurance checks regularly in order to ensure that the individual contractors meet the minimum criteria during the life of their contract.

11. As this Building Fabric Maintenance Contract will exceed £2m in value the tenderers will be requested to provide security for performance in accordance with the Procurement and Contract Standing Orders.


12. Control will be exercised over expenditure via a forward plan tracker and member updates.

13. The expected contract value over the maximum seven year validity of the contract is approximately £5.25 million.


14. The estimated level of expenditure in this report is included in the current Medium Term financial Plan. Property Services is expected to have in place appropriate controls to ensure that building fabric maintenance purchased through the framework is necessary within the context of the Council’s financial situation.

15. The Section 151 Officer notes the delegation of authority and that any award of contract will be on the basis of prior approval to proceed with each project. Further control and oversight is provided by the requirement for the Section 151 Officer to be consulted prior to the award of contract.


16. The procurement is to be carried out in accordance with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and the Council’s Procurement and Contracts Standing Orders 2019.


17. All works carried out will be compliant with the Equalities Act 2010.

18. Bidders were advised in the ITT that they would be expected to complete and deliver Social Value in accordance with the Orbis Social Value Measurement Charter. This will result in employment, training and apprenticeships opportunities for residents.

Page 367

21

19. It is a requirement that the winning contractors will deliver 5% of the Building Fabric Maintenance Contract value with a minimum of £10,000 of Social Value per annum as calculated by reference to the Social Value Charter.

20. Following award of the Building Fabric Maintenance Contract the Council will host a workshop to further explain the principles of the approach to Social Value to ensure the appointed Contractor understands how Social Value can be delivered as part of the Term Contract objectives.

21. The Contract Manager will be responsible for ensuring that the winning contractor delivers the agreed level of Social Value as part of their overall performance duties

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT:

22. Next Steps:a. Tender for the requirement closes: 8 July 2019.b. Evaluation complete: 22 July 2019.c. Authorisation for award of contract proposed to the Executive Director for

Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Support: 31 July 2019.

d. Standstill Period: 1 August to 14 August 2019.e. Contract issued and signed by both parties: 15 August 201.9

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contact officer: Rob Gilmour, Strategic Procurement Manager

Contact details: [email protected]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Annexes:

Annex A- Procurement Process

Page 368

21

mailto:[email protected]

Annex A – Procurement process

Summary of Procurement process in respect of the Building Fabric Maintenance in West Surrey

1. The existing contract for the provision of this service (Planned Maintenance Works, Planned Cyclical and Responsive Works) expires on 30 September 2019.

2. The Surrey West Building Fabric Maintenance (small building works, roofing repairs etc.) Lot in the Building Maintenance Projects, Statutory Building Maintenance and Responsive Building Repairs Tender (Hard FM) did not provide a competitive response within the budget available and we have taken the requirement back to the market as a stand-alone competitive tender.

3. A full tender process compliant with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and Procurement and Contract Standing Orders is being carried out following the approval of the Sourcing Plan by the Sourcing Governance Board (SGB) on 4 June 2019.

4. The Procurement Sourcing and Governance Board considered the following options.

5. In order to implement Option 1, an open tender procedure was chosen. Participation in the open tender procedure is accessible to all companies who wish to take part and a selection stage in the evaluation enables the contracting authority to limit the number of suitably qualified candidates who can be considered during the award stage to those companies who have the most suitable experience and have passed the due diligence tests regarding financial capacity and corporate governance. This leads to a more efficient process for both suppliers and the contracting authority in a market with many potential providers.

OptionsDescription

(Please give brief details, explaining relative risk of each option)

Option 1: Re-tender the requirement as an open competition.PREFERRED OPTION

Open Competition as a re-tender of the requirement using the same documentation utilised in the previous tender exercise.

Option 2: Accept the Orbis Hard FM tender results.

This would have resulted in a cost increase which was beyond the available budget for Buildings Maintenance, resulting in either inferior works due to cost cutting, or delay to vital maintenance and repairs due to lack of budget. Both have legal implications for SCC.

Option 3: Access a procurement arrangement or framework let/managed by another authority.

Whilst some Facilities Management (FM) related frameworks exist there are none which exactly match the scope defined in the previous tender, which would require negotiation with each framework holder prior to the mini competition, would not allow a full test of the market and would not engage large, small and local contractors.

Page 369

21

6. The Procurement has been designed to identify the most appropriate contractor who can offer innovative best value outcomes to the Council including: A customer focussed offering The most effective and best value for money offering which makes the best use of

internal and external resources Complementing the Council’s plans The ability to flex to meet the Council’s needs and demands Optimising the use of digital technology for the monitoring and where appropriate

delivery of these services A consistent level of performance and satisfaction Using innovation appropriately to improve service performance and delivery Strive for continuous improvement and improved cost of delivery Contribute towards the Council meeting our statutory duties Maximises the delivery of Social Value from each contractor

7. The ITT was published on the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) on 7 June 2019 and the documents made available on In-Tend the same day.

8. The Evaluating Panel which comprises Surrey Procurement and Property Services personnel will be set up to evaluate all ITT responses.

9. The Stage 1 Questionnaires will be evaluated to ensure that companies have the legal, financial and technical capacity to undertake any subsequent contract. We will also ensure that they have health & safety and equal opportunities policies in place. If any tenders received do not meet the minimum requirements of the Selection Stage, they will not be moved forward to the Award Stage.

10. Those tenders moving forward to the Award Stage will be evaluated using the award criteria set out in the tender documents which comprise 60% of Commercial and 40% of Quality Score.

11. In accordance with best practice each response to the Quality/Technical questions will be assessed by a minimum of 3 evaluators independently. The evaluators will meet to discuss and moderate their scores in the presence of an experienced moderator.

12. The results of the evaluation and proposed award will be reviewed by Property Services and will be presented to the Sourcing and Governance Board for approval to present to the Executive Director for Resources and Lead Cabinet Member for Corporate Support for authorisation to award a contract to the winning bidder.

13. All tenderers will be informed of the preliminary outcome of the procurement process and that the formal tender results are subject to the above approval to award a contract.

14. Performance of the subsequent contract will be monitored through a series of Key Performance Indicators / Contract Performance Indicators which will be agreed with each supplier based on a typical example shown below which was incorporated into the Scope in the tender documents:

Page 370

21

Reactive and Cyclical KPIsTargetKPI

ref KPI Description MeasurementYr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5

1

Attendance and/or repair within each priority:P1P2P3P4P5P6

Contractor attends to a reactive call out within the time allocated in Purchase Order

The Property Helpdesk will record date and time of receipt of the fault and issue a purchase order via its PAMS system. The date and time of issue and priority will be recorded within PAMS. The Contractor will record within PAMS the date and time of the attendance and/or fix. Difference between purchase order issued date and time and attendance / completion must be within target time and date.e.g. orders within target date and time /number of relevant orders issued in month expressed as a percentage

80% 83% 85% 87% 90%

2

First time fix.

Contractor attends to a reactive call and completes within original time allocated.

The Property Helpdesk will record date and time of receipt of the fault and issue a purchase order via its PAMS system. The date and time of issue and priority will be recorded within PAMS. The Contractor will record within the PAMS the date and time of the job completion. Difference between original target date (not adjusted for variations) and completion date must be within original target date.

50% 55% 60% 65% 70%

Page 371

21

e.g. orders complete within target date and time /number of orders issued in month expressed as a percentage

3

All cyclical servicing completed by due date

Contractor carries out servicing by due date

The Contractor enters the completion date of the service into PAMS within 10 working days of completing the service. The Service Manager calculates the difference between the service completion date and the due date based on the previous service date.

Eg. number of completed services on or before due date in any one month / no. of service visits due in that month expressed as a percentage

85% 87% 90% 90% 90%

TargetKPI ref KPI Description Measurement

Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5

4

All certificates, records and logs for the operational delivery of works up to date, correct and available for inspection within 10 days of the service visit.

Contractor keeps the Employer’s system up to date with timely servicing information

The Contractor uploads all certificates, records and logs into the Employer’s Sharepoint system. The Service Manager compares the certificates in Sharepoint with the completed services in PAMS.

Eg No. of matching certificates in Sharepoint / no. of services completed in any given month

75% 77% 80% 80% 80%

5

Percentage of properties non-compliant at any one time

What % of properties are non-compliant at any one time relevant to the contract - this relates to cyclical

The Service Manager compares the number of its premises where cyclical servicing is up to date compared to those where it is not. Contractors will only be measured on those

15% 12% 10% 10% 10%

Page 372

21

servicing only.

services it is responsible for.

Eg no. of premises where servicing is not up to date / total number of premises

Measured monthly

6 Baseline Social Value

Delivery of £x,000 of Baseline Social Value per annum

Annually on anniversary of Starting Date 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Page 373

21

Document is Restricted

Page 375

23

Item 23By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12Aof the Local Government Act 1972.


Page 379

24



Page 383

24

By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12Aof the Local Government Act 1972.


Page 385

25



Page 389

26



Page 393

26



Page 395

26


(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Cabinet, 16/07/2019 14:00

Documents

Transcript of (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Cabinet, 16/07/2019 14:00