Posted on

The future of Green Oak School

Tonight, I attended the “consultation” meeting about the future of Green Oak School.

Wikipedia describes “Public Consultation” as, “a regulatory process by which the public’s input on matters affecting them is sought. Its main goals are in improving the efficiency, transparency and public involvement”. Michael Goodridge, the Chair of Governors from 2011-2015, asked a pertinent question on this point, “Is this a true consultation?”

His question wasn’t answered.

It was standing room only. Parents and teachers and members of the community asked questions of the SCC officers and the Diocesan representative. I think it would be fair to say that people did not think their questions were answered. But then these Officers were just doing their job while the decision makers, Council Leader, David Hodge, and the Bishop and the Regional Schools Commissioner must have had something better to do, because they were absent.

My question was, “This room is packed full of people who care about their children, this school and this community. But, the shame is the absence of those who make the decisions. Were they invited? Would they have come?”

My question was not answered.

Many parents asked the officers to name the alternative schools for their children.

Their question was not answered.

Teachers asked why SCC has told prospective parents who do choose Green Oak to go elsewhere.

Their question was not answered.

The County Council is not like the old Education Authority which ran most of the schools and took the strategic decisions.  The Regional Education Commissioner has mandated that the school must be part of a Multi Academy Trust, or it must close.  The County Council is barred by legislation from operating a Multi Academy Trust. So, the Council has no option but to initiate a closure process, sorry, I mean “consultation”.

The Government and the Regional Schools Commissioner have created a perfect storm for the Diocese and the County and Green Oak school to navigate.

I don’t suppose many of you have heard of Dominic Herrington – the Regional Schools commissioner for South East England and South London. He is unelected. He is responsible for making decisions about academies and free schools in Bexley, Brighton and Hove, Bromley, Croydon, East Sussex, Greenwich, Hampshire , Isle of Wight, Kent, Kingston upon Thames, Lambeth, Lewisham, Medway, Merton, Portsmouth, Richmond upon Thames, Southampton, Southwark, Surrey, Sutton, Wandsworth and West Sussex.

Perhaps he is just too busy to visit Green Oak and see the school for himself.

What do you do if you are caught in a perfect storm? You try any and every means of rescue and this is what we all must do.

Fill in an objection to the proposed closure of the school at:

https://www.surreysays.co.uk/csf/green-oak/consultation

Posted on

Lib Dems raise concerns over future of Children’s Centres in Surrey

Liberal Democrat county councillors have raised concern over the future of Children’s Centres in Surrey. Currently there are 58 centres across the county, providing services such as childcare, play and learning sessions, parenting courses, employment support and information and guidance for low-income families. Surrey County Council is currently consulting on a new model for delivering its “Early Help” services, with the aim of saving at least £9.7m.

Cllr Chris Botten, Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Children & Education, said:

“Our Children’s Centres do so much for families and children which is not well publicised, and Surrey should be proud of them. They provide essential guidance and support for families with challenges and make a real difference to their lives. I will be doing all I can to ensure that we can save as much of the skill and commitment of the staff and ensure that they continue to make a difference in the future.”

Cllr Stephen Cooksey, Liberal Democrat county councillor Dorking South & the Holmwoods, added:

“My local Children’s Centre in Goodwyns plays a vital role in providing services to an area of great need within Surrey. It supports local families in a variety of ways and is a vital resource which should be protected. However the proposals currently being discussed could mean a loss of at least 40% of its funding. The County Council needs to reassure local service users, and service providers, that this is a genuine consultation as to how it can better serve the needs of local families at a time when spending is tight, rather than just an academic exercise to justify painful cuts”.

NOTES

The report on Children’s Centres and Early Help discussed at Cabinet on Tuesday 27th February 2018, can be found here:

https://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/documents/s43732/ITEM%2006%20-%20Early%20Help%20Strategy%20Cabinet%20Paper%20Final%20v1.

Posted on

Summers Road works

Surrey County Council will be carrying out pavement reconstruction in Summers Road in Farncombe from the junction with Bourne Road to the junction with Rowbury and Godalming Leisure Centre.
The carriageway will be under temporary traffic control during the works.
Start date: Monday 19th February 2018
Duration: For approximately 8 weeks
Monday to Friday – 09:00 to 15:00; Saturday – 08:00 to 17:00

Posted on

Financial crisis worsens at County Hall as Tories ask Surrey residents to pay more for less

Liberal Democrats on Surrey County Council have criticised the Conservative-administration for budget proposals containing £54m of further cuts to services and a 6% council tax rise. The budget recommendations will be approved by the Council’s Conservative Cabinet on Tuesday 30th January, and then by the County Council on Tuesday 6th February.

Cllr Hazel Watson, Leader of the Liberal Democrats on Surrey County Council, said today:

“This budget contains drastic cuts to services such as libraries, road maintenance, services for children and families as well as cuts to support for people with learning disabilities. They come on top of the unpopular cuts which have already been made to services including highways, community recycling centres and support to vulnerable people. It is a failure by central government to provide adequate funding to the County Council and a failure of the Conservative-administration to get to grips with the financial problems at County Hall.

“Although I am pleased that the Conservative-administration, unlike last year, has not tried to raise council tax by 15%, they are proposing a 6% rise as this is the maximum increase possible without triggering a referendum. This is still unaffordable for many Surrey residents, particularly for those on fixed incomes. The Conservative-administration has been forced into proposing this rise due to the financial crisis at County Hall and the shortfall in government funding for essential services such as adult social care.

“Adult social care requires extra funding from central government, funding which the Leader of the Council has failed to secure and that the four cabinet ministers who are MPs in Surrey have failed to deliver. Whilst it is good news that the County Council will be able to retain 100% of its business rates growth in 2018/19, this pilot scheme should be extended beyond just one year. If it does end at the end of 2018/19, the County Council will be facing an even more difficult financial situation as the adult social care precept, which allows the County Council to raise council tax by 3%, will also end leading to a worsening financial position for the County Council in 2019/20.

“However, the Conservative administration needs to take its share of the blame for the financial crisis at County Hall. In December 2016, the Conservative-administration commissioned and paid almost £25,000 for a report written by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy which contained many criticisms of the County Council’s financial position. It stated that “the Council’s financial plans are not robust and it is at risk of becoming financially unsustainable” and that the council’s financial position was “extremely worrying”. Given the financial mess at County Hall, I think the report was entirely correct in its analysis and that its warnings have not been heeded.

“I welcome the County Council’s plans to use capital receipts to fund innovations and transformation projects for essential public services. By using technology and other innovations, services can be improved and costs reduced which would place the County Council on a sounder financial footing. However, these new rules on capital receipts were introduced in 2016 and the Conservative-administration should have taken advantage of them then and therefore avoided some of the painful cuts to services for Surrey residents.

“With regard to the many empty council owned buildings across the county, the County Council has failed to utilise them properly, instead letting them decay and incurring hundreds of thousands of pounds of costs keeping them empty, in some cases for over a decade. In just one financial year, 2016/17, £307,464 was spent on maintaining 20 vacant buildings. This is a straightforward waste of money and a missed opportunity to bring in capital receipts or rental income which would have improved the County Council’s financial position.

“Because of the financial crisis at County Hall, the Conservative-administration is now gambling about £200m of pounds of council tax payers’ money on purchasing commercial property, such as warehouses and office blocks, hundreds of miles away from Surrey. This is risky and will not promote economic growth within the county as so many of the properties are so far away.

“The Conservative-administration has repeatedly assured residents that income from commercial property will be reinvested in services but it has recently earmarked £3.8m of this income to be spent on purchasing more property. Every day, the County Council is acting more like a property investment company rather than a local authority. Even the Government, in a recent piece of guidance, had to remind councils like Surrey County Council that “local authorities need to remember that their prime duty is to deliver statutory services for local residents” – this is something that the Conservative-administration has clearly forgotten.

“This budget is a bad deal for Surrey residents, who are being asked to pay more for less. The County Council’s own survey of residents revealed that only 37% of people believed that the County Council provided value for money. Surrey residents should not have to pick up the bill or lose essential services because of the failures of this Conservative-administration”.

Notes

A link to the Council’s budget papers can be found here (Item 10):

https://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=5812&x=1

The CIPFA report can be found here:

https://surreylibdems.org.uk/en/document/cipfa-report-dec-2016#document

DCLG guidance on the role of local authorities can be found here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/658458/Consultation_on_the_proposed_changes_to_the_prudential_framework.pdf

A link to the County Council’s resident survey can be found here:

https://performance.surreycc.gov.uk/stat/goals/4es8-8jxa/qura-ay7g/4g6h-4si2/view

The FOI document containing information on the cost of empty buildings can be found here:

https://surreylibdems.org.uk/en/document/empty-buildings-foi#document

Posted on

Axe the Tory Tip Tax campaign

“The Government has indicated that residents should be able to dispose of household DIY waste free of charge and that they are considering changing the law to enforce this. Therefore, we the undersigned call upon Surrey County Council to immediately stop charging residents for the disposal of household DIY waste at its Community Recycling Centres”

https://signme.org.uk/en/1428/share

Posted on

Godalming will be losing its Police Counter service

The Surrey Advertiser has reported that due to “budget challenges” Godalming will be losing its Police Counter service (currently operating from the Waverley Borough Offices).

My good colleague, former police officer and Crime Prevention officer, John Robini, says,

“I have worked closely with the community of Waverley for more than 40 years. Waverley has one of the eldest populations in Surrey. This means many residents are reluctant to drive far, or use modern technology. By closing the only front counter in Waverley any resident will now have to travel to bigger centres with their problems of traffic and parking. The Police in this country “police by consent”. If they continue to withdraw from public contact then not only will they risk losing this consent but how do they receive valuable information from the community? The only contact will be as a victim or as a perpetrator and no longer will police be seen as a friendly and helpful organisation. This is a retrograde step, one only concerned in saving money and nothing to do with improving policing in the community”.

I agree with John. Do you? Write to your Police and Crime Commissioner and tell him (http://www.surrey-pcc.gov.uk/contact/).

 

Posted on

Government tells County Council – you must be more open about “secret” property deals

The Government has published proposals calling on local authorities, including Surrey County Council, to be more open and transparent about their purchases of commercial properties for investment purposes. The consultation, which closed on December 22nd 2017, states that local authorities need to “demonstrate more transparency and openness and to make it easier for informed observers to understand how good governance and democratic accountability have been exercised”, and that “local authorities need to remember that their prime duty is to deliver statutory services for local residents”. The new rules, if adopted, will be introduced in April 2018 and take effect immediately.

Cllr Hazel Watson, Leader of the Liberal Democrats on Surrey County Council, said today:

“I welcome these proposals from the Government to increase the openness and transparency about commercial investment activities by local councils, such as Surrey County Council.

“The County Council has not been very open or transparent about its purchases of commercial properties outside Surrey. The purchases include warehouses, retail developments and office blocks around the UK. To date, the County Council has spent approximately £200m on commercial properties outside Surrey, purely for income from rent. This is a hugely risky approach to gamble with council tax payers’ money and it is clear that the Government is becoming increasingly concerned that councils such as Surrey County Council could easily lose money as a result.

“Surrey residents have a right to know how their money is being spent by the County Council. To put such large amounts of money at risk and hide it from members of the public is unacceptable.

“A list of all properties purchased by the County Council, including the amount spent by the council, the type of property and the address should be readily available for all to see on the County Council’s website. Unfortunately this is not the case and so urgent change is needed.

“I also welcome the Government’s guidance on the role of local authorities which is to provide services to local residents. The County Council’s current priority is investing in commercial properties, 83% of which are outside Surrey. This is risky and will not benefit services for Surrey residents or increase economic growth in the county.

“I am calling on the Conservative-administration to drop the secrecy, invest in Surrey and stop spending millions of pounds on speculative property investments hundreds of miles away”.

NOTES

The Government’s consultation documents can be found here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/658458/Consultation_on_the_proposed_changes_to_the_prudential_framework.pdf

More information on Surrey County Council’s property portfolio can be found in the response to this recent Freedom of Information request:

https://surreylibdems.org.uk/en/document/property-foi

 

Posted on

Lib Dems call for scrutiny investigation over Surrey County Council pay off to Virgin Care

Liberal Democrat county councillors have called for a scrutiny investigation following the disclosure that Surrey County Council have paid an undisclosed sum to Virgin Care, following legal proceedings over the awarding of a health contract.
Virgin Care sued the County Council, alongside six Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in Surrey, citing “serious flaws” in the way the procurement of a contract to provide children’s and young people’s community health care services was conducted. One CCG inadvertently disclosed that its liability in the case was £328,000 but references to this amount have now been removed from its public finance report.
Cllr Hazel Watson, Leader of the Liberal Democrats on Surrey County Council, said today:
“It appears likely that the County Council have paid out hundreds of thousands of pounds to Virgin Care but Surrey residents will never the know how much public money was used to settle this case. This is money that could have been used to fund vital public services, which are already being cut by the Conservative-administration at County Hall, rather than settle expensive legal disputes.
“I am therefore calling for a scrutiny investigation into what the grounds for the dispute were, how the County Council interacted with the CCGs with regard to the procurement and what went wrong, and for more transparency on the amount of public money that the County Council has spent with regard to this case”.

MRS HAZEL WATSON (DORKING HILLS) TO ASK:
According to the Independent on Wednesday 29 November: “Virgin Care sued the NHS last year after it lost out on an £82m contract to provide children’s health services across Surrey, citing concerns over “serious flaws” in the way the contract was awarded. The company filed proceedings at the UK High Court naming the six local NHS clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in Surrey, as well as Surrey County Council and NHS England.” What were the grounds of the legal dispute between Virgin Care and Surrey County Council regarding the contract for children’s health services and how much has been or will be paid by the County Council to resolve this matter?

Reply (HELYN CLACK, CABINET MEMBER FOR HEALTH)
Virgin Care began legal proceedings against a number of parties including Surrey County Council alleging irregularities in the procurement of the contract to provide children’s and young people community health care services throughout Surrey. The proceedings have now been settled on terms that are confidential to the parties. Disclosure of those terms by any of the parties could lead to enforcement action against that party. I am therefore not able to provide the information that the Councillor has asked for.

 

Posted on

Lights will stay on until 1am rather than midnight from Thursday 23rd November 2017

Liberal democrat county councillors today welcomed the decision by conservative-run surrey county council to amend its unpopular street lighting policy. The policy, which was introduced in 2016 and early 2017, saw thousands of street lights turned off across the county without any consultation with the residents affected. The change of policy means that lights will stay on until 1am rather than midnight from Thursday 23rd November 2017.

Cllr Stephen Cooksey, Liberal Democrat Spokesperson on Highways & Environment said :

“The Conservative policy on street lighting in Surrey has been badly thought through, poorly implemented and is inconsistent. Whilst I welcome this small change in policy, this whole mess could have been avoided if they had consulted with residents before the changes were made and in an open and transparent fashion, so that amendments to the proposals suggested by residents could have been taken on board. Instead we have a piecemeal policy which has gradually unravelled over the year, and for which this Conservative administration owes Surrey residents an apology”.

Posted on

STATEMENT FROM CLLR HAZEL WATSON ON BUDGET

“This Budget was a missed opportunity for the Government to address the crisis in social care funding in places like Surrey and to alleviate the pressure on local councils delivering essential services to vulnerable residents but who cannot keep up with demand and cost pressures. The worsening growth figures outlined by the Office of Budget Responsibility paint a bleak picture for local councils who desperately needed a cash injection from the government in order to carry out their statutory duties.
“The Chancellor’s announcement of extra money for house building is welcome but these must be homes that people can afford, with a range of tenures and in the right places. High cost areas like Surrey and the south east of England need an increased supply of genuinely affordable homes so that teachers, care workers and others working in the public sector and providing the essential services that we all rely on, can live and work locally.

“The Conservative Government has failed to address some of the critical issues affecting areas like Surrey. Liberal Democrats have called for a cash injection in the NHS, funded by an increase in income tax of 1p which, alongside reforms to bring together health and social care, would raise an extra £6bn. Instead of more money for schools, the Government is having to put £3bn extra aside in order to prepare for the fallout from the extreme version of Brexit that it has chosen to implement. It is disappointing that the Chancellor, himself a Surrey MP, has not recognised these issues when putting together this Budget.”