Elmbridge Council - Local Spending Board - Cobham & Downside, Oxshott

Local Spending Board - Cobham & Downside, Oxshott & Stoke D'Abernon - Thursday, 27th June, 2024 7.00 pm

June 27, 2024 View on council website

Transcript

at Oak Dabnam being held on 27th June 2024. As we have members of the public present, I would like to draw your attention to the fire precautions. In the event of the fire alarm sounding, please leave the room immediately. Proceed downstairs by way of the main stairs or follow any of the emergency exit signs. Leave the building and follow the signs to the fire assembly point, which is the Old Church Path on the pathway between the rear of the Isha Public Car Park, Library End and the churchyard. The first item on the agenda is the appointment of chair. Please can I take the board's nomination? Councillor Burley.

Nominate Councillor Mann, please, thank you.
Thank you, and is that seconded? Thank you. If there are no other nominations, I now confirm that Councillor Mann is appointed as the chair of the local spending board for Cobham and Downside, Oxford and Stoke Dabnam for the municipal year 2024-25. Thank you.
Thank you, thank you, everybody. No hail to the chief, never mind. So going through the agenda to start with. Firstly, there's no members of the public present, so don't need to go through the fire precautions. Oh, of course there are, not in there. You've done that, sorry. Right, so, that'll make it really interesting. Declaration of interest, all members present are required to declare at this point in the meeting, or as soon as possible thereafter, any disclosable pecuniary interests, and/or other interests arising under the Code of Conduct. Do I have any such? David.
Yeah, thank you, chair. I mean, obviously I'm a Surrey County Councillor, and I have been involved in a couple of the applications which are before us tonight, and also I'm a member of the Cobham Conservation and Heritage Trust.
Anybody else?
Yes, Mr. Chair. Just to note, I'm also a Surrey County Councillor, and I also am involved with the applicants for one of these applications, application number six.
Thank you, I suppose for a point of, Councillor Sturt. Karen.
I'm also a member of Cobham Heritage and Fedora, 'cause I'm a resident.
Lawrence.
Member of CCHT as well.
Yeah, I think we can all declare an interest in CCHT, and for the point of, I suppose, for good form, I should declare that I've been a past chair of governors and a longstanding governor at one of the applicants, St. Andrews Primary School, which would be of some interest. Welcome, Alan. We're just in time at declarations of interest, Alan. (audience laughing) You've missed the fire, you've missed the fire precaution, sadly. (muffled speaking) You've missed the fire precautions, but we'll take that as read. Do you have any declarations of interest, other than being a member of, or interested in CCHT and Fedora, 'cause that's fairly widespread.
None other than that.
Thank you. So the meetings of the minutes held on the 29th of June, 2023, they've been circulated. Can we take those as read and adopted? Take that done then. In that case, we move on to section four, being the local spending applications for the community, and I'll pass over to the officer to introduce them.
The unexpected, thank you. So we're here today to hear for the board to consider nine applications that have been submitted for funding from the Cobbin, Downside, Okshaw, and Stoke Davenham portions of the Community Infrastructure Levy for the 2024-25 spending round. The total amount requested for the seal applications is 239,300 pounds, and unfortunately there is insufficient funds within the pot to fund all applications in full. The amount that is available to award up to is 129,651 pound. The decision of the board is final, so there's no further recommendations up to cabinet, so it's the decisions of the board that are final recommendations. Each of the applications have been scored and presented in the order of the report in terms of the weighting, looking against certain aspects such as supporting growth, community support, deliverability, match funding. I would suggest, obviously, that given there are insufficient funds, you will not be able to, obviously, award as you go along. You will need to consider all applications. So if we start with, obviously, inviting applicants one down the list to provide their three-minute presentation, and the board's then able to ask any questions, but in terms of deliberations of whether to award funds, that would have to occur right at the end. I will make the suggestion to the chair, if possible, that applications one and eight are the same officer. So if we could hear those in turn, and then carry on down the same line. That's okay to the board.
Everyone, second. Mark. The mic's off.
There we are, 50/50 chance. I have to leave to go to another meeting very shortly, sorry. So I don't want to take up any time. But can I just make a very brief comment on application number six, just for you to note, which is the application for Little Heath Recreation Ground, an application that I support. I would draw, when you come to discuss it, your attention to page 86, and particularly number 11, where the applicant notes that a submission has been made to the Eeyore Fund Surrey Small Community Projects Fund. However, because we are in a general election, I can't comment any further on that, and also Surrey County Council cannot make a decision on that application for funding towards this project until after the general election is over. Thank you.
So thanks for that, Mark. And just for the sake of clarity, you'll see I'm using first names. I suggest that members of the public and applicants will be using first names just to try and de-formalize this slightly. Hopefully I can make it a little more comfortable. So should we call one and eight together? So applicant number one is?
It's Chris Agent from Surrey County Council. Application one is for Cobham Free primary school safety measures, additional funding to existing project awarded in 2022. Chris, if you wanted to move, so it's musical chairs today. The seat at the end with the applicant name plate there, sorry. (chuckles)
Hi, everyone. Thank you for taking the time to hear this. I have some background text to offer for the Cobham Free School if I just give that to you now. So the Highways Engagement Commissioning Team made a 22-23 seal bed for 6,000 pounds to improve the signage and installation of pedestrian guard rail for Cobham Free School. The Surrey CC Safer Travel Team were asked to progress this scheme. A road safety outside schools assessment took place in early 2023. And following consultation with both the divisional member, Councillor Lewis and the school head teacher and some parents, it was agreed that their concerns of a road safety would be better addressed by measures to improve the footway outside the school entrance and the opposite footway to increase the waiting capacity of waiting pedestrians to cross using the controlled crossing. Surrey CC Safer Travel Team agreed to top up the original seal 6,000 pound money with 25,000 pound from the Surrey County Council, three million pound road safety outside schools capital budget. The detailed design was complete in early 2024. The estimate for the scheme is significantly more than we projected in the region of 50,000 pounds due to lane rental costs for traffic management on Portsmouth Road. This increase obviously exceeds our allocated budget and without additional funding, this project will be put on hold, unfortunately, until another source of funding can be found. Seal funding of 19,000 pound is being, is being sought to enable 50% split of the costs between Surrey County Council and Elmbridge Borough Council. The project will assist pedestrian movements on Portsmouth Road in the vicinity of the bus stops, Cobham Preschool and Anyards Road Recreation Ground promoting accessibility for pedestrian traffic. The scheme is fully designed and is ready to be delivered within this financial year of 2024/2025. Thank you.
Anybody got any questions for Andrew? I saw your hand first.
Thanks, Elissa. Thank you very much. The area around the school was subject to quite extensive works relatively recently in the last 18 months, 12, 18 months. Is there, it's not a challenge, by the way, just a simple question, a matter of fact. Is there a reason why these safety works were not considered at the time of the previous works? Thank you.
Much like with most schemes, they're formed out of road safety outside schools for this particular project and that's where this funding's come along. Unfortunately, that is the nature of the beast with highway matters and also with the encouragement and engagement with other parties as well that with local knowledge, local residents or the school may say, well, actually, this is, I think this is exactly what's happened here, that this is actually more of the problem so could we look at getting this in, which ideally, yes, that would be great but at the time, I think it was, it was progressed to be a bit of a lower, bit of a lower budget scheme so ideally, yes, the anticipation would be to do what's needed there but obviously, the allocation, the funding allocation's been booked up now for the whole three years of the road safety outside schools budget unfortunately so it's kind of that thing of do we wanna do a half, something that we're not entirely happy with and that the residents and the members of the school aren't completely happy with. I do believe there was some dialogue before saying that if there was any extra funding needed then to come back and make a further seal bid which is why we've been invited to do that so we're hoping that that could go some way to get this scheme on the road as it were and as I say, it's fully designed so it's ready to go essentially.
Lawrence and then David Lawrence.
Thank you and thank you for your presentation. We've just got a few questions so that's all right. Lane rental cost, how much is it and where does that money go to?
The lane rental cost is basically to stop inappropriate works happening on the highway so for an A road such as Portsmouth Road, the lane rental cost will be, I think it's up to a cap of 2 1/2 grand and that's obviously to deter frequent works on A roads that are possibly not required as such so the lane rental scheme was introduced maybe five years ago, something like that and that's just basically to fundamentally make sure that what you're doing on the highway at the most busiest A roads is actually needed and the money where that goes, I'm not gonna lie to you, I don't know where that goes. Yeah, I can't answer that.
I mean, does it go back to Surrey County Council was my point or does it go to the central government or I mean, presumably it has to go somewhere?
Again, without, yeah. Yeah.
Okay, okay, that's interesting, thanks, Andrew. I'm just, I don't know where the people have inspected the site but I mean, I'm just looking on a street view type map system, in terms of the grass verge which could be widened out into presumably kind of tarmac pavement, it seems to kind of funnel down and so you'd have a large amount of people then funneling in and there's a lamppost as well. I mean, is that lamppost gonna be moved or? And people can presumably walk on the grass verge most of the time, it's only when it's particularly in clement weather that it would be an issue.
I don't believe that's in the proposals at the moment but again, this is something that I don't think they've even had a chance to look at. The relocation of a lamp column isn't that much of an effort or that much of a cost as it were 'cause you're not installing a new lamp column. So I think if funding was agreed and this bid was accepted then that would go back in and we can look at stuff like that.
David?
Yeah, thanks, Alistair. I think there may be some confusion over this. So just to pick up Andrew's point, we're talking about the Coventry School, the junior school and the old police station. We're not talking about the senior school so when you were talking about the road works I think you were talking about the senior school. So it's not that site, it's the junior school site. In terms of the question about lane rental, I'm not certain whether, again, that's the right area that we're looking at. I think, I would guess it's around traffic management rather than lane rental and traffic management is to enable the work to go ahead. They will have to put in probably a two-way light system or something like that to protect the workers as they're doing the work on the area. So I think that the additional cost will be for traffic management.
I think in fairness to Lawrence, it does say that in the E-bid application.
Traffic management?
No, lane rental.
Lane rental.
Just quote lane rental.
I'm surprised, I would have thought it'd be traffic management. I mean, just in terms of the background to this application, I mean, there had been a number of discussions with Cobham Free. And if you think of the site on that corner, it's where the playground is for the kids. And there have been accidents and so on. There was an accident there, I think, about four or five years ago. And Michaela was concerned that if a car came off the road, that it could go through the fence into the play area and injure the kids. So that was the background as to why we were asked to actually look at that whole area and see whether anything could be done to improve the road safety there. And my question really was that, I mean, I had been involved, I was involved in the original site visit when the very first set of proposals were made. And then they were, as we heard, they were updated. And my last involvement was that those updated proposals were going to be checked with the Cobham Free School to make sure they supported them. And I've never heard that that last bit of the process actually happened. So are you able to confirm that Cobham Free School are supportive of what's being proposed?
I would have to get back to you on that to confirm. Either way, whether it's happened already or not, it will happen. And it will be in full agreement with what will work for them as well. And I think this is why this larger scheme with the FERVA funding has been requested because of those chats with yourself and school and residents.
Thank you. Can you take, can you turn your mic off? Robin.
Well thank you, I've got two related questions. The first is relating to, you said it's always going to be done in the next year. Do you know roughly when? And the reason I'm asking that is there's been quite a lot of work that's gone on down Portsmouth Road over the last year and people have been very obsessed about it. I'm conscious about us funding another scheme which causes more problems on Portsmouth Road that people be obsessed about. So I just wondered if you could give me an indication of when it might happen. Can it be scheduled around school holidays, those types of things.
Yeah, as most people know now, we like to construct these things out of school time now and specifically on a road such as this. If we were to get funding then obviously, I can't give you a date of when it could be if we didn't have any funding. If we did then essentially it would be ready to be booked in and everything's designed and that's obviously in agreement with everyone with the design as it were.
Can I just follow up on that then? So obviously summer holidays is probably the best time to do it. Is that realistic, bearing in mind where we are in July?
Yeah, I'm not gonna say that's gonna happen in the next month or two, definitely not. The aim would be to get it done by March 2025. So if it needs to be done outside of those times, then it will do and unfortunately there'll have to be some compromise with that but hopefully the scheme that's being proposed here will outweigh those concerns.
Thanks. Lawrence.
Thank you and just on David's point that the background was that this was to improve the safety of the playground. I'm struggling to see how this would make any difference to that. So that didn't seem to be part of the application. Can you just confirm whether these works would impact on the safety of the playground at all? Just so we know, thank you.
Sorry and just to be clear, what I said is that's what prompted the original inspection. And then there was a look, they then looked at the whole area of crossing the road and that sort of thing. So it became a bigger, the scope became bigger. And in the discussions that I was involved in, we talked about the possibility of having some sort of barrier around the playground and for all sorts of technical reasons, I was advised that that wasn't possible and certainly it wasn't Surrey's responsibility to do that. That would be the Covent Free School. So the focus of the project then transferred. But that's what initiated the--
But it's not having any bearing on this particular--
Not really, it's more in terms of the, it's where it came from and it's more designed to protect the children coming in and out of school, crossing the road, parents waiting for the kids, that sort of thing in that area.
Alan, you got a question?
Yes, thank you very much, Chairman. I know this road well. In fact, I knew the old police station particularly well. But that's a long time ago. (audience laughing)
Provencer.
Would the expert just agree with me if I got this fax correctly? There's a total project cost of 50,000 pounds. We're being asked to improve another 19,000. And there's an up and, no, I won't use that expression. There is a scheme, there is a scheme ready to go and to, if we approve this fund tonight, then you would put it in place as soon as possible. Do I understand that?
That's correct, yeah. Yep. Total of 50,000, sorry, coming to Council, would put in 25. The 6,000, which has already been secured through the seal process. And then the additional 19,000 to make it 50,000. And just to go back to your point there, yeah, obviously we wouldn't be improving the playground as such or the protection to the playground on the school premises. But the proposals, we hope, will go a long way to stop that happening anyway. I can give you a quick breakdown of what the 50,000 pounds will go towards is the new footway construction, the reinstatement of the grass verges, siding out of the footway to expose the full width, Gladstone bollards, new school warning signs, just basically improve the signing enhancements. And obviously the footway is the big thing and that's where the main cost is gonna go and where the biggest benefit's gonna come from.
Anybody, I've got one question if nobody else has got it. The way I'm reading this, this scheme costs 50,000 pounds. 25,000 pounds is the design by Surrey and 25,000 pounds is the material cost that's being requested funded by CIL 'cause the way it reads to me is that Surrey are paying themselves 25,000 pounds to do the design and all the material costs, the bollards, the lane rental, the roadworks, the signage, everything you've just said appears to be being funded by the CIL, is that correct?
No, that's not correct, no, no. The design costs are about 5,000 pounds.
That's just not what it says in the application? (muffled speaking) (muffled speaking)
Paragraph 4.5, 50%, 25,000 pounds have been secured by Surrey for the design work. 12%, 6,000 pounds secured from CIL funding last year and the remaining 19,000 pounds are being requested over two years for the total cost of 50,000 pounds. Now that to me reads that Surrey had done the design work for 25,000 pounds, 6,000 pounds had been previously secured for the previously anticipated work and 19,000 pounds has now been requested for the further expanded work. It just feels to me that based on this application, Surrey are being asked to pay themselves to do some design work and Elmbridge CIL is being asked to fund 25,000 pounds to do the work.
Yeah, that saying that, that's not correct. No design would cost 25,000 pounds. So I unfortunately believe that's probably a typo. I can confirm--
That appears to be possibly an oversight that we should debate ourselves separately.
Sure.
Thank you, any other questions for Chris on application one? Nope, in that case can we ask you, 'tis Chris, isn't it? Can we ask Chris, can you go straight on to application eight then please? Neat segue.
Yes, so we are on to Downside Bridge Road and we are proposing to enhance the signage on the 90 degree bend and we're also proposing to put in a new footway to help pedestrians across the Downside Bridge Road where currently there is no facility to do that. As there is no public highway between the 90 degree bend and the churchyard, Surrey CC as the local authority cannot ask or expect members of the public to use private footpaths or land to continue their journeys. The aim of the proposed footway and crossing points is to provide and navigate a route for footway users using the public highway. Crossing the road twice, once either side of the 90 degree bend with visibility in accordance with current advice is much safer for them than this current situation. Our proposals include two uncontrolled crossings on straight sections of carriageway, one either side of the 90 degree bend rather than the bend. This allows pedestrians to cross the carriageway with visibility of approaching vehicles from both directions. The risk of conflict between pedestrians and vehicles entering exiting the car park would be reduced through the proposals as this allows pedestrians to cross the carriageway away from the car park rather than proceeding past the car park. Thank you, any questions?
Any questions, Andrew?
Sorry, I won't dwell. This bend is notorious, isn't it? This was one of the, I think the most dangerous sections of road in our borough. I think there was some stats. Do you, Chris, my question is, do you have any updated stats? Have you got that in your analysis? But I'm conscious that it is very dangerous. I just wondered if you had any specifics. Thank you.
Yeah, there's, this doesn't necessarily mean to say that what you've just said isn't correct, but there's only been one recorded collision in the past three years. Saying that, we're starting to do a lot more intelligence-led kind of projects now, whereas this kind of falls into that category quite strongly. I'm sure some of you have seen the photos of the aftermath of one of the collisions down there, and safe to say it would have been a lot more serious if someone was standing in their garden at that point. So as I say, yeah, we're tending to lean a lot more on intelligence-led stuff, which comes from local councilors, residents, which is working really well, actually. So this kind of falls in with this bracket. We were, at one point, proposing to protect the boundary wall there, but it's such a harsh bend that if a vehicle hit that head-on and we'd use restraining measures with high-containment curbs or double-height curbs, that could lead to something very serious as well. So we're trying to kill two birds with one stone with this scheme in terms of helping the pedestrians get across.
Kill birds and not pedestrians.
Yes. - David.
Yes, yeah, you said it. Yeah, so that's the anticipation with this scheme is to improve the footway across there and the uncontrolled crossing facilities as well as highlighting the bend with some single chevrons.
David.
Yeah, thank you. I mean, Andrew's correct. This is a dangerous corner, and part of the problem is that some of the accidents which have happened there haven't been recorded on the police database. So within the last five years, there have been two very serious accidents, one which I think is the one that Paul's referring to, sorry, Chris, referring to, which is when a milk lorry went through the fence and demolished the utility room of Church Cottage. And then about two years ago, a second vehicle went through the fence slightly further up, so where the chevron sign is on the bend, and went through that and ended up in the garden. And really, since the first accident, which I think is the one that wasn't recorded on the police database, which was before my time as the county councilor, the residents, the walkers who live in Church Cottage, along with Cobham Heritage and others, have been campaigning to do something with this corner, and their preference is very much to have more of a barrier in terms of raised curve or something, so I think that, I mean, whilst I think people would welcome the scheme as a step in the right direction, I have to say that from the feedback I've had from the walkers, they still have a number of concerns about the proposals which are being made, but something has to be done on this corner, because it's a very dangerous corner.
Can I just ask David? - Yeah, yeah.
David, sorry, so the concerns are that the proposals are insufficient, is that the concern? People want more protection than this is offering.
Yes, I mean, the walkers would like to have more protection, physical protection, to prevent vehicles actually going through the fence, 'cause they've got grandchildren, and they're really concerned about being in the garden, and one of these accidents happening, as I say, the first one that happened actually went through the fence, and actually demolished the utility room, the second one was a bit further up, so they feel there needs to be more of a barrier, but the highways technical people say it's not possible to put that sort of thing in.
Can I suggest that actually we're gently straying into debate about the issues here, rather than asking questions of the applicant, 'cause we're never gonna get through the evening if we debate it, but if we go along, so have we got any questions for Chris? Lawrence?
Thanks, Alistair, yeah, sorry, my understanding, this is, so I've got two-fold question for you. First of all, my understanding is to protect pedestrians rather than the residents of that, of the house, and so that's what's under consideration, and I'm just trying to fully understand what is proposed. There's a kind of narrow pavement that leads up to the house in question, and then it becomes super narrow, or like, six inches wide, so that's where you have a pedestrian crossing over onto where there's grass verge, there will then be a path that takes you down to a further pedestrianized crossing back over to the other side of the road, is that what's being proposed? Okay.
Great, thank you, Robin?
Do you wanna ask Suzanne a question?
Yeah.
One of the concerns when we allowed the challenge fencing application was the crossing here, has the SIL money come from the challenge fencing, are we funding one to the other, or is it not coming yet?
It's not necessarily done like that, so it would have been if it was obviously a section 106 that was particularly tied to that development scheme that had to then require this as part of the mitigation to make the development acceptable, but SIL basically puts a levy on every single development that meets certain criteria across the borough, and where development takes place in Cobham, Oxford, Stoke, Davenham, it's a 15% kind of that comes from that, so the money from the SIL pot could come from any development, applicable development that happens across the settlement area, not specifically tied to this development, 'cause that would have been through section 106.
Lawrence.
Sorry, last question from me, and again, this is Suzanne, and can you just differentiate between when something qualifies for strategic SIL funding for me, a massive road safety issue like this is a bit more than just a local parochial matter, but it is considered a local parochial matter, is it, this type of thing?
Yeah, so something's generally considered strategic if it impacts on more than one settlement area, or if it's part of a wider strategic program, so for example, sometimes, sorry, educational schools provision can cut across, come towards strategic, because it's kind of a provision across the wider borough, in terms of school place planning, so I think this is the right place for it to be.
David.
Sorry, I also have a question, and that's around the ownership of the grass, because we're told that the, it's owned by Umbridge Borough Council, and it falls within the conservation area, and is a conservation verge, can you give any indication of whether, you know, if this were to be approved, this scheme, whether Umbridge would be, give the consent for it to go ahead?
In all honesty, it's something we'd have to look into, in terms of the details. Just have a quick look.
Nine, eight, seven.
Thank you.
Nine, eight, one, eight, five. (papers rustling)
I mean, obviously can't comment on part of the landowner, as in the council, 'cause I'd have to go and speak to colleagues with an asset management and property team, but in terms of a planning perspective, so obviously, in the fact that it's a conservation area, we would weigh it in the balance. I can't pre-determine anything, obviously, at the moment, but generally, I think this is the type of thing that we have seen take place elsewhere in the borough. It's not something that I think would be an automatic, no, but it was obviously would be subject to consideration, and then confirmation with our asset management team.
Orange.
Sorry, so to confirm, it would need planning commission.
To be honest, I'm not convinced it does. That's why I say we would actually have to go and have a look, but even if it did, it's not the type of thing that generally would cause too much concern, obviously, without pre-determining if it was to require a planning application, but generally, I think we've seen this type of application within the borough before. There are some forms of development that don't require planning permission, but as I say, I'd have to go and look at the details. Apologies.
Any other questions for Chris before we move on to application two?
Nope, right, and on that point, I think perhaps I should have said at the start, when we go through this process, we just need to be really disciplined in making sure we ask questions of the applicant and save the wider discussion until we do it later, 'cause otherwise we'll have the same discussion twice, and we will need to send that for Peter. So thanks very much, Chris, for that. So now we need application two, which is, yeah, go on.
Yep, so application two is from the Royal Kent Church of England Primary School. We have Louise Wheatley and Katie Hancock. They're seeking 30,000 pound for active play and car park project, which is additional funding from the existing project that was awarded funding in 2023.
Thank you, you've got a duo. I hope that's okay. Thank you for the opportunity to present our active play and car park project. Last year, you kindly gave us half our requested funding towards the project, and you invited us to return this year if we were not able to start, which has been the case. In addition to rising costs in our second round of quotes, we now wish to secure the final funding and are seeking 30,000 as you've mentioned. As a reminder, our project consists of turning an unusable waterlogged landscaped area into a climbing area for children and a car park area. Another extremely important part of this project is much needed improved security for the school. The crinkle crack climber will replace part of the waterlogged grass with artificial grass and a climber for the children to play on. We also plan to install a soak away drain to help deal with the water. And then the remaining area will be 15 car parking spaces for staff and visitors, removing vehicles from the congested Oakshade Road in Oxshort. In the last 10 years with the introduction of our nursery, our pupil numbers have risen by 20%, which means an increase in families traveling to the school and staff working in the building. This project will also allow the creation of a specific disabled access space, as there's currently none in the existing car park, and this will ensure we are fully equality duty compliant. We will use gravel crates to ensure a permeable surface is added to support the drainage. And we will also install EV charging, supporting Surrey's plan to improve the EV network and also supporting the Department of Transport Strategy in the road to zero.
Hello, as many of you will be aware, there's been a big rise in parking offenses, including lots of antisocial parking, blocking residents' driveways and congestion outside of our school in the past few years. And obviously we've brought more children to the school and more staff members, so we're contributing to that as well. And while we have been fortunate to receive investment to increase the facilities in our school building, the infrastructure for parking has not kept pace. Another important part of the project to ensure the safety for children will consist of separating the car park strip, which we're introducing, and the playground with bow top railings and incorporating electronic bus entry system to secure our school grounds. Some of you who might know our site will know that currently there is no separation between the service driveway and we don't have any sort of entry system to the school playground, which means that visitors can just access the playground freely. And that will be a much needed improvement. And then finally, we will plant native trees and shrubs to improve diversity to the grassed area. We anticipate the project will cost 130,000 pounds and we're seeking 30,000 with the school contributing 40, our active and supportive PTA 40,000 and still funding from last year, 20,000. And just finally to finish off to say that the amount of work that's happened on our school road, Oakshade Road as mentioned by Louise, that raises the still money just at the moment, they've just completed three two story houses, which were, I think it was one commercial unit that was knocked down at quite a small commercial unit. And I think there have been 17 houses in the time that I've been in the school where we've had six houses knocked down. And so it just enables the still money to go directly into the community, which is being impacted.
You neatly stopped just as I was about to stop you. Thank you very much indeed. - I'm a pro.
Well done. Any questions? Andrew first again.
Sorry, I need to turn you off.
Sorry. - Sorry. Thanks for coming back both. I think it was me that suggested you did actually. So I'm really, I'm really grateful that you're here. We got the same problem this year that we had last year, where we don't have enough money. So my question is, which of the elements of the current bid, if they were to fall away, is there an option that to allow you to complete the wider project if there are elements within the current bid that need not happen. So for example, I just throw it out there, the car park spaces, if you did away with that, would it be, would that still give you the flexibility to achieve broadly what you want to achieve for the rest of the initiative without the car parking? Thanks.
I think there are certainly elements that could be removed, but the opportunity to do all of these things at the same time is quite attractive and convenient and really important for the school because of the security. Certainly things like the buzz entry, things could be made a bit more sort of like they are at the moment and just change, things that go over the top, but it's not really sufficient for a sort of 2024 school building. Obviously the playground is a non-negotiable. I don't know, it's hard to say. We've gone pretty, although it sounds like an expensive quote, it's pretty basic in terms of the car parking aspect actually. It creates a permeable surface. It's not the most high-tech of projects.
I think another thing we said, you could remove the EV charging, but we're trying to future-proof it. We're laying ducting, we're putting electricity down to the external perimeter of the school, which is the time to do it, and we're trying to think for the future as well. So yeah, you could take out EV charging. You could say we wouldn't use the Paxton door system that we want to implement. You could scale that right back, but by using that type of system allows us to add other doors in the school to it. So it's trying to think for the future as well. So yes, you could remove parts, you could remove those parts. You could take off EV charging. I think adding the security is a byproduct of this project, but is absolutely intrinsically a really important part of it, and one of the best things that we could do for the children in the school, I feel, too.
Lawrence.
So just a pragmatic point. I know it doesn't require planning permission. Have you had that confirmed by someone?
Sorry, so I believe if we've been using a fully tarmac surface, then it would do, but we're looking to use gravel crates. We've spoken with the architects, and under the legislation for class N, we have permitted development because we're using a porous surface. We have been asked in our correspondence in the last few weeks to get a lawful development certificate, which we will do, but if obviously requested, but it is under, yeah, the legislation class N is a permitted development under a porous surface, a permeable surface.
Anybody else? I've got a couple, and one, firstly, I mean, I was also part of the group, the committee last year that heard this, and I remember we spent some time talking about the need for parking, and about whether that's an absolute need on this site, because they're, we're talking about staff parking, as I understand it, and there are other facilities, but I think, so that is correct, isn't it? We're talking, this is predominantly staff parking.
Yeah, so we've got, oh, is it working, yeah. There are 35 staff, 27 of them drive to work, and there are 12 spaces in the existing car park, which hasn't changed since the '70s, and the school's been, it used to be sort of like a different format, so quite a lot of children, so our staff park on Oakeshade Road, and other neighboring roads, so yes.
And then the second question, just following on from Andrew's, I'm surprised Lawrence hasn't picked up on this, about artificial grass, but if we removed the EV, and the door system, and the artificial grass, what would that remove, what would that reduce your 30,000 pounds to?
We couldn't, the artificial grass is actually the safety surface for the playground, so it's just a little perimeter of the climber, so that's not, we're not replacing the grass of the landscaped area, apart from where we put the cars in, it needs to be a safety surface, there are, there's legislation about, obviously--
So it's not artificial grass, it's safety surface?
Yeah, but with artificial grass on top, so it looks like grass, it has to be, you can't have a climber of a certain height without putting something underneath, it's like a children's playground.
I understand that, but does it have to be artificial grass, is the question I'm asking.
That's what the company who are installing it recommend.
Okay, so--
But it has a safety surface, it's like two layers of like a sort of squishy--
I understand the safety surface component, what I'm saying is if you didn't put the artificial grass on the top and just had the safety surface, bearing in mind, what we're doing here is recognizing we have enough money for 54% of the applications, so the simple question is, if we remove the artificial grass, which is cosmetic on top of the safety surface, as I understand from what you've said to me, if we just had the safety surface, and we didn't have the EV chargers, which are for staff parking, and we didn't have the door system, what would that reduce your 30,000 pounds to?
I think you would have to have the, you would have to have a surface on top of the safety surface, so it might be rubber mulch or something, it's, it wouldn't be finished, if you get what I mean, you couldn't just have that bit, so you'd have to have an alternative thing, and I think, I believe, like the alternative, yeah, with the same costs, for that part, yeah.
In terms of the other part, I was just gonna ask you if you knew what, removing those, the Paxton, Paxton?
The Paxton door system, you could drop it from about, five, 6,000, 6,000, let's say, down to, maybe 1,000 or something. Yeah, I mean, we're then back to the fact that, if we remove that, that then visitors from the site are walking in during the day to get onto the site.
I understand that, this is not a criticism, but what I'm saying is, if we said to you, we can give you nothing, because we haven't got 30,000, but suppose we've gone through the process, and we've ended up with a number less than 30. At what point do we say to you, we haven't got enough for you? So, if you're saying, if needs must, then you could, and we're not at that point yet, this is just fact-finding.
Yeah, sure, I would say--
So, you're saying you could take five off the door, what would the EV--
I would take the EV charging out, yeah, take the EV charging out, I have to confess, I can't remember now how much there was.
I don't think it says anything.
Yeah, I can't remember, I think it was grouped together, so I do apologize, I can't remember. But yeah, I would take that out, if you're looking for something, believe that, we can still lay ducting.
And, sorry, yeah, thanks very much, Corinne, you've got a question.
Thank you, you mentioned about being environmentally friendly, and putting native trees, obviously that's welcomed, but plastic, artificial grass is heinous, it is very non-environmentally friendly, and if you can make a saving, that would be a plus, in terms of environmentally impacting the works, and it can make a saving.
I mean, I'm not sure how to, I feel like I'm just gonna repeat myself, but you have to have something there, it costs the same, it doesn't, it's, I can't put, we can't put real grass on it, and it would be the same as having mulch, it's just, I don't, I'm not quite sure, perhaps I'm not quite understanding what the issue is.
My understanding, from what you previously said, is that you have a safety surface, which I understand, obviously, for the children's safety, and anybody who uses the climate frames, or other equipment, but you're putting a top layer of artificial grass on it, presumably, to make it look green, so if it's got a safety surface underneath, why do you have to top it with green, you know, as long as it's safe, and you can make a saving?
You have to have, it's not a completed safety surface, it's like, sort of like a cushion, and then you put something on top, whether that's the mulch, or the grass, or whatever it is, it sort of comes with the companies, that's what comes with it, it's not a cosmetic choice, and it's completely surrounded by grass, and then just around the fall zone, I think it's 1.75 from the structure, has to be covered with, the cushion system, and then it has to be covered on top, because otherwise it would be very dangerous, because it's got like a sort of wooden perimeter, so it's sort of covering that. It's not a cosmetic thing, it's part of the product.
Thank you for clarifying.
Anybody else got any, David?
So, in terms of the climbing frame itself, I'm a bit out of touch in terms of the layout of the school, but there used to be a climbing frame in front of the library area, is this a replacement for that, or would it be an addition to that, and following on from Alistair's line of questioning, I mean, would it, if it's in addition to that one, would one option be not to have the climbing frame, but to do the rest of the work, and if so, what would the impact on the cost of that be?
No, the trim trail is still very much in use and well-loved by all of the children in the school, nursery up to year six, however, by the time they're getting older, you know, they're looking for more challenge, so this is a more sort of challenging piece of equipment, and, you know, this is really, so obviously we've said that the PTA are funding part of the project, and clearly the PTA wish to fund play equipment, so it's sort of like the PTA's part of it, if you see, so it's an entire project, this is a component of it, and, you know, the PTA's funding does match up with the cost of the, you know, part of the cost of the equipment, so there is no suggestion that we would remove the climbing frame from thinking about the project, it's an active play, and the car parking, you know, it all works, it's the same time, so what we're saying is we're bringing all the children over to this car, this big climbing frame, then we have to put in the right security to make sure that they're not then going on to the service drive, it also gives us the opportunity to put in the car parking spaces, which gives us the opportunity to make the site secure, so it's sort of one thing leading to another into this big project, which all sort of seems to tie in, and it's just can we get the funding for it to make it all work, and hit all of these different boxes at the same time.
Anybody else? Thank you, ladies.
Thank you, thanks so much. (audio cuts out)
So I think that brings us on to application three. Yep.
Yep, application three is Cobham Free School, it's a request for 58,800 pound for the outdoor learning and wellbeing garden, and we have Howard Morris and Catherine Marcus.
Good evening, my name's Howard Morris, I'm chair of trustees of Cobham Free School. Cobham Free School serves an existing cohort of 955 children from reception to six form as an all through state funded school. The school's gone from strength to strength over the years, as recently reported being the most oversubscribed secondary school in Surrey. Since the pandemic, we have recognised the need to focus on the mental health of our children, including opportunities for them to enjoy outdoor spaces and learn about the importance of the natural environment. We have identified an area of our ground at the main school site that could be redeveloped to provide a wellbeing and sustainability garden, offering a much needed place for pupils to connect with the outside world around them and as a sanctuary from the stress that many of them experience in their out of school life. A significant number of our pupils are considered vulnerable, and this group would particularly benefit from a safe and peaceful environment during break times. In addition, we have a number of Ukrainian pupils who would also benefit from a quiet place to reflect from the stress and impact of the war in their own country, with its inevitable impact on their own mental health and wellbeing. We've engaged the services of a local landscaper to design the garden with a new suitable planting scheme, which is being funded entirely by our PTA. We are seeking funding from the seal board this evening to cover the cost for a resin surface for the garden where children can walk without getting muddy and that can be used in all weathers. The resin surface would be expanded to replace the existing pathways leading up to the new garden, which currently cause a significant issue in terms of pupils walking mud into the school building, increasing our cleaning costs and energy consumption. Sustainability is at the heart of this project. We've already shown a commitment to becoming an eco-friendly school and received an EcoSchools Green Flag Award scheme, sorry, Green Flag Award last year with a distinction. The new garden would enable us to provide more children to benefit from garden activities. There's also opportunities for the garden to support work across the curriculum, particularly our science program. And as well as Covent Free School pupils, there are a number of hirers that use our grounds and facilities, including Stagecoach and other performing arts groups. These community groups would be able to use the garden to support in terms of using for holiday camps and other school activities. The total cost of the resin is 58,800 pounds and we'll be very grateful to the school board if you're able to approve this request. Having the funding to allow us to improve our offer and support all our children, including the most vulnerable, will make such a difference to the school, our pupils, and the wider Cobham community. Thank you.
Thank you, Howard. Any questions from anybody? I have one. I couldn't see it, but forgive me if it's in there. Give an idea of the scale of the footprint, the dimensions of the resin footprint that you're planning. Is it three foot by six foot or 50 meters by 70 meters below?
Sorry, I don't think we've got that. I'm trying to go through the quotes that we've got and I don't think it has the area. It's got the depth and thickness of what it's putting in. Maybe I can compare it into the size of this room. So there's different components to it. There's an area, probably the inner area of this, where you're sitting there, that area there, if that gives you an idea. Visually, I can picture it, but I haven't got the exact dimensions.
Thank you. Andrew.
Howard, the resin surface doesn't sound very environmentally friendly, if I may say so. What's the life expectation of this surface?
You say it's not environmentally friendly. It's a resin surface is a very hardware wearing surface that would actually mean that it could be used all weathers, all times of the year. It's a safe surface and it basically takes away the current problem that we have where the traffic, the through traffic of pupils on an existing grass, muddy surface is causing much more longer term issues than a resin surface would do by replacing it.
And it's life span?
I would have to check that. But I mean, normally those sorts of surfaces have a 20 year life span.
Lawrence.
Thank you. And I think we all support the nature of the application. Something for the mental health as well as with such outdoor implications is extremely welcome. So I just want to reiterate that point before I say anything further. But we've got a number of applications today. We just obviously heard in Oxford that the school was planning to have a car park made out of resin coming way inside your figures. Conservation and Heritage Trust are gonna have two footpaths which obviously ideally are gonna be weather proof so that people can walk across them covering quite large areas coming well inside your quotes. And obviously you've had a number of quotes. I presume this was the most cost efficient quote that you received.
Yeah, so we've had numerous quotes. We've provided three and picked the cheapest but we've had other quotes over a couple of years where we've been trying to work out what to do with this area because it is a really problematic area. I'm not sure if you've seen the photographs but it is just basically a bit of a mud pit out there which the kids delight in causing problems with and dragging in mud and it is a real sort of problem area. So it's an area we've had lots of quotes on. We've always been shocked at how much it costs to get this area done. So it's this area and then it's the access path that goes into the area to create the garden. So it's how they get into it across from the courtyard area from the lunch hall.
David.
Could I just ask about the funding because in the table one it talks about third-party contribution of 21,672 pounds and it says to be raised by the friends with Copland Free School. Does that mean the money isn't yet available and if that's the case, what's the sort of time scale in terms of raising that money and then being able to proceed with the project?
We've got a very active PTA and they are very aware of this area and really keen to get this in place. So they've been actively fundraising and I think with the recent summer fair that we've just had, they've now got sufficient funds to be able to put this in place. So they're ready to go.
I've got one further question. If the objective of this is the mental health and sustainability space, why do you need a resin floor at all? Why can't you do crazy paving, something creative with gravel paths or something other and still do lots of planting? Wouldn't that achieve the same thing?
We have looked at all sorts of different options. It needs to be porous. We have looked at different options. Gravel is not very conducive to children. They love kicking and throwing gravel so we're kind of avoiding that. We have in certain areas put bark chips down to kind of alleviate some of the mud issues but I think we need to be a very robust surface while still being porous. So that's why we've opted for something that's very hard wearing. It will, around the sort of planting area, there'll be a walkway through which is where the pupils come from the dining hall area. There's a courtyard and then they walk across to the front field or to other areas. So actually it's quite a thoroughfare that they'll be walking in. So they'll be planting and seating around the edges with the garden that we designed but there's also a thoroughfare through. So it does need to be quite hard wearing.
So just to continue that point, the application is actually for a sustainability area and planting and a thoroughfare. That's a main, from what you've said so far, one of the main drivers is to remove the mud that's been transferred from outdoors to indoors which isn't directly consistent with the ambition for mental health and sustainability garden. Doesn't feel like it to me.
Well, I think the PTA have been very busy raising 'cause they are very keen to create this area into the seating area. So the seating area that they plan so that pupils can actually use it. So they'll be walking through it. There'll also be areas they can sit and have lunch in the green area. So it's very much part of the project, not just a path through from one area to the other.
Thank you. Anybody else? No. Thank you both, Helen. Good to see you. Thank you. On to number four.
Yep, so applications four and five are from Cobham Conservation Heritage Trust in collaboration with Surrey County Council. We have Sue Prentiss. Project four is the Bridal Way improvements and refurbishing at PB57 for 17,480 pound and project five is the footpath improvements and resurfing for public footpath 52 for 8,240. Sue, if you want to do one and then the other. So you've got three minutes for each one, but obviously we'll do questions in between.
There we go.
Thank you. Yeah, good evening, everyone. Yes, I'm Sue Prentiss, representing Cobham Conservation Heritage. If I may, I would actually sort of like to do them a bit together. I'll sort of identify them at various points. First of all, I'd actually like, first of all, to thank Elmbridge very much for all of the Sill grants over the last few years which have helped us refurbish, in fact, seven rights of way footpaths, bridal paths across the Cobham, Downside, Stoke Dabbin and Oxshott area over the last nine years. The footpath improvement and refurbishment program has been a key activity of Cobham Heritage over the last nine years. And I think it really does demonstrate the local community working well with the councils. We work with Surrey County Council who project manage and facilitate the footpath improvements. So they send the tenders out and they project manage the process. And obviously, we thank Elmbridge for the Sill money that enables this to happen. And Cobham Heritage contributes financially to this as well. Footpaths are critical to our community. All the rights of way that we've refurbished are very well used arteries in our area. I think they also help environmentally as they encourage walking and where it's a bridal path also cycling rather than car use. And the two we are requesting for funding for this year are no exception. And I think particularly the two paths we're looking at this year help with school children getting to and from home and work and also commuters getting to the station. So if I take sort of each in turn, the Bridal Way 57 which runs from Ferndale Gardens which is at the top of Hogshill Lane goes along the boundary of St. Andrews Primary School to Icklingham Road. This gets extremely muddy in winter. It's not been maintained and refurbished for a number of years. It's a key path linking the Fairmile end of Cobham to the village particularly used by parents taking children to school. And also increasingly since the retirement village was built on Fairmile, it's also become a very useful path there. It's also a cycle path as it's a Bridal Way. And 17.4K is being sought there. The other footpath FP52 is goes from Noel Hill Park in Stoke Dabbanon bordering the Poly Apes Scout Camp. And this is actually an extension to a footpath improvement we did thanks to Elmbridge Sill funding back in 2018. And this was unfortunately due to the landowner fencing in a field. So channeling all of the foot traffic obviously in a very narrow path where previously we used to be able to walk through a field. So again in the winter this becomes really muddy and difficult to traverse. And we're asking for 8,240 pounds here. It's again a key path connecting both Ockshaw and the North Blundell Lane area with Stoke Road. It's a school link actually to the Royal Kent School. And it also helps commuters from Ockshaw down to the station. Due to our awareness of the amount of available Sill funds this year, we CCHT have doubled our usual contribution which in the last few years has been 10% to 20%. And I think just doing that highlights the importance we place and the community places on the footpath improvements. Really keeping them up to a standard that can be used all the year round. Thank you.
Thank you very much. On time, perfect. Questions? David.
Oh. Yeah, thank you Sue. I'm very supportive of both these applications. Just being a little bit pedantic, application five for footpath 52, it talks about the footpath being well used by walkers, cyclists, and commuters. In fact, cyclists aren't allowed, are they, on that footpath? It's not a brighter way, it's a footpath.
That was held by hand, yes, no.
I mean, it's an important point because actually it's quite a narrow path. And when you do get cyclists along there, it can be quite dangerous. So, but yeah, I'm very supportive and as you say, it's a logical extension to what was done before.
Anybody else, questions? Robin.
So you've probably heard us all the way through tonight say we haven't got enough money to do everything. If you were gonna pick one of the two projects, do you have one that's more important than the other?
I would say, I think they're both very different. And as you can see from the amounts, you know, the one besides St. Andrew's School is about 350 meters in length, so versus the poly apes one is about 80 meters in length. I don't know if this is sort of giving the game away too early, but we, I think CCHT would be willing to potentially up our contribution to 25% if some, you know, to help facilitate both these footpaths going through.
Anybody else? No, great, thanks Sue. Well put.
Thanks very much everyone.
Now we're motoring team. So application six is from Fedora, the voice of Oxshot. It's the Little Heath Recreation Ground Project for phase one draining. The request is for 38,030 pound and the applicant is Claudia Quintela.
Thank you.
2,661, that's the number that I would like you to remember here today. It's the number of the under 18 population in Oxshot. UK teenagers spend on average seven and a half hours a day in front of screens. This has a huge impact on their social skills and mental health. Our 2,661 youngsters do not have an outdoor green space to safely play sports and socialize. Little Heath Recreation Ground is the only green space in Oxshot. Its location is important. It's close to the new Waverly Road affordable housing development and part of the walking route to and from school to Royal Kent. It is therefore not surprising that the project has had tremendous community support. We sent an informal survey to our friends online. Within 24 hours, we had 400 households responding in favor of this project. That's over 10% of the Oxshot households. Many residents are more likely to drive to a park in surrounding villages than to use our own, clearly increasing traffic and emissions. This project is part of a bigger vision for the recreation ground, which includes drain ground, circular pathway, football pitch, inclusive playground, and outdoor gym. We are asking you for 38,000 pounds to cover phase one, drainage. We hope to get 10,000 pounds from YFS, but this process is on hold until after the election. Fedora commits to cover maintenance costs. Elmbridge recognizes the need to improve the site, but lacks the funds. We can't do it without seal funding. Phase one gives us a defined green community space, the only one in Oxshot, which can be used by all residents to play sports and socialize all year round. The timing is urgent. Surrey is aware there's strong evidence of increasing levels of heavy rainfall with impact in adjacent areas. So there's three reasons here to support this project today. Environmental benefits, so it makes the only green space in Oxshot usable and reduces traffic and emissions. Two, community impact creates a usable, defined, green community space for all residents with a strategic location that impacts the lives of many local children. Three, very, very strong local residents support. We can transform this site into a vibrant hub for years to come. Let's invest in our community. Please let's give our 2,661 youngsters a chance to play outdoors and the 9,748 residents in Oxshot their only green space back. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Claudia. We will remember 2,661, I'm sure. I have a question which actually for the officers, bearing in mind Mark Sugden's comment earlier that if we were to grant funding for this and subsequently your fund, sorry, came up with 10,000 pounds that is being bid for that we can't yet know, can we make a grant of whatever we make contingent on the basis that we get 10,000 pounds of it back? If that fund is, so that's my question. (paper rustling) So we could make a grant or whatever we make on the basis that if they get 10,000 pounds we could have it back?
Up to 38,000 pounds and then, yeah.
Yeah. Okay, thank you, right. Lawrence.
Thank you for such a passionate presentation. Just a couple of, again, I just wanted to say as I have done previously that outdoors activities is so important for mental health as well as combating the obesity crisis. Something that's close to my heart and that I bang on about almost as much biodiversity. Just a couple of questions and you can tackle them both. Quote two I noticed was 30,000 rather than 38,000. So if you could explain why the 38,000 quote was the one you brought forward and whether Fedora could, I see it's, I'm not gonna do the maths, it's under 5% of the contribution whether there's any possibility that Fedora could maybe contribute a little bit more.
First of all, I fully believe in the obesity crisis so I'm with you on that. Now in terms of the quote that we submitted, we submitted the middle quote. So you had three quotes, you're asking why 38 and there's others. We thought, okay, the prudent number is the halfway number. Could Fedora make a higher contribution? It is not for me to say that would have to be voted. It's something we can request. But to maybe add a little bit more to that, if there is a gap in the funding, so if CIL cannot provide the full amount, we can look into other sources of funding. So there's a lot of support from local residents so we can look into crowdfunding or we can look into corporate sponsors. There's a lot of companies in Oxshott that would love to have their name all over this as well. But we need to start, but I cannot speak about, obviously Fedora has procedures to approve spending.
Andrew. What was that number again, Claudia? No, I'm just joking, I'm just joking. Yeah, okay, thank you, thank you, thank you. I'm a little confused and I'm asking you the question. I don't know whether you've been given a reason. As to why your fund, Surrey, feels impacted by PIRDA, yet the CIL decision-making process is not impacted by PIRDA. I don't understand that. You may not have an answer. It may be a question for the officers, but I'm finding it will be.
I think we're not straying into debate, but we're straying off piece.
Thank you, all right, okay. Are there any questions directly for Claudia? Corinne.
Thank you, and we welcome anything that can be done to help children's fitness and being outside and fresh air, et cetera. Does the 38,000, and I hopped on about this last year, does it include VAT?
Question, so all the quotes include VAT. So the drainage services, the three quotes that we have are all inclusive of VAT.
They can't claim it back. It's in the application.
But to the point that it won't be added on top, so these are the full numbers. If that was your question, that's the full number. We can't claim it back.
But we're not paying for it. We're not commissioning the work. Any other questions? One very quick one, which links to what Lawrence has said. Phase one would be complete from this funding.
Phase one would be the drainage, and the objective of this today is to basically get a field that can be used. It's not usable at the moment.
So my actual question, as you say, phase one is complete, and phases two and subsequent phases are contingent, not yet funding, so if those didn't go ahead, would phase one, if complete, be a worthwhile project? What am I asking?
Phase one on its own is a worthwhile project. Anyone who has a child, or anyone who has been in that field knows.
Thank you. Anybody else? Nope, thank you very much.
Okay, application seven is from St. Andrews Primary School. It's for a shaded well-being area seeking 17,000 pounds. Unfortunately, the applicant is unable to attend this evening, so you have the pleasure of me reading out a statement that I haven't practiced, and probably can't say it with half the enthusiasm just then, but I will give it a go. It certainly won't take me three minutes, I don't think. I'll read very quickly. So this is a statement on behalf of Stina Witikowski, who's the head teacher of St. Andrews C of E Primary School. So St. Andrews is a community primary school with a great deal of playground and field space. The school site is the top of an elevated area in Cobham, nestled in the heart of Lockhart Road estate. We have a wonderful amount of play area, but only one small section of shade, which is provided by a three-meter-by-three-meter all-weathers outdoor umbrella. Understandably, it is incredibly popular with children during the hot months, and as we have placed picnic benches beneath so children can enjoy the area to socialize as well as cool down. We serve 180 pupils, so the shaded umbrella area can only accommodate about 16 to 20 pupils at one time. We would love to increase the available shaded space by erecting another large umbrella or sail. With the onset of climate change, it would be the first step in several of the school, the school would like to take to build up a real shelter for the pupils during the school months. Like many older state school sites, our building does not have air conditioning facilities, and every classroom has two walls of safety windows, which have limited capacity on how far they can be opened. This means pupils are hot and uncomfortable for most of the day, and would greatly benefit from being able to access a shaded and cool area to rest, socialize, and play during break times. Thank you for considering that bid. And I won't be taking questions.
Excellent. Before we go into debate these issues, anybody have any particular points, questions, general issues to raise? No? Have we? Of course, we're nine, so we're counting one to eight, sorry, it's application nine. Sorry.
That's all right. So application nine is for Painshill Park, it's play equipment for the children's play area. They're seeking 15,750 pounds. Unfortunately, they are also unable to attend this evening, but I have nothing to read out or any statements made.
Oh, there we go. I knew there was a reason why I was bringing it to groups. Super, so I think, Alan.
Any more questions? Could someone clarify me the position of the Fairmile Lanesill grant from last year, and what's happening to those funds? (people chattering)
I got too much paperwork.
Yeah.
Which one was it? (people chattering)
Sorry, Councilor, can you repeat which project it was you were referring to?
Sandy Lane, excuse me, Sandy Lane. (people chattering)
Yep, so Sandy Lane was awarded funding, I think it was two years ago. I think it was the resurfacing of part of the lane. We've been in discussions with the applicant as I think the majority of the project has been completed, but it's actually been completed I think by Surrey County Council. So we're currently in discussions about potentially that money returning to this seal pot to be awarded next year as part of next year's funding round.
And there's no possibility of it being added this year?
No, I did look into that in advance, but unfortunately not.
Excellent, if there's no other questions, I think, sorry, I didn't see you had, didn't see you hadn't gone, sorry.
So I just question for the officer, I think it's just for the record, 'cause I raised a query about six months ago about seal funding towards a potential car park. And obviously we got a car park here under consideration. And I just wanted for the record as to why a car park here is considered qualifiable for seal funding whilst a car park somewhere else wouldn't qualify, which is what officers have told me. So if that could just be confirmed.
Happy to look afterwards in terms of which car park you're referring to in terms of the previous application. I look about a hundred applications a year. So I'm not entirely sure which one you're referring to. Sorry, Lawrence.
No, no, it was kind of in principle, it was suggested to me that it wouldn't be worthy of seal funding. So, but I'll take that up separately.
Yeah. - Okay.
David.
Sorry, can we just follow up on Alan's point about the Sandy Lane money? Because my understanding was that probably two or three months ago, it was confirmed that that money wouldn't be available any longer. So I don't quite understand. I assume that when I saw the pot for this year that it included the hundred thousand that was allocated to Sandy Lane. So why is it that it can't be used this year? I mean, the money was set aside for Sandy Lane. I mean, it's not been spent. It's been confirmed it won't be spent. So I don't understand why it can't now be used for this year, why we have to wait for another 12 months.
I think it's legit, as you say, it's kind of the timing three months ago, but the three months ago was around the end of the financial year. So that's when the cutoff point is for when we work out how much is available for each shield spending round. So I think it would literally coincided around the very, very same time when we actually kind of literally effectively shut down the spent, the pots, and do the kind of the end of year statements in terms of how much is available. So yes, whilst we've been aware that for the last couple of months it is available, obviously the shutdown is the 31st of March, 2024. And I think that's obviously, it was around that same time that it was confirmed that it wasn't available, it was available, sorry. So I think it's just in terms of timing.
But it's a relatively moot point for this evening because we're not gonna get a result. We're not gonna, even if Susanna is wrong and I'm sure she's not, we're not gonna get a resolution now. Alan.
I note we're not to resolve tonight, but I would like to register, certainly. From my point of view it seems, you know, bordering on the, a wrong decision when we know what the position was two months ago that we can't include it in our deliberations this evening when we're clearly 100,000 pounds short of money. I don't know who else would like to agree with me.
Andrew, so you got a point?
Yeah, I didn't think it was relevant for this evening, but I'm now convinced that it is relevant for this evening. This board decides where money is allocated. It's evident that the money is not required, that that has been established. So I would argue that this board can resolve that that money be used this evening. I cannot see a reason. I think we need a definitive regulatory reason or a sole procedural reason as to why, given the fact that we've established the money is not required, we need a procedural reason as to why we can't collectively make that decision to apply those funds this evening. Thank you.
Well, the first thing is how much money is it?
100,000.
100,000.
I mean, the short answer is, I don't know the constitutional position. Do you?
No, not off the top of my hand, we'll have to check. Do you want to turn off?
Yeah.
Let's check.
One of the options might be to conclude this evening's proceedings with the sill money that we have and convene a second sill board once we've established the correct position with regards to this other 100,000 pounds. That wouldn't negatively impact anybody here this evening that benefits and it ought not then to negatively impact anybody else who's put a bid in because if the money isn't available and we don't allocate it tonight, they don't get it. If it is available and it's allocated to the second meeting.
Will you adjourn and give me 15 minutes?
Or we adjourn for 15 minutes.
Sorry. We can't hear or debate the applications, award money without definitively knowing the potential outcome of the source of funds. We risk, if we take a view as a board, I think we would all accept, I don't want to speak for anybody else, but I think we would all accept that it's reasonable to be applying those funds. But if for whatever reason we can't, then we may well award funds this evening, but then disappoint others. And I don't think that's right. I don't think that's the right approach at all. I think that if we're going to defer, we have to defer all of the decisions. However, I still think that because this board is the decision maker, I think we need strong constitutional grounds for us not to be able to make a decision to reapply those funds this evening. So that being so, without taking further questions now, I'm going to propose that we adjourn for 15 minutes to find out whether we can find the constitution position. And if we can, we can move on. And then if we can't, we can decide whether we're going to follow your suggestion. So that's my proposal, we adjourn for 15 minutes. Any objections to that?
Agreed.
David.
That's not an objection. Just to help the decision making process, the email was sent on the 27th of March. So it was within the last financial year.
Okay, so it is 2034, adjourned for 15 minutes, so we'll come back at 2049. Thank you. Bear with us everybody, if you could, the officers. And the situation is that as at the end of March, no definitive answer was available as to whether the money was being returned or not. It was a strong indication that it would be, but there was not a confirmed answer that it definitely was. However, it would appear that in reality, the money is there and hasn't gone anywhere. So what I'd suggest is that we as a committee take a vote as to whether we proceed to allocate the 129,651 that we know is available plus the 100,000 pounds that we also know is available and base our awards on that, which will mean we're about 9,000 pounds short on the basis that every pound we allocate is at risk if in the apparently unlikely event, but statistically real event, if the 100,000 pounds is not available to the committee to award tonight, we will have to reconvene with the same applications, again, to review the situation as we entered now. I think that's the only realistic prospect we're going through. It would be unfair to applicants to award their money now but with any certainty, even though we believe there is a strong degree of probability. Bear with me a second. And that confirmation, we're talking hours and days, not weeks and months. I just think that's the pragmatic way to go, subject to, if the committee decides they'd rather go for a straight deferral of the meeting and reconvene with the definitive answer to that once, that's what we should do. If the committee feels we should take control and allocate the 100,000 pounds, we can do so. But as I say, the only fair way to do that is with a strong caveat that in the event that that 100,000 pounds is not reallocated, as confirmed, then we'll need to reconvene. So, do we reconvene? Oh, sorry, Alan.
Do you want me to speak to the motion, is it?
Well, if you've got any questions on that before I make the motion.
I have no questions.
Right, so, my motion is--
I've got a quick question, sorry.
Quick question.
Yeah. So, if we proceed on that basis, and if we establish that the money is available, then there are no issues. If it transpires that, for whatever reason, there's a problem, we need an agreement now from officers and that we have a robust legal or constitutional reasons to why. So, it won't just be, oh, no, we can't do it. We need a robust, definitive legal or constitutional response.
But on the basis that we would have, if we took that step, on the basis we would have allocated the money, the only way it could be unallocated would be if it were, by definition, robust.
Yeah, if it were not lawful.
Correct.
Or against, well, it won't be against the Constitution. It's not really a constitutional element. But if it were unlawful.
Correct.
That's the only reason.
Yes, unlawful, not irregular.
Yeah, thank you.
So, Lawrence.
I just think it's strange that we're making this decision without any basis for coming to a decision on how still funding should be allocated and when the cutoff dates, et cetera. I mean, normally we've got a legal officer here advising on matters. I think rather than us making arbitrary decision based on no evidence or no factual knowledge.
Can I just say that on that basis, we have had input from Victoria into the situation. The fact that she's not here now, in spirit, she's behind this proposal.
Sorry, suggesting--
Okay, the officers have consulted with Victoria.
And what was her opinion then? 'Cause surely she should be making the call rather than handing it over to us on the basis of an absence of an opinion.
So, the recommend, as I said, the adjournment was so I could go and obviously discuss with our head of legal and government and the recommendation was made that obviously you could decide to, or the 100,000 could be returned to the pot and that all kind of awards would be conditional subject to the returning of the pot and if it wasn't returned for any reason, then obviously we could recall the board. So, that was the recommendation.
Lawrence, we're not making--
It just seems a strange caveat. If it's okay, then why would there be any contingency?
Because at the moment, it hasn't been specifically, where we are at the moment is we're in an ambiguous situation there is no definition about whether the 100,000 pound has actually been given up. We all believe it probably will be, but--
All right, well, okay.
So, in terms of the correspondence that we received, it was basically saying that yes, the agreement was that the project for the 100,000 pound that was originally identified had been completed by Surrey County Council, but it would noted that within the application there was reference to other projects that the group would like to explore as to where they were to take forwards. So, that was kind of where the ambiguity came in and there was obviously we were supposed to follow up on those conversations. I think the response was reluctantly if it had to be, it could be returned, but it was kind of like a definitive, yes, we're no longer doing the project, return the money. So, that's where it was kind of left, unfortunately.
Would it not be that they were awarded the money? Oh, sorry.
But it's not a matter of return. The money is undrawn. So, can we just be absolutely clear on the language?
Being absolutely clear, the money sits somewhere, but at the moment-- - The money's untrawn.
At the moment, the money is ring fenced for another project that has some possibility of being complete, that is not gonna be complete, but as yet has not been confirmed, will not be. So, the project that the money was ring fenced for has not been finished. It has not been confirmed that the finished bit is not going to be finished, meaning the money can come back. We all know the situation, but it hasn't been confirmed. So, in the thin possibility that the 100,000 pound that has not been drawn will be confirmed that it's not being drawn, then the money will have to be ring fenced to that project 'cause that's where it is. Lawrence.
I just think it's slightly unfair on the applicants here to think that they're gonna go away this evening on the very strong likelihood they've got the money, but then-- - Which is why we've said we'll sort it quickly, and we'll sort it more quickly than defer, the alternative is that we defer the meeting. The alternative is that we defer the meeting, and we won't-- - Well, yeah, I think if we--
And we won't reconvene before we can get this out.
Okay, all right.
Can I, I mean, I'll have to say, I would feel very uncomfortable approving 100,000 pounds worth of projects, whatever that may be, with any possibility that the money will have to be withdrawn within days. Last question, Dave, before we take our vote.
Well, it's really just to--
Is it a question?
Well, it is a question in a way, because I think the onus was on Elmbridge.
No, it's sort of binary, it's either a question or it's not.
All right, well, yes, so there has been no response from Elmbridge to the point that was made by the applicant as to whether or not the money could be held for further work to be done.
So you've just confirmed exactly the situation. The process has not been buttoned off.
But by Elmbridge.
It doesn't really matter by--
Well, it does matter, because you can't make a decision within the next few hours on it, because Elmbridge have got to actually make a decision about how this money could be used, that was the issue.
Sorry, have you finished, David? Corrine.
If the money was allocated for the resurfacing of Sandy Lane, how can they ask to use it for other projects?
No, as I understand it, the original project was to resurface Sandy Lane and other possible considerations they might want to explore. The resurfacing was completed by Surrey, so the money wasn't needed for that, but it left open the thin area of other areas that might be explored, that is as, whether it's resurfacing or not is a slightly moot point. The project that the money was allocated for was completed by Surrey. Within the project, within the application that that money was allocated for were other areas that could be undertaken in terms of road safety, safety area, that there is some ambiguity as to whether that will or won't be done as part of the project. The ambiguity exists only in the wording of the exchange of communication. There's no doubt, I understand, as to whether that work will be completed. (muffled speaking) (silence) (muffled speaking) So, the reality is, the project that the money was allocated for is technically still open. So that money is technically still ring fenced for that project. All of the people who know that project know that that project is complete and that the money in reality will be un-ring fenced. But at the moment, it's not. So we have a choice. We have three choices. We could ignore the 100,000 pounds. We could allocate the 100,000 pounds on the basis that anybody allocated money, any application allocated money this evening can only be allocated money on the basis that if the money that we expect to be un-ring fenced is not un-ring fenced, we will have to reconvene. Or, we can reconvene. Those are our three choices. Now, I would suggest that we as a committee have a vote to see whether we are prepared, and it's a completely honest vote, if we're not prepared as a committee to take that responsibility, that's completely fine. But we have a vote to see whether we are prepared to allocate the 100,000 pounds with the caveat that if the money is not un-ring fenced, we will have to reconvene. That's what I think we should have that vote on. And if we're not prepared to take that decision, that's completely fine. But we will end up reconvening. So my, Alan?
Point of information, slightly different point. After three years, doesn't the money get un-ring fenced anyway? I thought it was that they could carry out, carry be brought forward for a year. But three years, doesn't it go back?
It's usually a year, but that's not a hard and fast, as I understand it, that's not a hard and fast definition. And in any event, exceptions are routinely made. So it's a point we could discuss. But we come back to, we have three choices. We can decide to ignore this, allocate the 129 pounds we know is available, and put the, hold on, put the 100,000 pounds into next year. That is an option. Or we treat the 100,000 pounds tonight by saying we'll take it and allocate it with a huge caveat to every applicant that they will find out within days whether that, so it'll be subject to a confirmation. So I suggest, the first thing, are we prepared only to allocate 129,000 pounds? Go on, Lawrence.
Sorry, 'cause it's informal. Would it be okay to do a straw poll on the applicants who are here, whether they'd be happy for us to go through the contingency route?
No. - No.
No, this is a committee we picked. Otherwise, we will be all over the place. All right, so do we feel that we should, yes or no, restrict ourselves to the 129,000 pounds that we know is on the table? Hands up if we do, hands up if we don't. We shouldn't just restrict ourselves to the moments on the table. Right.
We're okay, we don't want to restrict ourselves.
Correct. Right, so that gets that off the table. Now, in terms of the 100,000 pounds, are we going to reconvene the whole meeting? Or are we going to convene, to carry on tonight, to allocate 229,000 pounds, 651, which includes the 100,000 pounds, on the basis that the allocations we give, hold on, Alan, the allocations we give will inevitably, every pound we allocate will be subject to a confirmation, once we know the 100,000 pounds has been un-ring-fenced. Yes, Alan.
As you know, I would feel uncomfortable about doing that, but I will make the point, as if we do reconvene, that we do it without applicants present, we don't need any new applications, we've heard all the applications, and the question will just be how we allocate the money.
The decision has to be made in public, we don't have to attend, we don't have to be made in public.
The decision has to be made in public, so the applicants don't have to attend, we don't have to hear them again, they've made the application, we would be convening to allocate the money, and if we did that, any applicant would be welcome to attend. But just to reconfirm, I am putting a motion before us that we spend, that we allocate the 229,000 pounds, 651, including the 100,000 pounds, on the basis that everything we award will be subject to confirmation, which, in honesty, I believe, will be confirmed really quickly. So, that's my proposal, in favor.
I'm just gonna say, it would be helpful for the applicants to know a likely time scale, I know we can't put, it's not gonna be six months, is it?
No, we've already said it's gonna be days, we can't put a precise time, but it's going to be quick, we don't wanna be hanging around with this, but those in favor of proceeding to allocate 229,000 pounds to 229,651,000 pounds, which means we're 9,000 pounds short of everything, on the basis that we have to give the caveat that it'll be subject to confirmation as quickly as we can do it. Those in favor? Those against? One, two, three, four, five, one. Right, so we have decided, as a committee, we're going to allocate 229,651,000 pounds this evening. Are you still happy to participate in the debate, Alan?
Of course. - Right. So, sorry about that, ladies and gents, but we need to go through it. So, in essence, my view, and I'm not imposing this anybody, I'm just putting it out there, is that all the applications before us are worthy. Every single application has been screened, has been scored, has been identified, that is worthwhile, it's been rated. What we are short of is 9,649 pounds. We could discuss the merits of the 229,000 pounds that we have, and every application, or we could look down the other end of the telescope and find the 9,649 pounds that we have to save. That's my suggestion, anybody got any comments?
Agreed.
Who wants to start? (muffled speaking) Yeah, who, who, Andrew, sorry, Alan.
Sorry, Alan, did I jump in, I apologize if I did. Yes, so, my concern, or the only real concern that I had with all of the applications, because they're all superb, is I'm troubled by lane rental costs for the project, number one, I think. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that public money that is allocated to infrastructure is effectively paid in the form of rental to, in this case, Surrey County Council. That would not be a qualifying cost anyway, because that's not infrastructure, it's a rental. So, I think we need to know what component of that particular bid is rental, and if the applicant is willing to reduce their requirement.
Suddenly, when asked, the applicant's representative wasn't able to supply that breakdown information, but we have been through the Q and A's with the applicants, hold on, Lawrence, so I don't think we can gather that information. We could stab at it if we wanted to, Lawrence?
He told me it was two and a half thousand pounds.
You're right, I'm wrong, well done, sorry.
That's two and a half thousand dollars.
Do you have any other concerns about that application? My concern about that application is that it states if they don't get the money in full, they won't do it at all. That's my concern about that one.
Well, you can't, I know.
Talking about concerns, my bigger concern, I've got a bonus amongst all of these, is putting 58,000 pounds into resin flooring on a luxury flooring for a pathway to and from a school to stop mud going in and out of Cobham Free School. That could be paved, I'm sure there are, I'm sure there's 9,000 pounds in there that's not needed.
Alan?
If we're jumping about a bit, my concern would be the last one at Paines Hill, they're requesting a full, they're not making any contribution at all. To my limited knowledge, Paines Hill have enough money in their balance sheet, and I think 6,000 pound reduction or thereabouts would be feasible with them making a joint contribution.
Thank you. Robin?
So I have any concerns, I have a suggestion, which is, I think all of these projects would go forwards if we took off 1,000, whatever it is, so we'd divide it equally between each applicant and did the whole lot, I would not be surprised if all the projects went forwards.
9,649, what's 9,649 divided by nine?
That's not as much as the time.
That's four. - Two out of about nine.
1,072. - That's 1,072 pounds and 11p. So, bearing in mind we are in unconventional territory. Can I ask, I'm not allowed to ask, but if I looked at the gallery and the applicants were nodding furiously or shaking their heads desperately, that might steer me in making a proposal to whether the applicants felt they could stomach 1,072 pounds and 11p. I'm just wondering whether, I'm just looking for inspiration, whether I think, I don't know, I've got a sneak--
Are you allowed to comment?
No, sadly not. Now, I do know separately, both from the applicant and my separate inquiries that, and I've got another suggestion in a second, that the two CCHT bids were already prepared to concede more than 1,072 pounds off each. (audience laughing) 'Cause I've done the maths. Now, the only point that leaves me back with, we've got this rogue 10,000 pounds your fund sorry money that I would suggest the simplest solution is the bid to Fedora is contingent that if they get 10,000 pounds from your fund sorry, that comes back to this committee and gets added to next year's cell phone. But yes, Andrew.
But that doesn't help us now, does it? That doesn't help us to, that doesn't create 9,000 pounds.
No, it doesn't. - That defers--
What it does, it irons out that wrinkle that we'd be making an application that the wrinkle that is, whether it should or shouldn't be there because the general election is another point, the fact is it is. We know that Fedora are making an application within this application, they've noted that they're applying for 10,000 pounds your fund sorry. So if we gave them a full allocation, we would just be back next year having this same discussion about when the 10,000 pounds was found. So I just think if we iron that out now, that any bid we give to Fedora is contingent on that 10,000 pounds coming back in the event is. So subject to that, I would think that none of the applicants would be unhappy with Robin's suggestion of taking 1,072 pounds and 11p of each application. And we might go home before midnight. It's not a material consideration, I know, but there we go, Andrew.
One important question and that is application number one, I'm not gonna bang on about line rental or what's it called, road rental, whatever.
Lane rental.
Lane rental. My question is maybe I should address the applicant but so if your bid is reduced by 1,000 pounds.
You can't, you can't do that, Andrew.
All right, now what I wanna know is--
If you look at me and ask the question, I'll look at him and I'll write you an answer.
Well, what I wanna know, well, you'll have to ask it then because you don't know the answer but you will need to ask the applicants. Will the project go ahead if the bid is reduced by 1,000 pounds? Because if we cannot have that definitive answer--
Okay, I'll refer you to my earlier point that when I was casting around for inspiration as to whether it might be viable, I was just made a rough guess looking at people's faces that they weren't massively disappointed by 1,072 pounds being taken off the application. That my belief firmly from looking at the faces of the applications is that they would go ahead.
I think we can, no, I think, I think we deserve a better answer than that. We need to know, will it go ahead, yes or no? (woman speaking off mic) Yeah, will it go ahead, yes or no? That's what we need to know. That's a reasonable question.
The applicant is nodding at me saying yes it will.
Okay, good, thank you. So all I wanted to know is it's a reasonable request. Thank you.
The more worrying point, actually, is whether CCHT would go ahead with their two if they lost. How about this as a suggestion. If we're allowed to make the 10,000 pounds contingent, if we get 10,000 pounds back, we would add 9,000 pounds back to CCHT.
But you don't know when you're gonna get the confirmation from your fund salary, and you're gonna keep everybody waiting and whether they need an extra 1,000 pounds.
Okay, right, so that's a non-starter. So the 10,000 pound is contingent, that if we get it back, we get it back. So as I understand it, Corinne.
I think it's already been said, I do slightly feel that Paynes Hill, I think it's Alan who said it, apologies, haven't made any funding at all. So why should they be cut down the same amount as everybody else? I think they should lose out more because they haven't actually got any funding, and they, sorry, they haven't put any funding in themselves, whereas all the other applicants have fund raised, have held events, have put in their own money. And it doesn't seem to sit brilliantly.
Okay, come up with a suggestion.
I'll revert.
Lawrence.
I think, I may have heard, and it hasn't influenced my suggestion, that rather than 1,000 pounds, it would be pro-ratted. So the people asking for the most money will bear the greatest fixed amount of the 10,000 pounds.
The 9,649 pounds, okay. I think we would need five minutes to do some maths, to be honest.
I'm already working out the other ones, but yeah.
I've got the numbers here somewhere, so. (muffled speaking)
Well, I gather one of them isn't now. How about this? If, on all accounts, application nine is the weakest, how about we take 4,500 pounds, we take half of the 9,000 pound shortfall off the weakest, and split the other difference, the other half, eight ways?
Yes. - Yes?
Yes? So, what's 9,649 is?
Yeah.
And what's half the 9,649? What's half the 9,649?
Right, okay, let's do it. (muffled speaking)
Right, that would mean, take, hold on, Lawrence, if we did that, that would take 603 pounds and six pence off eight applications, and 4,500 pounds off one, being the weakest. I mean, we could slice and dice this in several different ways. (muffled speaking) That's the only way I can put the contribution. Right, do we wanna talk about this anymore? Right, my motion, then, is that we reduce the-- (muffled speaking) Go ahead.
So, application eight, the Surrey County Council one, for the footpath across the verge, and the two crossings. I know that's an issue, because when we do the Hollyhedge litter pick, I'm walking that area. I generally walk in the middle of the road, and dodge in every time. So, it is an issue, but the driving force behind the application in the first place, the walkers and their house, and it's unsafe--
That's not the driving force.
Well, that was understanding the reason that it was looked into in the first place. It's my understanding, and they are gonna be annoyed if they see this application get granted.
That's not my understanding. The initial application, I understand it is, on the face of it, there is no public pedestrian walkway that leads you down that road without crossing it. (muffled speaking) But it was never designed to help the safety of these people. As I understand it, and it was asked in the Q and A, the basis of this application was pedestrian safety, not house safety, not general walker safety. It was pedestrian safety along that road. Now, there is doubtless another issue about traffic safety on the sharp corner, but-- (muffled speaking) Well, the committee could decide to produce that or refuse that application in its entirety because it's not good enough dealing with other issues. At the end of the day, this committee looks at the stuff that comes before, the applications before it, and makes a decision. So, I'll put it open to the vote again. Do we think we should be including this application in those that should, and voted those that should, and those that should, one, two, three, four, Corinne, and those against? What I'm saying, and are you for or against, Lawrence? (muffled speaking) Well, anyway, we have a majority that feel that we should be including the application, right? So, it comes back again. Do we have a counter suggestion about how we allocate money to that application? 'Cause the current suggestion is that we reduce that application by 607 pounds. (muffled speaking) Sorry. (muffled speaking) Basically, half that, I've taken 600 off the rest, and I'm 2p over 'cause of rounding. So, if you just change that to 48, we should be fine. Which one? (muffled speaking) Right, right. So, we're talking, taking how much off each? So, what we've done is what we said, we've divided the difference, we've taken 603 pounds, zero, six off each, and then off Painshill, you are talking about taking four, eight, two, four, 52.
If you take 52 off, that should make my figures add up.
So, what's the number we're taking off then?
Off here?
Yeah, what's that?
Four, eight, two, four, 52.
Four, eight, two, four, 52. Right, so, the current suggestion, and I'm happy to discuss this for as long as you like. I know the other possibilities. The current suggestion is that we reduce the Painshill application by 4,824 pounds and 52p because it's the weakest scored application and it's a fully funded request. Corollary to that is that every other application is reduced by 603 pounds and 6p. Anybody got any comments on that or questions on that? (muffled speaking) Before we vote, anybody got any comments or questions? 'Cause once we voted, we're not gonna have any more questions. So, Lawrence, you've got another question.
I would still prefer to be prorated amongst the rest, but that's my personal position.
Okay, let's put that to a vote. Do we want to prorater or evenly split? Those in favor of proratering the eight times 603 pounds and 6p, those in favor of doing a prorater approach? Those against? Any abstentions? No? Right, those in favor of doing an even 603 pounds and 6p reduction of the other eight and 4,824.52 reduction of pain seal? Passed. Over there. Right, so I think, gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, subject importantly to the caveat for every applicant that we are proposing to make an award to, and I can't do the maths, but every applicant knows how much they bid for. Oh, have you got the next one? I'll read them out. I'll read them out. Right, so we're talking about making, for common free school safety measures, an award of 18,396 pounds and 94p. For Royal Kent's active play area and car parking, 29,396 pounds and 94p. For the outdoor learning and well-being garden for Cobham Free School, 58,196 pounds and 94p. For CCHT, Bridal Way Improvement, 16,876.94. For the Footpath Improvement, 76,36.94. For the Little East Recreation Ground, to honor the 2,116--
2061.
2,661. An award of 37,426 pounds and 94p. For St. Andrews Shaded Well-Being Area, 16,396 pounds and 94p. For the new crossing on the downside bridge road, 34,396 pounds and 94p. And for the Painseal Park play equipment, they still get in fairness 10,925 pounds and 48p. That's the decision of this committee. Thank you everybody, thank you for the applicants, thank you specifically for waiting for so long through a torturous process. And on the basis of that, I think at 21, 26, I can call the meeting to a close. Thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]

AI Generated

Summary

The Local Spending Board for Cobham & Downside, Oxshott & Stoke D'Abernon of Elmbridge Council met on Thursday 27 June 2024 to discuss and allocate funding from the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) for the 2024-25 spending round. The board considered nine applications requesting a total of £239,300, but only £129,651 was available. After a detailed discussion, the board decided to allocate £229,651, including an additional £100,000 that was tentatively available, with the caveat that all allocations would be subject to confirmation of the additional funds.

Cobham Free School Safety Measures

The board discussed an application for £19,000 to improve safety measures at Cobham Free School. The project aimed to enhance pedestrian safety by improving footways and installing pedestrian guard rails. The board decided to allocate £18,396.94, reducing the requested amount by £603.06.

Royal Kent Church of England Primary School

Royal Kent School requested £30,000 for an active play and car park project. The project included creating a climbing area for children and additional car parking spaces to alleviate congestion. The board allocated £29,396.94, reducing the requested amount by £603.06.

Cobham Free School Outdoor Learning and Wellbeing Garden

Cobham Free School sought £58,800 to develop an outdoor learning and wellbeing garden. The project aimed to provide a sanctuary for students to connect with nature and support their mental health. The board allocated £58,196.94, reducing the requested amount by £603.06.

Cobham Conservation Heritage Trust (CCHT) - Bridleway 57

CCHT applied for £17,480 to improve Bridleway 57, which is heavily used by school children and local residents. The board allocated £16,876.94, reducing the requested amount by £603.06.

Cobham Conservation Heritage Trust (CCHT) - Footpath 52

CCHT also requested £8,240 for improvements to Footpath 52, which connects Oxshott and Stoke D'Abernon. The board allocated £7,636.94, reducing the requested amount by £603.06.

Little Heath Recreation Ground

Fedora, the voice of Oxshott, requested £38,030 for drainage improvements at Little Heath Recreation Ground. The project aimed to make the only green space in Oxshott usable year-round. The board allocated £37,426.94, reducing the requested amount by £603.06.

St. Andrews Primary School

St. Andrews Primary School sought £17,000 for a shaded wellbeing area to provide students with a cool place to rest and socialize. The board allocated £16,396.94, reducing the requested amount by £603.06.

Downside Bridge Road Crossing

Surrey County Council applied for £35,000 to improve pedestrian safety on Downside Bridge Road. The project included installing new footways and uncontrolled crossings. The board allocated £34,396.94, reducing the requested amount by £603.06.

Painshill Park Play Equipment

Painshill Park requested £15,750 for new play equipment. The board allocated £10,925.48, reducing the requested amount by £4,824.52 due to its lower priority and lack of matching funds.

The board's decisions are subject to confirmation of the additional £100,000 in funds. If the funds are not confirmed, the board will reconvene to reassess the allocations.

For more details, you can refer to the Agenda frontsheet and the Public reports pack.