Transcript

and welcome to a meeting of the Cabinet of Surrey County Council on the 29th of October 2024 here at Woodhatch. There are some members of the public in attendance, so I will just remind people about the fire drill. So we're not expecting a drill this afternoon, so in the event of a fire alarm sounding, please leave by the nearest exit, which should be over there, and assemble at the top car park. and report to a member of the building management team. In accordance with our usual guidelines here, you're more than welcome to your social media provided it doesn't interfere with the smooth running, hopefully smooth running, of the meeting. I would remind everybody that the meeting is being webcast and webcast live and open to the public, though I do have the right to suspend filming if the need arises. So I'm sure it won't be. So what I will do now is just ask the Cabinet to introduce themselves and confirm their attendance in the usual way. So starting with Claire Curran. Thank you. Yes, Leader. Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Claire Curran. I'm the Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning. Thank you, Denise Lewis. David Lewis. Sorry. I had it myself there, Denise. David Lewis. Thank you, Leader. Good afternoon. It's David Lewis, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources. Apologies. Denise Turner-Stewart. Thank you, Leader. Good afternoon. Denise Turner-Stewart, Cabinet Member for Customer Communities and Deputy Leader. Thank you very much. Jonathan Hulley. Good afternoon, Leader. Jonathan Hulley, Deputy Cabinet Member, Strategic Highways. Thank you. Thank you. Kevin Dieners. Yes, good afternoon. Kevin Dieners, Cabinet Member for Fire and Rescue and Resilience. And Mark Newty. Good afternoon, Leader. I'm Mark Newty, Cabinet Member for Health, Wellbeing and Public Health. And as many of you probably know now, the day today is Anti-Obesity Day, which obviously rings a bell with my portfolio. And as per usual, someone with a very warped sense of humour has also named it International Cake Day. Let's guess which one you're following, Mark. Marissa Heath. Thank you, Leader. Good afternoon, everyone. Marissa Heath, Cabinet Member for Environment. Thank you very much. Matt Furness. Good evening. Good afternoon, even. Matt Furness, Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth. Thank you. Maureen Atterwell. Good afternoon, everybody. Maureen Atterwell, Deputy Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning. Thank you. Natalie Bramhall. Good afternoon, Natalie Bramhall, Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure. And Paul Deitch. Afternoon. Paul Deitch, Deputy Cabinet Member to the Leader of the Council. Thank you. Sinead Mooney. Good afternoon, Sinead Mooney, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care. Thank you. And lastly, Steve Bax. Thank you, Leader. Steve Bax, Deputy Cabinet Member for Highways. Thank you very much. So we'll move through the agenda. Just to let you know, though, that we will move straight after Item 4C, which is the petition in relation to Bagshop Recycling Centre, we will deal with the substantive item, Item 9. And then we'll move back to 4D and carry on with the agenda there. So for that, though, Item 2, minutes of the previous meeting, which held on the 29th of October 2024. Are those minutes agreed? Thank you very much. Item 4A, then, questions from members. There were three questions. Two from Councillor Catherine Barth and one from Jonathan Essex. Those have been written answers given already, and I don't see either Catherine or Jonathan here in person or online. So I assume there's no supplementary questions. So we'll move to questions from the public. And the first was from Peter Lawrence. I think Peter is here. Yes. Do you have a supplementary question at all? Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Peter Lawrence. We have a 33-year-old severely autistic son living happily at Linden Farm. We're very grateful to Surrey County Council for providing this provision. Our son is severely autistic. He's nonverbal. He's epileptic and been in care since he was eight. We have a very difficult time. We have a very difficult time. We have a charity called the Simon Trust, which some of you may not remember. And we helped Surrey County Council set up Linden Farm between the years 2015 and 2019. So we're quite embedded in the world of autism. Can I start by thanking Councillor Mooney for listening to our pleas for more accommodation for those with severe autism. Also to thank her for her visit in the summer to Prius Court School and young adult provision near Newbury, which is the gold standard for autism care. From the report from Councillor Mooney, it seems to be general agreement that there is a shortage of accommodation in Surrey for these particular young people, as they come out of what I call the relative honeymoon of education. And the problem needs tackling. Housing associations and other providers tend to shy away from these developments or this this category of people as they need space. They need on site activities and they need a safe environment. Sorry to interrupt, Mr Lawrence. It is a supplementary question that you need to ask. I'm afraid it's not an opportunity to make a speech as such. So you've had a written answer from Mrs Mooney. Is there anything in relation to the answer that you want clarification on? I want to try and provide a solution for Surrey County Council in the way of getting supported living homes for no cost by using housing developers, which was in the original documents and Councillor Mooney refers to that as well. Thank you, Mr Lawrence. I think I'd be very happy to meet with you representatives from the Simon Trust again, to perhaps take these further points you want to make offline because this is an opportunity for you to ask a supplementary question based on my response. But I think you do know that we are very committed to best practice and developing accommodation that does meet the needs of the vulnerable people that we support. So hopefully you found the response to be reassuring in that aspect and I offer to you an opportunity to catch up further. Thank you. Does that mean I'm dismissed? Well, I'm afraid yes. The rules are that you've had a written response and you can say you can clarify anything. I'm afraid beyond that. What I'm trying to say with your respect, it's all to do with the response from Councillor Mooney. Well, I think the Council's position is clear that we are supportive of that. That's why we funded Linden Farm. And indeed, we have a programme of building specialist facilities around the county. I think that's that's as far as we're able to go today. I know that you're looking at this across the county and you've engaged with a number of MPs and will continue to engage with you as a county council. But at the end of the day, I don't think today we can do or say anything further than we already have done. Right. Right. OK. Thank you. Thank you very much. And the second question was from Gareth Layton. Again, a written response has been given. There's no supplementary. The third from Paul Kennedy. And then the last was from Sam Neatra, who I think is with us online. So, again, did you have a supplementary question? I did. Thank you, Councillor. Can you hear me OK? We can. Yeah. Perfect. Thank you. Yes. Thank you very much for the written answer in relation to the London Road scheme. And, you know, as a follow up, the current layout today of the road only has around 40 percent of the pavements that are shared usage. For those of you who know the road and for those of you who don't, that's the approximate percentage. And at the narrowest point, these pavements are only one point three five metres wide. And could you my question is, could you confirm roughly what percentage of the pavements would be shared use under the new proposed scheme? And what the minimum and the typical widths will be, please? OK. Thank you very much. Matt Furness. Thank you. And thank you for your supplementary questions. So, in the proposed scheme, it would be 40 percent shared pavements. Again, five percent of which would be of a minimum width of 1.8 metres. But the majority, in fact, would be over three metres of the remaining shared pavement. Thank you. OK. Thank you very much for the question. We will now move on, thank you, to item 4C, which is a petition. One petition has been received requesting that Surrey County Council keep open the Bagshop Recycling Centre on Swift Lane. And the lead petitioner, Richard Wilson, I think you have three minutes, if that's OK, to present that petition. Thank you, Leader. I've been using the Recycling Centre at Swift Lane Bagshop for 25 years. At the public meeting in Bagshop last Wednesday, people said they had been using it for over 40 years or even 50 years. And now Surrey County Council proposes closing it. 12,000 people are in its catchment area and 1,250 of them have signed my petition to save Swift Lane. That's over 10 percent signing a petition on change.org. That's a huge proportion. Of these 12,000 people, they pay their council tax to Surrey County Council. In return, they rightfully expect decent public services. The £100,000 saving from closing Swift Lane only amounts to £8 per person. For this, you are asking them to drive a further 13 miles round trip and spend an extra hour of their lives to dispose of their waste. HMRC reckons on a cost of £45 per mile and the minimum wage is £11.44. So it's going to cost residents an additional £17 at least every time they drop off their waste at the other side of Camberley. All to save £8 per person. This doesn't make sense. The council might save, but not the people. The roads to Camberley are usually extremely congested already. Closing Swift Lane will put another 12,000 people's cars on these roads. The CRC in Camberley is sited in one of the most congested areas of the borough. It will be agonising for people to drive to and use. The council might save, but not the people. Of all the complaints received about CRCs, none were about Swift Lane. 12,000 people greatly value this facility and are happy with it. Sporadic antisocial behaviour by a few is not a reason for mass punishment of the whole local population. The shortcomings of this site have always existed for over 40 years. The council should address them, not use them as a pretext to close the site to save a small amount of money. And, as the report admits, Swift Lane is not an unsafe site. The council might avoid inconvenience, but not the people. Closing recycling facilities does cause an increase in fly tipping, which is already a problem locally. The publication Government Business recently wrote, Perhaps the best way to prevent fly tipping is to actually provide a legal and convenient alternative. Limited access to legal waste disposal sites can contribute to fly tipping. This is clearly true. Of course, the responsibility for clearing up fly tipping falls on the borough council, not the county. The county council might save, but not the borough council, or the taxpayer overall, or our precious environment and wildlife. Closing Swift Lane will lead to a vast increase in carbon emissions from cars caught in congested traffic crawling to the other side of Camberley. More and more housing is being built locally, and removing a convenient public service harms the whole community's sustainability. The council might save money, but who will save the planet? Even keeping Swift Lane open six weeks longer would allow people to dispose of their Christmas trees. 1,250 local people signed my petition. They are representative of the wider population, who will be harsh in their judgment of the Conservative Party on the 1st of May if Swift Lane closes. The first thing I learned when I was elected as a councillor was that it is my job to represent the public to the council, not the other way round. The council might think it is a good idea to close Swift Lane, but the public do not. I know who I serve. Thank you, Leader. Okay. Thank you very much. Mrs. Bramble. Thank you, Leader. And thank you, Councillor, for your petition. You raised concerns about increased flight tipping, environmental impact and inconvenience. Surrey County Council's experience is that previous changes to CRC facilities, such as reduced opening hours and days, have not resulted in any increased flight tipping. And, in fact, on your social media page, I think it was just last week, you highlighted flight tipping and that's when the CRC is open. And I don't know whether you're aware, but 66% of flight tipping that happens at CRCs in Surrey is at Badshot CRC. I'm taking a report after this on the closure of the CRC and just to run through your petition, which at closure was 922 responses. I understand you relaunched that again. So, our transport modeling specialists have shown that Swift Lane is the closest CRC to 12,428 households. Of those 7,894, which is 63.47%, of these households will see no increase in drive time when accessing the nearest alternatives, which are Line, Woking or Camberley, if the Bagshot site were to close. Of the remaining 4,544 households, none would have a drive time longer than 20 minutes or 7.8 miles to the closest alternative site. These alternative sites are big, split-level sites. Nobody has to climb up stairs. They take a hugely increased number of items. They have recycling shops. So, I actually think your residents would experience a far better experience than the current site. To compensate for the closure of Bagshot, nearby Camberley will be opened for an additional day per week to compensate, meaning that Camberley will be opened for seven days a week. Traffic movements at Camberley will be monitored. Traffic movements at Camberley will be monitored and it may be that the site can open earlier at weekends should the evidence suggest earlier opening would benefit. Residents of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead will be directed to Line in Chertsey, which is convenient for them and would not contribute to additional usage at Camberley. It is therefore appropriate that this Cabinet consider the proposal to close Bagshot CRC and determine whether the site should be closed at this Cabinet meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr Wilson, for the presentation. So, we will move to the substantive item then, which is Item 9. And again, Mrs Brownhall, if you would like to introduce the report, please. Thank you. Thank you. Obviously, much has been discussed already in regard to the petition. I think it's only fair to set out to members that the rationale for closure is this is an unmodernised old site, as the petitioner has already alluded to. It's not split level. Members of the public need to climb steps in order to place items into containers. The containers are placed around the perimeter of the site. That means car parking is in the centre of the site and cars and members of the public cross each other's paths. Any required movement of waste containers can only take place when the site is closed. Surrey County Council's waste contractor, Suez, keeps the site safe, but it has inherent problems which are not present in other CRCs. For many, many years, the site has suffered from overnight vandalism and unlawful ingress. Containers, particularly those for electricals, are regularly forced open and plundered, and the site office has been vandalised. The perimeter fence has been driven into and fly tipping is left outside the gates and tipped over fences. Prevention measures whatever we do. Things get broken. They use catapults to knock out all the lights. They use angle grinders to get through the fence into the office and vandalise. So as staff receive threats and have to deal with materials delivered to the site which are hazardous and not allowed on the site, but they have to turn a blind eye to this because basically they're threatened with violence. We're acutely aware of the position of this CRC and we've put in such mitigation and staff protection measures as is reasonably practical. Unfortunately, when the CRC is closed, it's risky and hazardous and that liability sits with Surrey County Council. I've already run through the transport modelling in answer to the petition and if we do close the site, users of Bagshot will be directed to the three other sites in the locality. I've already covered off that the Camberley will be opened an extra day a week. And the divisional member, Councillor Tear, has requested that we look at the opening hours. Obviously, in the winter, it's a lot harder because it's darker at night, but we are looking at opening earlier on weekends. And in the spring and summer, we'll look at extending those hours. As the petitioner said, we will make a very small operational saving, but we're not doing it for an operational saving. For the avoidance of doubt, we're doing this because outside of hours, this site is not safe. I've covered off everything else about the travelling distances and I think under the circumstances that we need to consider that we hopefully will make the right decision to close this CRC. And that it won't inconvenience your residence, Councillor Tear, too much. And also to let the petitioner know, who I understand is a Surrey Heath Councillor, this is Surrey Heath's land and it will be going back to Surrey Heath. And I understand they already have a tenant ready to take the site. Thank you. Thank you very much. Richard Tear is the local member. Do you wish to speak? Thank you, Leader. I'd like to thank Natalie, first of all, and the officers for the amount of time they've given me. And we've been back and forward for about six weeks trying to find some resolution before this paper came to Cabinet. I have three issues, really. The first is communication. And whilst a survey was carried out in Backshot, it's ignored all the other villages that use the site, such as Windersham, Chobham, Lightwater, West End, Bisley. And they feel quite aggrieved over there that they haven't been communicated with. So I think communication has been an issue. On the subject of mitigation, I do realise that the overnight issues have built up over years, but I'm disappointed that we weren't able to deal with them back in the day, as it were. And the experience that I have locally with the so-called headman at the adjacent site, Mr. Tommy Lee says that if he is approached, he can be quite reasonable. But I think it's past the post now to approach him as he may be the beneficiary of us vacating the site, if that's the will today. The last thing is that whilst the Camberley site is notionally within 7.8 miles, you have to drive past Frimley Park Hospital to get to it. And once you get to the roundabout outside that hospital, you can have a 10 to 20 minute wait at the hospital. And that then takes you onto the Frimley Road, where you can have another 10 to 20 minute wait to get into the site. So there's going to be a great deal of aggravation for the residents in the changeover. I do appreciate the line site might be the direction for them to go in. But as far as Camberley is concerned, that's going to be very difficult. I have had a great number of people contact me who are against the closure of the site. Some of them friends of long standing of 40 years have bent my ear because they feel very aggrieved that the site is shut. But I do think that if we cannot mitigate the problems with the use of the site, I'm not sure that we have much choice. But I would like the cabinet, if they would, to give as much weight as possible to the fact that the local residents will be inconvenienced. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Richard. As when we discussed when you met with myself and officers, that we can look at, waste officers can look at putting some signage up to say if you're here, it's a 20 minute wait. The CRC that I use near where I live is also a big junction with the acute A&E hospital, East Sarai hospital. And yes, at times it does back up. But I'm sure the sewer site staff can look at something that they can do to accelerate the throughput at the site. So we've done some analysis and once the, because the Royal Borough of Windham Maidenhead residents will be directed to line, that removes another sort of block of people. So we actually estimate that there will be no more than an extra 20, and I appreciate people don't turn up. They will turn up at certain times. I do understand that. But it works out just around about an extra 25 people an hour if they all went to Cambly. So I do think when your residents actually go to a fit for purpose site that's far easier for them, being a split level site, they won't have to climb up, they won't have to dodge cars, they won't have to dodge BB gun bullets or things being thrown at them from the close neighbours. I do think eventually their experience, they will find it a better experience. But I do understand that they're going to spend an extra 15 minutes in their cars. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks very much. Yes, Denise. Thank you, Leader. I would just like to reflect on the efforts that the divisional member has made on behalf of local residents to represent local views, but also to highlight the amount of work in response to your representations and to wider opinion, the lengths that have been gone to to extend, to provide mitigation, to extend the hours at alternative sites, and to address the issues which are, you know, in hand for us. We have a duty of care to our staff, to our operatives, Suez staff that work on our behalf, and indeed Suez staff have previously received awards for attending medical incidents at other sites and supporting the public. I don't think it's appropriate for us to be operating a site where we have significant concerns over, not just the safety of the operatives and the staff, but of the wider public as well. So I think there has been a lot of consideration given to this issue, but it is recognised, the view locally, but there is a real concern over duty of care to staff here and the public. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anybody else wish to speak? I simply just add or reinforce what others have said. I mean, I completely understand that the closure of a recycling centre is as sensitive as the closure of a library. These are well-liked and well-used facilities provided by the Council. You know, and I accept that if this site is closed, it will add time to the journey. There's no question about that. I would say, though, that as just a general point, the more that we can do to encourage residents to recycle, I mean, the recycling rates in this county are about 52%, 53%, which is good compared with the national level, but we really do need to improve that wherever possible. And obviously that's, you know, I would hope that not just Surrey Heath as the borough council, but all borough councils would do as much as they could to encourage curbside recycling. This is nothing to do with the financial saving. It is minimal and probably non-existent by the time that we've opened the additional day in Camberley, and I imagine extended the hours. This is to do with the health and safety issues on this site. And that is the reason, as Mrs Turner Stewart has said, you know, we do have a duty to make sure that not only our staff and residents are protected, but also any sewage operatives. So it is where it is, I'm afraid, in terms of the decision or likely decision. I would hope, though, that Richard, as the local member, you'll continue to work with the borough council as well to see, to report back if there are particular issues that this council can assist with. I know that I'm not suggesting we look at that, but during COVID, some of the recycling centres operated a booking system so that there wasn't that sort of backup of vehicles, you know. So there are other measures, perhaps, that could be looked at going forward. But the recommendation, unless there's anything else you want to add, Mrs Bramble? No. The recommendation is, two recommendations. One is to agree to the closure of the Community Recycling Centre at Swift Lane Bagshot and, as a consequence, agree to the opening of the CRC at Wilton Road, Camberley, for an extra day a week, which will be a Tuesday, and allow those residents of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, who currently use the Bagshot CRC, to use Line CRC in Jersey as an alternative. Are those agreed? Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll move on to 4D then. There were no representations on reports to be considered in private. Item five, reports from the select committees. There are three. The first was from the Children's Family Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee. And we have the chair here, Fiona Davidson, who will present the report. Thank you very much. Thank you, Leader. Members. At our September meeting, the Select Committee received a report on children not in school. Surrey has a school-age population between 5 and 16 years of 174,000. In 2023-24, the last full year for which we have statistics, 7,165 were not in full-time education in school for a variety of reasons. So that's about 4.2% of that 5 to 16 cohort. We welcome the appointment of a children not in school service manager who has oversight of this cohort and works in partnership with other professionals both inside and outside the council to ensure these children and young people have access to suitable education as quickly as possible. However, given the current picture which we investigated at the Select Committee, we were concerned at the consequences and life choices of those children and young people who are severely absent from school, which means that they are missing more than 50% of school sessions, especially given the high proportion who have an EHCP or receive SENS support. So, you know, I think in terms of the EHCP population, it's about 35% and a slightly lower percent of those who receive SENS support. So it is a large proportion of that severely absent population. We were also concerned that the number of hours of education provided for young people receiving alternative provision, other than as an AP academy. Some receive very few hours per week, which again, we're concerned may impact their future life choice chances and their likelihood also of returning to full-time education. We were also concerned that the safeguarding implications for children not in school, because school offers protection. Our recommendations focused on ensuring that as a council we take a leadership position and drive agreement on key performance metrics and best practice standards in this area. So I'd like to thank the cabinet member for her response and ask if she would share some of the detail of the actions that are referred to in her response, because I think this information would be very helpful in improving our understanding and informing future scrutiny. So, for instance, we would very much like to have a copy of the CNIS strategy. Sorry, the CNIS policy that the cabinet member refers to in her response. We'd also welcome understanding a bit more about the Encouraging School Attendance Forum and the examples that this forum is actually some examples of what this forum is doing to improve attendance. We look forward to receiving the destination data of the sample of severely absent children that the cabinet member has offered. And it's reassuring also to learn that work is already underway to improve the attendance of severely absent children with sound. But again, it would be very helpful to have some examples of what's being done. Thank you. Thank you very much. Claire? Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to thank the chairman of the committee for her comments. And like her and like the views of the committee, I share many of those concerns. I know that the chairman of the committee referred to the consequences and the life chances of not being in school. But I wanted to really to stress that there is a very significant safeguarding concern around children who are not in school full time. And I wanted members of the cabinet really to understand the protective nature of children being in school. So there are two different considerations here. What are the consequences for children personally of not being in school? How do they make strong friendship, social networks? How do they feel part of their community? How do they make friends? How does not being in school affect their life chances, their educational attainment and their future pathways through life? But also, how are we sure that those children are safe? How can we be certain that they are not at risk of harm or neglect? It's a really serious consideration. Like her, I am particularly concerned about the hours of provision that are provided for children who have packages of alternative provision, whether that is arranged through a school or whether that is arranged by county council officers. And that has been one of my personal priorities. And I'm working closely with the officer team to understand that and to increase hours whenever they can be done so. I'll be very happy to share the detail that the committee has asked for around the policy, the work that is being done, and the steps that are being taken with schools to encourage attendance. And she will see later on when we talk about the lifetime of learning strategy, that one of the key, the four key priorities for our education partners in that strategy is encouraging attendance. The government has shifted responsibility about school attendance to schools directly for them to take the lead on that. But there is support obviously from local authorities to schools in ensuring that that is raised up in the public profile, so to speak. So I'm very happy with the comments of the chairman today. I'm glad that the response is accepted. Thank you, Chen. Thank you very much. Thank you, Fiona. The next item, I don't know if you want to move straight into that, which is your committee's interim recommendations on the budget. I think we would prefer not to discuss that at this stage. Actually, we have further work to do on that subject. So the other thing that I was going to report back on was this very lifelong learning strategy. I don't know whether it's relevant for me to provide some input to that. I know it's an item later on in the agenda. Yeah. If we can come back to that. Sure. And maybe I'll move that up the agenda if that helps. Thank you. So in that case, we have the other two chairs, Trevor, Hogg, and I can't see Bob Hughes. Trevor, do you want to give us your committee's views, please? Thank you, Leader. We're just going to cover our preliminary views on the budget. So, following the CQC grading published on the 20th of November, Surrey's adult social care has an overall rating of good. However, a key area of concern is needs assessment, which was graded as a needs improvement by the CQC. This is particularly important in the budget as demand management for improvements to the needs assessment process will be a challenging area for budget savings. Managing demand overall is going to need careful attention if we are to limit discretionary services without creating any undue impact on residents. Achieving budgeted numbers also requires a transformation program to deliver early benefits if it is to have a significant impact in 2025 to 2026. Managing the deliveries of those benefits in future years is going to be a continuing and difficult challenge. Beyond the technical challenges, the expansion of technology-enabled care countywide is going to require significant culture change for FCC, care organizations, and the general public. Culture change is notoriously difficult to deliver, and delivering highly effective communications will be an important part of the program. Another issue will be getting the necessary telecommunications in place to provide coverage in rural areas. The Select Committee, as a result, feels that risk management is going to be an essential and extremely demanding requirement in terms of managing the situation as we go through the year. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Councillor Hogg, to you and your committee, actually, for your hard work and focus that has gone into the budget review process. It's much appreciated, and your feedbacks are of high value, so thank you. I just want to very quickly, I don't disagree with a single thing you said, so I just want to say really quickly that I'm pleased that you highlighted tech. That is a big transformation project within adult social care being led by a new director of adult services, Ms. Claire Edgar, and I know that the committee are very well versed on the benefits with regards to technology-enabled care around promoting independence, and particularly for those people who wish to remain independent at home. So I'm very grateful for your contributions and feedbacks. It's much valued. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Trevor. So I can't see. We have Bob Hughes, the Chair of the Resources Select Committee, here online. So we will move on then to the third Select Committee board, which was a call-in of the Cabinet decision on the 29th of October 2024, which was to do with an active travel scheme on the London Road in Guildford. The select committee debated this item last week and have produced a short report resolving that it referred the decision back to Cabinet and included a number of five or so comments. We had a very lengthy discussion about this at the previous Cabinet meeting, and indeed anybody that hasn't had the opportunity to view the webcast of that meeting, they might like to do so. There is nothing that the select committee raised at the meeting that wasn't already taken into account by the Cabinet. There had been many, many meetings, not just with stakeholders, but with other interested parties, and many discussions around the three stages of the scheme. We had the benefit of a report from Arup, and we had the benefit of hearing from a number of witnesses at the Cabinet meeting. So I can't see that there is any new evidence that has been put forward by the select committee. We've had a series of letters from members of the public, and I would thank them for that. It has to be said there has been a number of different views in relation to widths of road and pavement and so on. But at the end of the day, there is nothing that I have seen or we have seen that changes our view on the decision that was made by the Cabinet on the 29th of October 2024. So that decision will still stand, and we will not progress with that part of the scheme. So I thank the select committee for their input, and we will move on with completion of the rest of the scheme that was previously agreed. Thank you. We'll now move to item six, decisions taken since the last Cabinet meeting, which there were four, all of which are effectively property-related and disposals. Mrs Bramall, do you want to say anything to those? Just two surplus declarations and disposals of HGR properties. One joint marketing, which will be done with Surrey Police, and one was for highways. Thank you. Okay, good. Thank you. Those are all for noting. Item seven then, Cabinet Member of the Month. Mrs Curran, I think it's your turn. Thank you, Leader. Thank you. So I'm presenting a report here for the Cabinet relating to the portfolio which I hold, children, families, and lifelong learning. I think many of you know that I am the statutory lead member for children's services. And in that role, I am asked to be a champion for children, young people, and their families. And in keeping with this Council's ambition of no one left behind, I think we should all agree that we want all people to be able, all children and young people, to be able to live their best lives in Surrey and also to fulfil their potential. I know I've presented quite a long report for you today. And I think that that really reflects the breadth of the activity that goes on across the Directorate of Children, Families, and lifelong learning. And I also want to reassure you the fact that I've presented a long written report will keep what I actually have to say quite brief. The Directorate is working towards five particular priorities. The first and critical one is to improve safeguarding and children's social care. I know there have been pronouncements by government about what they want to do to help that happen. But you will know that after many, many years of being rated an inadequate authority by Ofsted for the quality of our social care, we've embarked on a really profound and wide-reaching improvement journey. And we are due to be inspected again by Ofsted next year. So what I have set out in this report is some of the work that we have done to strengthen our practice and to really be able to help to improve children's lives and life chances. I'm touched particularly upon the work we do around early intervention and prevention, where we have invested significant amounts of council resource. I've also talked about the strength that we have in our corporate parenting activities, particularly expanding on our built estate and our residential children's homes. I wanted to highlight for members the Care Leavers Covenant that we have signed up to, which means working with care-experienced young people to give them a far greater range of options, both in employment and in their lives. The second priority is to transform our services for children and young people between the ages of 0 and 25, who have additional needs and disabilities. And I know there is an enormous amount of national and local focus on these services for children with what's known as SEND, special educational needs and disabilities. We have been making a huge amount of progress, as you'll see in the report, on the work that we're doing there, particularly on our improvement plan that stemmed from the Ofsted inspection we had last year, but also very significantly in our recovery plan, which this Cabinet agreed to invest an additional £15 million in last year. We have embarked on a full transformation of our service, and although we have some way to go to really provide the excellent standards that we want to for all families, we have made some key improvements. And one of the things I have drawn out on in this report is the really remarkable progress and achievements we have made in delivering on our SEND capital programme, building and expanding a whole range of schools, both new schools and expansion of schools and opening new units. And I wanted to extend particular thanks for the really excellent work that's been done by colleagues in land and property in delivering so many of these to budget and on time, and the work that is still to be done. And our third priority is to enable people of all ages in Surrey to benefit from learning and to develop their skills. We're going to talk later on in this meeting today about the lifetime of learning strategy, which I've just touched on. But I have also tried in this report to bring out the work that's been done around early years to meet the obligations placed on us by government to expand the early years' entitlement down to children of nine months old. And I've also touched upon the really excellent work that's done by the Surrey Adult Learning Service. And I was really pleased last week to be presenting certificates and awards at a Surrey Adult Learning event to those adult learners who would achieve GCSEs and other qualifications by working in the evening and in their own time. It's really remarkable achievement when you see people really developing their skills and their learning later in life and not just when they're 16 or 18. So congratulations to them. I've brought out the success of our home to school transport team, which, as we will all remember, hit a bad patch in 2022 with some service failures. And the success and the uplift in the service that the team is able to deliver now has been, I think, nothing short of remarkable. We still have some challenges around delivering the budget there, and that is in line with all other authorities across the country. But in terms of service delivery, I really congratulate the team on the success that they have been able to achieve. The two other main areas of priority for the directorate I have not particularly expanded on in the report, which is to embed a new way of delivering services for children and young people with emotional well-being and mental health needs. I think we will probably could discuss that at very great length if we wanted to today. And also to work towards health and social care integration to improve services for children, young people and their families. Again, which we should cover in another meeting. I really wanted to say a huge thank you to all the staff, both within the directorate and amongst our partners, particularly in schools and districts and boroughs, who worked so hard to improve the lives of children and young people across Surrey, and who really hold them at the centre of their work. I think we are well on our way to delivering far better services than we ever did in the past. And we know, as it has often been said, that really improving first class services for children, young people and their families is one of this council's major priorities in the spirit of no one left behind. Thank you, Chairman. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you. Thank you very much, Claire. Very comprehensive to say some very positive things. Lots of challenges, of course. And I touch on some of those when we come on to the budget conversation. But lots of lots of good things. Does anybody want to make any comment on that report? No, thank you. What we'll do then, Claire, I think, is take now the equity in education item. Next. And then, Mrs Davidson. Yes, of course, Luda. I'm very happy to do so. What we want to achieve is that our schools and education providers are able to deliver the very best education for all young people and, as I was referring to earlier, and to adults who want to re-enter the world of education, whatever their background, their challenge or their need, so that they feel that they have a place to belong and that they can thrive in their lives. One thing we know about our education providers in Surrey, which is a very wide and rich and varied landscape, is that outcomes at all key stages are well above national averages. And we know how well that some of our young people achieve. But children and young people who come from a more disadvantaged background, many of those achieve less well, and not only less well than their peers in Surrey schools, but less well than their peers from similar backgrounds in other parts of the country. So our high achievers achieve better, but our low achievers achieve even worse than children elsewhere across the country. That attainment gap between disadvantaged groups and other groups, which is stark, and starts in the early years, and persists right through the education journey and right through to adulthood. And even when we do the analysis, we can see that there are huge skills. There are huge gaps in skills and in qualifications. So that is what this strategy is designed to achieve. It is a real partnership endeavour. It is being led by the Surrey Education Partnership, which is not part of this council. It is independently chaired, and it is drawn from partners across the whole range of education. Of course, the local authority is part of that partnership. But it is predominantly leaders from schools, but also early years providers, colleges of further education, from our improvement partner, Surrey Alliance for Excellence, representatives from the Department for Education, and across the different dioceses. The independently chaired partnership wants to drive through this strategy and has four particular priorities for work, and that is to develop communications, language, and literacy, to improve attendance, and I think I referred to that earlier with the chairman of the select committee, to help to improve emotional wellbeing amongst learners, and to really help to drive a better standard, a better environment around recruitment, retention, and the professional development of teaching and other education staff, which we know is a longstanding and difficult problem for schools. All together, I'm really committed to this partnership, and I know that the council officers who are part of it are very dedicated. We know that we have the most dedicated leaders of education in the county, and how much they put the children and the young people in their care at the forefront of their work. This partnership strategy has been through the select committee, and I know the chairman will speak to it, and it also went to the Health and Wellbeing Board earlier in the year, because we know how much importance there is in the health and life chances of people that is played by their education attainment. The recommendation is set out in the report, and it is to support and to commit to this partnership, and I so move. Thank you. Thank you very much, Claire. Fiona Davidson, would you like to comment? Thank you. Thank you, Chair Members. The select committee reviewed the Surrey Education Partnership's Lifetime of Learning Strategy at an informal meeting in September. We noted the partnership's vision to embrace the opportunities for a lifetime of learning and education equity for all, so that no learner is left behind. We also note the recognition that, as the cabinet member has stated, at each key stage, Surrey students perform better than the national average, but their children from disadvantaged groups do less well in Surrey than the same group nationally. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds often start school behind their peers, and this gap persists through school and into further and higher education. The tables show that, although this is the case nationally, the gap, as the cabinet member has stated, is more prominent in Surrey. So, while the select committee is supportive of the vision and the partnership approach, we don't feel at this stage that we are in a position to endorse the strategy as a strategy. We view the strategy presented as a partnership agreement and very much to be welcomed as such, but we don't see it as a strategy which describes a specific course of action that will take us from where we are now to where we want to be. We understand the next step is to develop an action plan and key success measures, and we propose that we review our current position once we have a better understanding of how the vision is to be achieved. But I would like to emphasize that we absolutely endorse the vision, but we would like to understand what will be undertaken by partnership members to enable that vision to become reality, because we recognize how important it is, particularly for the most disadvantaged children and young people in Surrey. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chairman. This guy just wants to add a new class of work. Thank you, Chairman. Well, the recommendation is to approve the strategy and endorse the ambition. And I know that the select committee is going to be asked over the course of the partnership to be the vehicle to review the progress that is being made. This is coming forward as a strategy. And as lead member, I am tasked in my role to stick to strategic matters and not to meddle in the day-to-day operation. As the select committee chairman has said, it is the work of the partnership to develop an action plan around those four priorities of communication, attendance, emotional wellbeing, recruitment and retention. It is the intention of the partnership to work down and develop its own action plan and deliver through the partnership to deliver on those actions and not for the work of the council officers. But I am grateful to the committee for their support for the strategy and the high-level ambition of the partnership. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much. So there are three recommendations. Are those agreed? Thank you very much. I have been advised by the monitoring officer that I just need to be a little bit clearer in terms of the decision taken in relation to London Road. So just to remind members, Cabinet, that minute 141.24 on page 204 of the agenda, the resolution at the Cabinet meeting on the 29th of October. So I will read it out to you. It is recommended that Cabinet 1 notes the contents of the independent technical review of Section 1 and its conclusions concerning whether the scheme complies with current design guidance. 2 proceeds with the construction of Section 1 based on the strength of support from the local community alongside the conclusions of the independent technical review. Those recommendations were not accepted and the decision was therefore not carried. So can I ask you to confirm that you are happy to stand by that same decision, i.e. that those two recommendations were not carried and therefore not moving forward with Section 1. So is that agreed? Agreed. Thank you very much. Okay, we will now move to item 8 then which is the draft budget and median financial strategy for 20, or the budget for 25-26 and the strategy for 29-30. So can I just start by reminding everybody that there are four priority objectives for this Council. First is to grow a sustainable economy so that everybody can benefit. Secondly to tackle health inequality and also inequality of life expectancy. Thirdly to enable a greener future and fourthly to empower our communities. And that is all encapsulated in the 2030 community vision and that it is our ambition to ensure that no one in Surrey is left behind. So that is the background to how we set the budget. We then very helpfully had some feedback from residents as we do each year to our survey in terms of their priorities and that then helps us set the overall budget. This year is probably more difficult than most in that we have a new government with a new agenda. This year is against a very challenging background that we are experiencing here in Surrey and indeed nationally. And there are six or seven things, messages I think that we need to pass back to the government and we did with the previous government as well. The first is that alongside the NHS 10 year plan, there needs to be a 10 year plan for adult social care. We know that you cannot fix some of the challenges within the NHS without fixing those in adult social care. And it was disappointing to see that the government awarded the NHS 22.6 billion in the last budget and to adult social care 600 million, which kind of says it all. And we will continue to lobby government to actually to reallocate some of that 22.6 billion to adult social care. Secondly, there needs to be a reform of the SEND system. I think Claire has touched on that a number of times. And we all know that the current system doesn't work for families, it doesn't work for schools and it doesn't work for councils. And it is hugely important that there is a rapid review of ways in which we can provide the right support to children at the right time and in the right place. And I know that this government is looking at more inclusive settings within mainstream and hopefully that will progress pace those discussions and we will have the opportunity to input. But actually one of the biggest challenges for us is around the cost of placements for children. And it was good to see that the Secretary of State last week, I think, did announce that they were now going to take some measures to cap or contain the cost of those placements, particularly in non-maintained organizations. And that is really important because the cost has now become prohibitive in placing children outside of settings that we have more control over. Fourthly, highways, we will continue again to lobby the government on the formula for highways funding. This council receives the same pound per mile as in Cornwall and in Northumberland where we have 60% more traffic going in and out through to London. And so taking into account volume of traffic, I think, is hugely important. On housing and planning, you know, I think most people are supportive of the growth in housing and the need to build those houses, again, in the right place, but also the right type of accommodation. And for this council, it is really important that we do have supported living wherever possible. And then lastly, in terms of the national issues, review of the entitlement to home to school travel assistance. This council will spend in excess of 70 million pounds a year transporting children to and from school, which is our statutory requirement. But every single council across the country is facing significant financial challenges as a consequence of inflation and indeed the rise in demand for children that need that transportation. So those are kind of some of the national issues but are pertinent to us here locally. In the budget papers, you'll see that we have to deliver 54 million pounds of efficiencies this year. And so largely that's a result of the children's services and adults' social care. But also the workforce recruitment and the challenges there. It is absolutely essential that we continue to recruit to those key frontline roles. But equally, we need to make sure that this organisation is right-sized. Inflation has absolutely taken its toll and most recently the increase in national insurance contributions and the national living wage. Some of that we will be compensated for, I believe, by government. But that won't extend to our suppliers. So that is going to have a significant impact on next year's budgets. And indeed will inevitably therefore have an impact on residents as well. In the budgets, the Chancellor announced 1.3 billion of additional funding for councils, of which 600 million we're expecting will be distributed under the adult social care formula, which would be the usual way. And we will receive a sum of money from that. But the other 700 million has been ring-fenced. And the expectation is that that will be distributed on a deprivation formula or enhanced deprivation formula of some sort. You know, the challenges of local government are, you know, this is not just about deprivation. We have deprivation in this county as well as others, although many people don't see that. But it absolutely exists in a number of parts of this county. But, you know, at the end of the day, the challenges for councils are to do with demand. And we've seen an exponential rise in demand, particularly for mental health services and post-COVID. And, as we know, within social care and within children applying for education or families applying for education and health care plans. So, we will continue to push for that additional 700 million to be distributed with the usual formula. But we'll see how far we get with that. We know that from 26 onwards there will be a funding review. That if some of the modelling that has been done by this council and by government, previous government, if that is the formula that is used, this council will be a significant loser in terms of government funding. And we have to take that into account when setting the budget, not just for next year, but for 26 to 29 as there will be a multi-year settlement. So, that will be hugely significant to us in terms of the long-term sustainability of this council. We have, over the last six years, been able to build up our reserves. So, we are in a reasonable financial position, but reserves can only be used once and not intended to be used to supplement revenue on a daily basis. We did last year, for the first time, have a very small overspend, but it is essential, and at the moment we are running at an overspend as well. So, it is essential that we continue to focus on making those efficiencies and appropriate savings. And then, in terms of the capital budget, there has been, or there is, a significant investment in projects that will not only improve experiences for our residents, but also will deliver revenue savings going forward. So, in terms of some of the detail, and I will hand over to David Lewis to add anything he wishes to. We have a gross budget of $1.2 billion, and we have currently, we have $74 million of efficiencies that need to be found, of which $57 million have already been identified, leaving a current gap of $17.4 million. That assumes 2.99% council tax increase. It isn't clear from the government at the moment whether they are going to lift the cap on council tax referendum. I think that is unlikely, but in previous years, upper tier authorities, those responsible for delivering adult social care, or social care generally, have been able to levy a further 2% on top of the 2.99%. 2% of the council tax here would close that £17.4 million gap. But there is an assumption, though, that certain lines of funding will continue in the local government finance settlement, which we will only know about just before Christmas. So it may be that that gap gets larger. It's very unlikely that it will get any smaller. So where we are at the moment is we need confirmation of our share of the £600 million for adult social care. We have assumed 2.99% council tax increase, but I imagine a government expectation that we also then levy a further 2% for social care. We will continue to look for further savings and efficiencies where those are appropriate. We do need to protect and maintain our reserves wherever possible. They are not significant, but they are important, particularly when we look forward over the horizon to what is likely to happen in a funding review from 26 onwards. We have also a number of transformation programmes that are looking at how we can do things better, more effectively, more efficiently for our residents. And then lastly, just to say actually on the current budgets, council tax increase of 2.99%, that equates to £52.58 for a band D council tax payer. On our capital programme, we have had a long hard look at that. To say all of those programmes, largely all of those programmes, were geared towards longer term revenue savings, building accommodation so people can live independently for longer. Also building specialist schools so that we can place children nearer to home and so on. But it is quite clear that with the interest rates remaining as they are and so on and the increase in inflation, which has had a massive impact on the building costs, that we have had to review that capital programme. So some items will be removed and others will be pushed back into later years. So I think overall, so in terms of other investments, we are very focused on investing in prevention and early intervention and support, both in the context of children and wherever possible within a school setting and of course within adults. We're very supportive of the three themes that the NHS I think are now focusing on, which is from sickness to prevention, from digital to analogue, although that's a little bit less relevant to us, although we do have a significant digital programme. And also from hospital to community care. This is all about moving left shift to get to people earlier on and to support people earlier on. That is challenging where you then have those that are currently in the system, whilst also then building a strong sustainable preventative framework alongside that. So it is essential, as I said earlier, that the government also look at the longer term reforms for adult sexual care, along with the NHS long term plan. Customer experience and outcomes, a significant piece of work to redesign the front end engagement for residents using digital and other tools. And that is getting some real traction and that is getting some real traction and I hope residents will see that over the coming months as they engage. It is important that we do use technology, great use technology wherever possible. And then lastly, the work that we're doing on the towns and villages footprint, which is in conjunction with the health system, with the voluntary community or charitable social enterprise sector, with police, with businesses and other tiers of local government. You know, that is absolutely about getting into those local communities to make sure that we're getting to the most vulnerable people in this county and that will continue at pace. So I think this is a draft budget. We will wait to hear from the select committees in terms of their feedback. We will receive the local government finance settlement generally Christmas Eve or maybe a day or two before, which I'm sure Andy will be pleased about. And we will then have much greater clarity on the funding for next year. But that it has been clear from the government that that is really a sticking plaster, one year sticking plaster whilst the funding review is carried out. And then there will be a need for a significant review in terms of the long term funding for us beyond that. This will come back to the January cabinet meeting for further tweaking in the light of whatever the government puts in the finance settlement. And then obviously we'll go to full council in February for approval. So I think although it is draft and it is an indicative budget, I should just point out there are a couple of members that have raised a couple of issues today, just in terms of misinformation that has been put out in certain quarters, one of which is to do with projects in Farnham. We have made some really good progress in Farnham over the last two or three years and there's been a significant program of improvement works. And there's some 16, 18 million of funding that has been committed to complete those works, many of which start in January next year. So that is in the pipeline, it is in the budget and will be released as it's needed to complete those works. I'm not entirely sure why it's been suggested otherwise. But anyway, just a small point of clarification. Right, so I will stop at that point and then see if David Lewis wants to add any further comments. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Leader. You've covered all the key points. I mean, the draft budget is an important milestone in the budget setting process. And a huge amount of work has taken place to get us to this stage. But I also want to recognise the fact that we committed at the start of this process to fully engage with members and also to engage with the public, our residents. And there has been a pretty full-on engagement process with the opposition groups, the select committees, the member development sessions, and we have consulted with our residents. And all the input that we've received from those processes have been considered as part of the budget setting exercise. And, you know, it's not finished yet. The select committees, next week, we have a very intensive week where the select committees will look at the draft budget, assuming we agree it today. And likewise, the next stage of consultation with our residents will begin later on this afternoon, once Cabinet, assuming Cabinet, approve the draft budget. We have, as we've said in the past, done a huge amount of work over the last few years to ensure that the Council's finances remain in a robust and stable position. And that has continued to be one of the key themes of putting this budget together. At the same time, we want to ensure that we continue to not just continue to deliver our frontline services, but where possible to improve the delivery of those services. And that has also been built into the budget. Tim has spoken about, in terms of the general background, the challenging position, financial position that we, along with the other local authorities, have found ourselves in. And, you know, that has been the overall backdrop to much of the work that's taken place. And plus the uncertainty coming out of the election, the uncertainty around the funding coming into local authorities. Inflation, which, although the headline levels of inflation have dropped, the actual cost to the Council is very much higher than it was two years ago. Many of the services that we provide, plus the cost of employing staff continues to increase. And we've seen, you know, shortages in the workforce, which have presented certain challenges in certain areas where we work. In terms of the budget envelope, we're talking about a figure of 1.242 billion at the moment. That's our revenue budget for 25-26. And just to put it in some sort of context, that represents an increase of 34 million on the current year, which is a 2.8% increase, overall increase against 24-25. So, you know, we are talking about significant sums of money, and we're seeing, you know, considerable increases in the level of investment that we're making. We have continued to use the budget envelope approach, and this is where, you know, we and the directorates have identified the pressures that they face, and then try and balance those pressures by developing efficiency proposals. And we have a legal obligation, as you know, to present and agree a balanced budget. So, looking at those pressures versus the efficiencies, or efficiencies versus pressures, as Tim says, we currently have a budget gap of 17.4 million, which is roughly the size of the budget gap that we faced in previous years when we've spoken about and agreed the draft budget. And that represents a council increase, council tax increase of 2.99. Although the government haven't formally advised us that, you know, the current levels of tax will be continued, the 2% increase in adult social care precept, taking it up to 5% in total. We are aware of the fact that, you know, when the Chancellor presented her budget, and the OBR did their work, they assumed that councils would raise the council tax by 4.99%. So, when we finally make a decision about the level of council tax increase, we will have to look at not just the current year, but future years. It's important that we look at the impact on Surrey's total resources. And we're a bit of an outlier in the sense that the amount of our total resources, total income that's generated by council tax is one of the highest, if not the highest, and represents this year something like 76% of our total income. And so, you know, it's the argument that, you know, we need to build on the base to ensure that financial stability, you know, going forward. And bearing in mind that likely, or the uncertainty we face and the likely, you know, possible reduction in grants that we receive in the future, it's important that we start from a position of strength in terms of that council tax base. And that will be for a decision once all the uncertainties which exist become clearer, which they will do when we get the details of the provisional settlement, which is now expected on the 19th of December. In terms of the revenue budget, you know, I said that we've ensured in the budget that we continue to invest in those areas that we consider to be important for the council. So, just to give a few examples, I mean, we're continuing with the improvement in the CFL directorate, and this includes continuing the early help and family support services, recruitment and retention improvements, and of course the work, the really important work that has been ongoing in terms of the EHCP improvement programme will continue. We are continuing to invest in the on-demand transport model, which we, as a cabinet, believe is important, and likewise the budget includes additional investment for our highways, particularly in terms of the verge maintenance and creation of the area clean-up gangs, which, you know, we think it's really important to ensure that highways across Suria are well looked after and look sneaked and sparked, and that will help us to achieve that. In terms of closing that gap, the 17.4 million gap, we'll know more, as I say, when we get the provisional settlement, but there are different options, as well as increasing council tax, which we could look at in terms of closing the gap. It might be, as I say, increased government funding unlikely. We continue to look for further efficiencies, cost containment. As Tim said, reserves can only be used once, so we're reluctant to dip into reserves for everyday expenditure. So, you know, there's a number of issues there which we will consider, and when we bring the final budget to cabinet for approval in January and to full council for approval in February, that will become clearer in terms of the position we recommend. In terms of the medium-term financial strategy, you know, the budget, so it looks ahead for the next five years until 29.30. And at the moment, we're forecasting a gap of over 190 million pounds, which represents something like 16% of the net budget. So you can see, even on the current projections going forward, there's quite a challenge there, which we will have to manage in future years, which is subject, of course, to what happens in terms of the funding and other issues. We are ambitious and continue to be ambitious with our capital programme. As Tim said, we're currently planning for a budget of a billion pounds with a further 0.4 billion in the pipeline. A lot of work has been done during the year on looking at that capital programme. We want to make sure that whatever we put forward is affordable. We want to make sure that it's deliverable. And we believe that the programme which we have now developed, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of net revenue of the budget, is both sort of in line with other authorities of a similar size to ours and actually meets all the necessary criteria. But as I say, it is an ambitious programme. We're continuing to invest in our additional school places, particularly around the SEND schools. We're continuing to invest in new accommodation in the adult space. We're continuing to invest in highway and road improvements, the transformation of our libraries and in our Greener Futures programme, which I think is still really important. We will, as I said earlier on, continue the engagement process and feedback from the different bodies, select committees and so on, will be taken into account, plus the work of the deep dives when we finalise the budget. So, you know, I think we've got it to a good place where we're at at the moment. More work to be done. But, you know, I recommend that the Cabinet approve it. And I'd also finally just like to thank all the officers and staff who have been working really since we approved this year's budget. In February of this year, the work almost started immediately to work on developing the budget for next year. So I'd just like to pass on my thanks to all the officers for everything they've done to get the budget to this stage. It's a huge piece of work and I think we should be very grateful to them for what's been achieved. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, David. Unless anyone's adding anything, there'll be plenty of time for a more detailed discussion around this, just to say it's an indicative budget, but a good sort of working draft. So we'll go straight to the recommendations. The first is that we note the draft budget and medium-term financial strategy to 29.30, including progress to date in setting out spending pressures and efficiencies to set out in Annex A. Note the provisional budget gap of 17.4 million for 25.26, and the next steps required to close that gap. Thirdly, note the proposed draft capital programme for 25.6, 29.30 of 1.4 billion, set out in section 6 of the report on Annex B. And finally, note the summary of resident engagement and the next steps set out in section 9 of the report. So those four recommendations agreed. Agreed. Excellent. Thank you very much. Right. So we will move on then to item 11. That's right. Item 11, which is the coordinated admission scheme for September 26. Thank you, Leader. Full council has an obligation to approve the coordinated admission scheme annually, and in this case the one that's applicable to all applicants in schools for 2026. So we look at this each year. This is not a report that relates to individual schools' admissions criteria or admissions arrangements. But what it does do is set out the processes and procedures that our admission service follows in relation to mainstream primary and secondary admissions. And it works a year in advance. So with effect from 2026. The scheme is largely unchanged from that which we approved last year. There are amendments in red in the draft that's appended to the report. Essentially, the changes reflect the overwhelming practice of the ServiceNow to use electronic rather than written communications. As I said, this requires the agreement of full council. So our recommendations are made to, this cabinet's recommendations are made to council, and they set out on page 243. Thank you, Leader. Thank you very much. As you said, it's a relatively standard item, but we'll need to go to full council for discussion. Does anybody want to say anything at this stage? No. In that case, one recommendation, that's the coordinated admission scheme that will apply to all applicants in schools for 26 is agreed to set out on Annex 1. Is that recommendation agreed? Thank you. Item 12. Approval to proceed on the coroner's service digital post-mortem and mortuary facility. Kevin. Yes, thank you, Leader. This report outlines our desire to deliver digital post-mortems in Surrey. Currently, there's no digital capacity, and the technology is only used for a small number of deceased, predominantly faith and child deaths, who must be transported out of county. This technology will significantly reduce the number of invasive post-mortems, which will help maintain the dignity of the deceased and create a better experience for bereaved families and faith communities. Other areas with digital post-mortem facilities report that approximately 75% of all post-mortems can be done digitally. There are approximately 3,500 referrals, 2,400 coroner post-mortems carried out in Surrey. So the need for invasive post-mortems in Surrey would reduce to approximately 600 cases per year. Although some initial investment and adjustments to operational costs, financial modelling suggests that the cost of running a digital service will be offset from year two of the savings generated, from reduction in invasive post-mortems. Additional benefits will include the release of the deceased more quickly into the care of the family-appointed funeral director, a better experience for the bereaved and maintaining the dignity of the deceased. The report also highlights the efficiency of delivering post-mortems, mitigation of the financial risk in the future and future-proofing the coronial service in the future. This enhances our current facilities and turn this into a longer-term service delivery asset by adding a mobile digital unit. This will provide a single location with appropriate storage capacity for deceased referred to the coroner. If it continues with no capital investment, service costs will continue to rise due to specialist and limited nature of service provision. It is projected that over the next five to six years the cost will have risen in excess of £1 million. Investing in digital capacity will minimise this risk as well as providing a significantly enhanced service. The maximum capital investment of £1.15 million would enhance existing storage capacity design, construct and refurbish new and existing facilities. An options analysis identified the most effective operational delivery model would be based on using contracted services and scanning equipment, these from a specialist provider, with a set of agreed standards, fees and add-ons. This will require a procurement exercise and award of contract. The annual cost of this contract will be met by the service revenue budget and will be offset by a planned reduction in the current service expenditure. This will provide an opportunity for income generation as other areas without its capacity may wish to use the facility at an agreed rate. There are four recommendations which are outlined, I believe on page 169 report, which I urge my colleagues to support. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Kevin. Anybody wish to speak on this? I mean, we've been discussing this now for some considerable time. I think it's an excellent idea and I'm very pleased that it's moving forward. So I think it will be considerably beneficial to our residents, particularly on the ability to do non-invasive post-mortems, both from a faith perspective and also from just the speed of being able to do that. So unless anybody has any comments or four recommendations as per the agenda, are those agreed? Three. Good. Thank you very much. And then also approval to proceed on the registration and nationality service new operating model. Denise. Thank you, Leader. This report seeks approval to take forward a new operating model for our registration and nationality service to provide more localised, efficient and commercial service with improved experience for our residents, support increased income generation and align with the Council's customer operating model. The report asks the Cabinet to approve capital up to £2 million for delivery of the operating model. The proposal will be self-funding through a capital receipt and increased income and the model will reduce dedicated single-use sites. So we currently have a number of those and we want to sort of co-locate with other services to give expanded provision across the county and optimise the use of our Council buildings. We have an outstanding registration and nationality service and I'm very pleased to see some of our officers here today. They are the second busiest service in England and Wales and the third busiest nationality service in England and Wales as well. The service is self-funding. It delivers surplus income of £1.7 million. That's for 2425 and does give a great contribution to the Council budget. The sites are currently based in Weybridge, Leatherhead, Guildford, Rygate and Camberley and the expanded offer will deliver offices in Camberley, Guildford, Staines, Epsom, Hawley, Weybridge, Esher, Leatherhead, Woking, Farnham and Rygate. So that really addresses some of the accessibility issues. We've also got maintenance issues which will be addressed and the distance to travel and lack of investment issues will all be picked up with this model. So I hope you can see that the team have worked really hard to look at the best and sort of optimal model for Surrey residents. And I hope the Cabinet will support this report. Thank you. Thank you very much, Denise. Anybody wish to comment? Yes, Mark. Just really to say I was involved with this team a few years ago and it was under my portfolio. A great team who really do look at every possibility to improve and change the service. They're aggressively looking to achieve more, which is fantastic. And it's great to see Surrey right out there as one of the leaders in this field. So I fully support this. Excellent. Indeed, I was with the Vice-Lieutenant of the county the other day who was saying that she found the nationality ceremony that she attended really overwhelming, actually, both in terms of kind of some of the people that she met and some of their history and background, but thought it was incredibly well done. And I think looking forward to attending many more ceremonies. So, well done. Okay. There are three recommendations there, which is basically to approve that new operating model and to fund it. Are those three agreed? Agreed. Thank you very much. Sinead, right homes, right support, or it was residential? Thank you, Chair. I'll be really quick and concise. So we're being asked to look at this paper today and I think really the focus of it is around complex care, which is defined as older people with complex mental health needs. And I think this paper provides a very strong case and a plan as well, a very strong clear plan in how we're going to step up to meeting that demand and matching those requirements. There's a table in the paper, table eight, paragraph eight, I beg your pardon, which really does show the extent of the projected demands that we'll be facing in future years. And this paper, as I say, sets out a series of recommendations on how we're going to meet that demand. And so I'd be very grateful if cabinet members could support these recommendations. Thank you. Thank you very much, Sinead. Again, I mean, we've had many conversations about this, so it's good to see it moving forward. So I think the first recommendation is to approve the right homes, right support older people's residential nursing delivery strategy. And then secondly, to approve the 3.6 million of capital funding to undertake the necessary feasibility studies and so on. And then the third recommendation is to note the direction of travel for care homes on council-owned lands. Those three recommendations agreed. Agreed. Thank you very much. Okay, Mrs Bramhall, you have the next three items. Thank you. Yes, they're all very similar, so I will go through them very quickly. As you know, we've previously endorsed the rationalisation of our surplus property estate. All services have confirmed that they have no requirements for Abbeywood in Ash. It's been rejected as it does not support current modelling and locality needs. We've openly marketed this property and received a number of bids from private sector and care home developers, which I will obviously cover off under part two leader. So therefore, go straight to the recommendations, which are, it's recommended that Cabinet formally declare this asset surplus to operational requirements, prove the sale to the party noted in the part two report on the terms recommended, and delegate authority to the Executive Director of Environment, Property and Growth, and the Director of Land and Property to finalise the transaction. Thank you. Thank you very much. This is the first, this is the Ash care home to start with you. I mean, I think it is just important to just reinforce the point you made, which is that when any property becomes vacant, it is offered to all of the services to see if they want it for their own use, and if not, only then is it declared surplus to the Council's requirements. Okay. Okay. Recommendations, then, on item 15, to declare the asset surplus. Three recommendations there to follow on. Are those agreed? Agreed. Thank you. So, thank you, leaders. So, the next one is Arundall House in Banstead. Again, as you know, we've endorsed rationalisation of the surplus property estate. All services have confirmed that they have no requirement for this property. And Arundall House does not support current modelling locality needs. We received, when we went to open market, we received 23 bids, comprising private sector and care home developers. Again, which I'll cover off in part two of this report, Leader. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And, again, just to be clear, I mean, we do also engage with districts and boroughs, where we have vacant property. And, you know, it goes out on the open market, but we have, you know, examples where we have been able to sell those buildings to the local councils for housing. Okay. Okay. Those declare a declaration that it's a surplus asset. Free recommendation. Those agreed? Thank you very much. Item 17. Thank you. Again, this is Barnfield in Upfields in Hawley. Again, we have, all services have confirmed that they have no requirement for this property. It's been rejected as it doesn't support current modelling and locality needs. At the close of marketing with Barnfield, we received a number of bids, again, from private sector residential and care home developers. Again, which I'll cover off under part two report, Leader. Thank you. Three recommendations. Those agreed? Thank you very much. Item 18, then, a quick update on the month six financial position. David. Yeah, thank you, Leader. At the end of September, there was an 18.6 million forecast overspend on our revenue budget for 24-25. That represented a deterioration compared with month five at the end of August of 1.9 million. Just to remind members that, you know, in the budget we have a contingency of 20 million, so we're getting dangerously close to that contingency. And in the ideal world, we want to use much if not all of that contingency to feed into our reserves. So just to have to re-emphasize the importance of trying to find mitigation measures between now and the end of the financial year to mitigate against that forecast overspend of 18.6 million. On the capital side, you recall that we re-phased budget at the start of the year and against that re-phased budget, we're now reporting a slight overspend of 9 million. So it's 325 million against a re-phased budget of 316 million. Most of that overspend represents acceleration of projects. So from that point of view, I'm less concerned about that than if it had been as a result of significant increase in costs in the projects. But we do need to keep an eye on that. But at the moment, no real cause for concern there. In terms of the – you'll see in the paper that the in-year deficit for the high-needs block is now being forecast at 57 million against an original budget, the deficit budget of 39 million. And this sort of feeds into our safety valve program, which, you know, we are continuing to deliver under the safety valve the planned efficiencies that we signed up to more than two years ago. But we are seeing increased demand for places and also the number of places which will come through as a result of state-funded places through the free school program has been significantly delayed. So that is also adding to the pressures that we're beginning to face in this area. And, of course, in addition to all that, there is a new risk which we're beginning to see, which relates to the VAT changes that the government have announced on the non-maintained independent schools. This is to impose VAT. And, you know, whilst it's difficult to forecast the exact impact of that, it's likely to result in an increase in the number of parents who seek funding from the council through the EHCP process. So, again, that's something that we need to keep an eye on. There is also another part to this paper and a second recommendation, as well as noting the current position with regards to both the revenue and capital budget at the end of September. And this is a request to Cabinet to approve the write-off of an adult social care debt which exceeds £100,000. And we have to approve this in accordance with Financial Regulation 21.4. Details of the debt we will cover in part two of this meeting. Thank you, Leader. Thank you, David. So, two recommendations. First is to note the council's forecast revenue budget and capital budget positions for the year. And then, secondly, specifically to approve the write-off of an adult social care debt which is over £100,000 in accordance with Financial Regulation 21.4. And, as you said, David, further details are available in part two. Are those both agreed? Thank you very much. Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of the public part of this agenda. So, under Section 100A of the Federal Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting, drawing consideration of the following items of business on the grounds that may involve the likely disclosure of exempt information under the relevant paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act. On that basis, I will close the meeting. Thank you very much. Thank you, Captain. Come back to the Municipality approach. Sorry. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.