This week in Surrey:

Housing for Vulnerable Residents Approved

The Cabinet approved a plan to develop four council-owned sites for housing, including homes for people with mental health needs. The sites are Chalkmead in Merstham, Keswick in Great Bookham, Longfield in Cranleigh and Meadowside in Staines. A fifth site, Heathside in Woking, will require further due diligence and possible consultation before development can be recommended. Read the full story.

• The initiative aims to provide safe, supported, and sustainable accommodation for vulnerable residents, enabling them to live independently.
• The council plans to work with a developer to deliver between 100 and 130 units in total, a proportion of which will be allocated to individuals with mental health needs who are eligible for support under the Care Act 2014.
• The self-contained accommodation will be integrated within the general housing to create inclusive communities.
• The council will enter into agreements with experienced developers in return for the land, transferring delivery to a development partner without requiring significant capital investment from the council.
• The council has spent just under £1 million on feasibility work for the sites, and it is estimated that a further £1.2 million will be needed to complete the development.

Councillor Sinead Mooney, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, said that the initiative is not just about building homes, but about building futures and ensuring that vulnerable residents have access to safe, supported and sustainable accommodation.

School Closure Proposed Amid Falling Pupil Numbers

The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning made a decision to proceed with issuing statutory notices regarding the proposed closure of St Mary's Church of England (C of E) Voluntary Controlled Infant School+Voluntary+Controlled+Infant+School+Surrey+County+Council/) and the transfer of its pupils to Puttenham Church of England Infant School. Read the full story.

• The decision follows a period of informal consultation, the results of which revealed mixed reactions.
• While some respondents acknowledged that St Mary's was no longer sustainable, many disagreed with the proposal, raising concerns about the impact on the community, increased travel times, and the potential disruption to pupils' education.
• The consultation, which ran from 25 April to 23 May 2025, revealed that 66% of respondents do not support the proposal to close St Mary’s C of E Infant School.
• Councillor Matt Furniss, divisional councillor for Shalford, described the proposal as quite a sad one, reflecting challenges faced by rural schools.
• He noted that St Mary's, despite being a well-regarded school, was operating at a deficit with only 30 pupils out of a capacity of 90, and a low number of first-choice applications for the upcoming September intake.
• The report cited several reasons for the decline in pupil numbers, including a lower birth rate, families leaving Surrey due to Brexit, the pandemic, and the rising cost of living.

The decision means that statutory notices will be published, inviting further representations about the proposal.

Community Projects in Guildford and Waverley Receive Funding Boost

The Cabinet agreed to fund community projects at St Peter's Shared Church in Guildford and Shamley Green Village Hall in Waverley through Your Fund Surrey. Read the full story.

• £850,000 was allocated for the Oak Project at St Peter's Shared Church, dependent on the remaining funding being confirmed. This project aims to create a new community space by extending the building with an atrium, providing a community cafe and accessible facilities.
• £700,000 was allocated for the Shamley Green Village Hall Redevelopment Project in Waverley, dependent on the remaining funding being confirmed. This project aims to redevelop the existing hall into a community hub, addressing accessibility issues and increasing the hall's sustainability.

Other Matters

• The Cabinet noted the council's revenue and capital positions for the year, with a £6.3 million surplus on its revenue budget after using £20 million from its contingency fund. Read the full story.
• The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning approved funding allocations from the approved SEND Capital Budget for projects at St John the Baptist School, Bramley Oak Academy, and Carrington School, all aimed at increasing specialist provision for students with special educational needs. Read the full story.
• The Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure Decisions was scheduled to meet to discuss the proposed declaration of land as surplus to requirements in Stanwell, and to consider the disposal of one specific garden. No video was provided. Read the full story.
• The Cabinet Member for Customer and Communities Decisions was scheduled to meet to discuss a Your Fund Surrey application for the West Clandon Church Community Hub project in Shere. No video was provided. Read the full story.
• The Strategic Investment Board was scheduled to convene to note recommendations regarding director changes and staff consultation at Hendeca Group, the council's Local Authority Trading Company (LATCO). No video was provided. Read the full story.
• The Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting was cancelled. Read the full story.

Upcoming Meetings

• Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth Decisions will meet on Tuesday 03 June 2025 to discuss a road safety investment programme, and consider two petitions relating to road safety. View the agenda.
• The Audit and Governance Committee will meet on Wednesday 04 June 2025 to discuss a range of topics including treasury management, external audit plans, financial regulations, and counter fraud measures. View the agenda.
• The Buckinghamshire Council and Surrey County Council Joint Trading Standards Service Committee will meet on Monday 09 June 2025. View the agenda.

This week in Surrey:

• The People, Performance and Development Committee Appointment Sub-Committee met to interview candidates for senior positions at their meeting.

People, Performance and Development Committee Appointment Sub-Committee - Tuesday 13 May 2025

The People, Performance and Development Committee Appointment Sub-Committee met on 13 May 2025 to interview candidates for two senior positions: Director- Lifelong Services, and Director- Living and Ageing Well. The meeting was held in two parts, with the second part being closed to the public.

Senior Appointments

The sub-committee interviewed candidates for the positions of Director- Lifelong Services and Director- Living and Ageing Well. These roles are crucial for shaping the council's strategies and services related to education, skills, and social care for residents of all ages. The Director- Lifelong Services is responsible for overseeing education, skills, and employment support, while the Director- Living and Ageing Well focuses on social care, health integration, and support for older adults and vulnerable individuals.

Exclusion of the Public

The agenda included a recommendation to exclude the public from the meeting during the discussion of the senior appointments, citing Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972. This section allows councils to exclude the public when confidential or exempt information is likely to be disclosed. The report pack stated that the reason for the exclusion was that the items of business involved the likely disclosure of exempt information under paragraph 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act. This paragraph relates to information about individuals.

Publicity for Part Two Items

The sub-committee was scheduled to consider whether the items discussed in the closed session should be made available to the press and public. This decision reflects the council's commitment to transparency and accountability, balancing the need to protect confidential information with the public's right to know.

This week in Surrey:

• The Surrey Local Firefighters' Pension Board discussed scheme management, pension regulations, and connecting to the pensions dashboards at their meeting.
• The Council voted to note the report on Local Government Reorganisation (LGR), which proposes submitting a plan for two unitary councils at the Council meeting.
• The Cabinet approved the final plan for local government reorganisation (LGR) in Surrey, which proposes dividing the county into two unitary authorities at the Cabinet meeting.

Surrey Local Firefighters' Pension Board - Thursday 08 May 2025

The Surrey Local Firefighters' Pension Board met to discuss updates on scheme management activities, compliance with pension regulations, and connection to the pensions dashboards. The board reviewed the action and recommendation tracker, the pension regulator's code of compliance, and the risk registers. They also discussed a breach in providing annual benefit statements to scheme members and the Surrey Fire Dashboards Connection Readiness Report.

Pensions Dashboards

The board reviewed the Surrey Fire Dashboards Connection Readiness Report, which outlined the steps needed to connect to the pensions dashboards by the deadline of 31 October 2025, with an anticipated 'live' date of October 2026. Graham Hall from XPS, the pension administrator, told the board that XPS are planning to move software systems, with a transition expected to last for the rest of the year. He said that this may mean contacting the board about the option to delay the initial connection to the dashboard, connecting once the new software system is in place, which is expected to be early in 2026. The report highlighted that 90.16% of members would make an exact match with their scheme data, but Hall noted that the aim was to get as close to 100% as possible. The report suggested conducting a member tracing exercise to improve the accuracy of contact information and verify personal details.

McCloud Remedy and Annual Benefit Statements

The board discussed the ongoing work related to the McCloud age discrimination remedy¹ and the issuance of annual benefit statements (ABS) and remediable service statements (RSS). It was reported that just over 95% of immediate choice (IC) members have received their RSSs. However, some members have not received their statements due to delays in providing data to XPS. XPS is expected to provide a timeline for completing the statements within two weeks. The board also discussed a breach in providing annual benefit statements to scheme members. The Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2013 require pension schemes to provide members with an annual benefit statement (ABS) each year outlining their pension benefits. The pensions team has reported the breach to the Pensions Regulator and will continue to provide updates.

Scheme Management Update

The board received a Scheme Management Update Report, which included updates on contingent decisions, 10% pensionable allowance, retained settlement – Matthew’s Cases, amendments to the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (England) 2006, Guaranteed Minimum Pension (GMP) Rectification, Internal Dispute Resolution Procedure claims (IDRP), auto-enrolment, training, and communications. Councillor Glyn Parry-Jones recorded his thanks to Janine May, Senior Pensions Advisor, and the team for their work.

Action and Recommendation Tracker

The board reviewed the Action and Recommendation Tracker, and agreed to close several items relating to the Matthews retained settlement determination, communications to scheme members on the progress with ABS/RSSs, an item on Member Contribution Structure Review, regular updates on progress against the checklist, and including the Online Pension Portal facility in the induction process for new Scheme members.

The Pensions Regulator’s (TPR) General Code of Practice Compliance Checklist

The board discussed The Pensions Regulator’s (TPR) General Code of Practice Compliance Checklist. The report presented the outcome of an initial assessment of compliance with the updated requirements of the General Code, and highlighted areas where either further investigation or action is required to ensure greater compliance with the ESOG expectations of the General Code.

Risk Register

The board reviewed the Risk Register and noted the changes made. The Matthews risk has been lowered due to ongoing communications and the tracing exercise. The team resource and training risk has been removed as the team is at full capacity, training is in place, and succession planning is underway. The red risk relating to the end-of-year return data remains, as this leads into the RSSs. However, it is anticipated that this will go down as soon as the RSSs have been provided.

Council - Wednesday 07 May 2025

The Surrey County Council met to discuss and note the report on the final plan for Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) in Surrey, which proposes submitting a plan to the government for two unitary councils divided geographically east and west. The council voted to note the report, paving the way for the cabinet to make a final decision on submitting the plan to the government.

Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation

The main item of discussion was the final plan for LGR in Surrey, following the government's invitation to councils to propose a reorganisation plan to unlock further devolution and create more sustainable local government. Councillor Tim Oliver OBE, Leader of the Council, introduced the report, emphasising that the most extensive powers and funding would be granted to mayoral strategic authorities, making it a worthwhile pursuit for Surrey residents. He stated that a high-level options appraisal showed that a single unitary authority across Surrey would be the most financially sustainable, but that devolution could not be unlocked on a Surrey footprint alone. He argued that a two-unitary east-west model is the best option for Surrey residents, offering more financial resilience than a three-unitary model. Councillor Oliver also noted ongoing conversations with the government regarding the debt of Woking and lobbying efforts to ring-fence and write off any irrecoverable debt incurred by districts and boroughs.

Councillor Catherine Powell, Residents' Association and Independent Group Leader, raised concerns about the consistency and support for option 2.1, the east-west split with Spellthorne in the west, and highlighted missing information regarding council tax bands across the new unitary authorities. She also pointed out the debt levels of Spellthorne and Runnymede. Councillor David Lewis, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, refuted Councillor Powell's claims, stating that her analysis was based on flawed assumptions and analyses. He clarified that the number of council tax bands is set by the UK government and that the council tax base is used to level out the differential in tax base. Councillor Lewis added that the government would use needs-based formulas to allocate grants and support to local authorities, considering factors like social care requirements and local economic conditions.

Councillor Robert Evans OBE, Labour & Labour Co-operative Group Leader, expressed his inability to recommend the conclusions of the report, arguing that dividing Surrey into two unitary authorities would mean both would be oversized and geographically challenged. He also raised concerns about the ability for local residents to engage and hold their devolved institutions to account. Councillor Denise Turner-Stewart, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Customer and Communities, argued that the analysis before the council was thorough and exhaustive and had been shared with and endorsed by key partners. She stated that collaboration with partners through community boards would be a transformative vehicle for prevention and early intervention.

Councillor George Potter criticised the report, describing it as filled with dodgy figures and based on dubious and flawed assumptions. He argued that the proposals would split economic areas, fail to fulfill government criteria, eliminate the local voice, and make government unaccountable and remote. Councillor Liz Townsend stated that the council had no vote on the report and that the proposal slashes council numbers and local representation from 534 to just 162 councillors. Councillor Sinead Mooney, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, stated that she had been contacted by a number of Spellthorne residents and organisations expressing concern about the proposal to place the borough in the West unitary. She argued that Spellthorne possesses several characteristics that make it better suited to inclusion in the East unitary proposal. Councillor Jonathan Essex, The Green Party Group Leader, urged the government to write off Woking and other councils' unserviceable debt in full. He argued that the three unitary option has far more sensible natural, social, and economic geographies.

Councillor Edward Hawkins stated that the people he had spoken to were not bothered about the changes but were interested in a reduction in the level of administration across the county. He supported the two unitaries. Councillor Rachael Lake BEM stated that she had received a lot of residents telling her of the scaremongering that's going on and that the council needed to get more communication out to the residents, explaining the true facts. Councillor Fiona Davidson, Chair of the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee, argued that Surrey Children's Services needs to be broken up and that it is too large to be responsive to the very people it's supposed to serve. She stated that Surrey's preferred options puts the districts and boroughs with the largest and riskiest debt, the least opportunity to raise additional council tax, the most demand, and the most need from children's services in the same unitary. Councillor Stephen Cooksey stated that Mole Valley District Council had voted to support the county submission for the two unitary options, with Elmbridge joining with the four eastern boroughs and districts in the larger 2.1 option. Councillor Bob Hughes thanked the officers for the detailed report, which he said answers the questions posed by the Minister and gives detailed analysis of the costs and realities of delivering vital services at scale and at high quality. He argued that services that need to be delivered at scale can only be delivered with two unitary authorities, not three.

Councillor John O'Reilly expressed his disappointment at Councillor Fiona Davidson's comments, calling them disgraceful slurs on the services. He raised the issue of the local community boards and asked for divisional members and other councillors to be invited to be involved in the process. Councillor Andy MacLeod stated that the Surrey proposal puts all three councils that are deeply in debt in the West Surrey area, creating an undue advantage for the East Surrey Unitary and a disadvantage for the West Surrey Unitary. Councillor Eber Kington congratulated Councillor Peter Hart and the North Cantatman Residence Association for their victory in the North Cantatman by-election. He stated that as far as Surrey County Council and the LGR are concerned, there is no mandate for unitaries and an elected mayor, no elections to test public opinion, and a final LGR submission rushed in its publication and subject to no scrutiny at all. Councillor Hazel Watson set out the recommendations of the Select Committee's report, including continued lobbying of government for a solution on debt, revisiting the lessons learned from the Surrey's implementation of the ERP replacement project, prioritising work to understand sufficiency of supply for SEND, and prioritising resourcing future work on the community board's model. Councillor David Harmer stated that having decided to go down this path, the rules that were created by the Secretary of State left the council with very little alternatives to reaching the point they're now at. He supported the proposal before the council. Councillor Jordan Beech stated that the proposal would destroy local democracy and local services and requested that all put party colours to one side and do what's best for the whole of Surrey and not just their individual patch.

Councillor Tim Oliver responded to the debate, thanking the Select Committee Chairs and Vice Chairs for their engagement in the process. He stated that the council accepts in totality all recommendations from the Select Committee. He also addressed inaccuracies raised during the debate, including Councillor Powell's misunderstanding of council tax and the debt levels of Spellthorne and Runnymede.

A recorded vote was requested and carried, with 36 votes for and 20 against, and 2 abstentions.

Cabinet - Wednesday 07 May 2025

The Surrey County Council Cabinet met to approve the final plan for local government reorganisation (LGR) in Surrey, which proposes dividing the county into two unitary authorities and was ultimately approved. The cabinet also considered the report from the Council’s Select Committee Chairs and Vice Chairs group regarding devolution and LGR.

Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) Final Plan

The Cabinet approved the council's final plan for LGR in Surrey, agreeing to submit it to the government by the 9 May deadline. The plan proposes dividing Surrey into two unitary councils, East and West Surrey, and forming a Surrey Mayoral Strategic Authority (MSA) to unlock further devolution. Councillor Tim Oliver OBE, Leader of Surrey County Council, stated that an alternative submission for three unitary authorities, supported by some districts and boroughs, was not in the best interests of the county's residents.

Key points of the final plan include: debt management, service delivery, community boards, timelines, equality impact assessment, and financial sustainability.

Councillor Marisa Heath, Cabinet Member for Environment, emphasized that residents want efficient services delivered and that the process should focus on competence, delivery, and wise use of taxpayers' money. Councillor Denise Turner-Stewart, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Customer and Communities, commended the report for providing a clear picture of Surrey, with all data and evidence in one place.

The recommendations were formally approved: Cabinet approves the Council’s Final Plan for Local Government Reorganisation in Surrey; The Leader of Surrey County Council submits the Final Plan to government for the 9 May deadline; and authority is delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to make any final amendments to the Final Plan and other associated information for Local Government Reorganisation in Surrey before submission within the deadline given by the Secretary of State.

Report of the Council’s Select Committee Chairs and Vice Chairs Group

The Cabinet considered the report from the Council’s Select Committee Chairs and Vice Chairs group regarding devolution and LGR. Hazel Watson, Chair of the Chairs, introduced the report, which included several recommendations: continued lobbying of government for a solution on debt, ensuring Surrey residents do not unfairly bear the burden; revisiting lessons learned from Surrey's implementation of the ERP replacement project, emphasizing the challenges of managing IT systems aggregation and disaggregation; prioritizing work to understand the sufficiency of supply for SEND services in the proposed geography; continued efforts to lobby government to mitigate the impact of funding reforms, including writing off Woking's existing stranded debt; and prioritizing resourcing for community boards and ensuring councillor involvement in pilots.

Councillor Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning, reassured members that initial analysis had been conducted to inform the work presented to the government, particularly regarding SEND services. She emphasized the directorate's commitment to detailed understanding and profiling of SEND sufficiency, school places, and home-to-school transport.

The Cabinet response, published in a supplementary agenda, fully supported all recommendations. Work streams will be set up to take forward the recommendations, with select committees involved in scrutinizing the work.

This week in Surrey:

• Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning, approved the use of £29.49 million from the approved SEND capital budget for Hope's Court School in Walton-on-Thames.
• The Cabinet approved the Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2025-2035, the sale of the former Chalk Pit Depot in Great Bookham, and a reimbursement to Waverley Borough Council for additional council tax raised through changes to the empty home policy at the Cabinet meeting.
• Natalie Bramhall, Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure, approved the sale of 30 St Martins Close, East Horsley, Leatherhead, KT24 6SU at the Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure Decisions meeting.
• The Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting was scheduled to discuss a planning application relating to Land at Merrist Wood Golf Club, but no video or transcript was provided.
• The Surrey Police and Crime Panel discussed the Surrey Police Group's financial performance, police complaints, misconduct, vetting, and workforce planning at the Surrey Police and Crime Panel meeting.

Cabinet Member for Children and Families, Lifelong learning Decisions - Tuesday 22 April 2025

In a meeting on Tuesday 22 April 2025, Clare Curran, the Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning, approved the use of £29.49 million from the approved SEND ¹ capital budget for Hope's Court School in Walton-on-Thames ². The additional costs will be managed through alternative solutions in other projects.

The main item on the agenda was a request for approval to use £29.49 million from the approved SEND Capital Funding of £109.86 million for 2025/26-2028/29. This funding is earmarked for the final confirmed costs of Hope's Court School in Walton on Thames, a project committed under the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Capital Programme.

The report SEND Capital Programme Hopescourt School stated that the £29.49 million figure represents a £3.2 million increase to the project budget of £26.25 million, which was previously approved by Surrey County Council’s Cabinet on 25 June 2024. According to the report, the increase is:

driven by prolongation, inflationary increases, and necessary extension of arrangements at Hopescourt School’s temporary site in West Molesey resulting from eight-month Environment Agency delays increasing costs to conclude project delivery.

The Cabinet Member was assured that the additional costs can be managed through alternative solutions that are affordable within the approved budget allocations for SEND capital, and without reducing overall programme scope.

According to the report, the capital investment is for Hope's Court School’s construction project where a viable scheme, location, planning approval, costs, and legal agreements have been confirmed. The new school’s permanent facilities, procured via the Southern Construction Framework and constructed by Willmott Dixon, will cater for up to 200 autistic pupils and pupils with communication and interaction needs, aged 4-19 years when the school reaches capacity in 2029. Construction commenced on 4 October 2024.

Hope's Court School will continue to use its West Molesey site temporarily until the new school is ready in late March 2026. In September 2025, 22 new secondary-aged pupils will start attending the school. To accommodate them, the existing facilities are being extended to provide enough space until the permanent school building in Walton-on-Thames completes in Spring 2026.

An officer named James, whose role was not specified, drew attention to the financial implications outlined in the report, emphasising that the Capital Programme Panel had endorsed the financial business case. He stated that the cost containment demonstrated through this project is significantly higher than the cost of borrowing over that period, and that the payback period of five years demonstrates value for money.

Councillor Curran thanked officers for the comprehensive paper and noted that the school's permanent facilities have been procured through the Southern Construction Framework and are under construction by Willmott Dixon. She also mentioned a recent steel signing ceremony on site, attended by pupils from Hope's Court.

Councillor Curran stated that investing in this capital project for Hope's Court School will generate a positive impact for the children who attend the school and for the council in financial terms. She reassured parents that Hope's Court School will continue to operate in 2026, and confirmed that the existing facilities at West Molesey are being extended to accommodate the 22 new pupils starting in September 2025.

Cabinet - Tuesday 22 April 2025

The Surrey County Council Cabinet met on 22 April and approved the Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2025-2035, the sale of the former Chalk Pit Depot in Great Bookham ³, and a reimbursement to Waverley Borough Council for additional council tax raised through changes to the empty home policy. The cabinet also received a report from Councillor Kevin Deanus, Cabinet Member for Fire and Rescue, and Resilience, and noted the financial report for February 2025.

The Cabinet approved the adoption of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) 2025-2035⁴, a statutory document that must be reviewed every 10 years. Councillor Marisa Heath, Cabinet Member for Environment, explained that the plan sets out how the council will protect, maintain and enhance public rights of way over the next 10 years.

The plan considers the current and future needs of users, access for blind or partially sighted people, and those with mobility issues. It aligns with the council’s community vision for 2030, including health and wellbeing, climate change, the local nature recovery strategy, local transport plans, local cycling and walking plans (LCWIPs), and the Vision Zero road safety strategy.

Councillor Heath highlighted that the council received 4,300 responses from an online survey, which she said was one of the highest responses they had ever had for a consultation.

The plan is structured around four themes: Public rights of way for everyone, Maintaining and protecting the network, Future Surrey, and Communications and partnerships.

Councillor Jonathan Hulley, Deputy Cabinet Member for Strategic Highways, welcomed the report and recognised the importance of enforcement against illegal obstructions. Councillor David Lewis, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, raised the issue of differentiation between footpaths and bridleways and the need for clear signage.

Councillor Tim Oliver OBE, Leader of the Council, emphasised the importance of access to green space for health and wellbeing, and suggested that community boards could play a role in protecting and enhancing rights of way.

The Cabinet agreed to delegate decisions on the delivery of the plan to the Executive Director for Environment, Property and Growth, in consultation with the Director of Environment and the Cabinet Member for Environment, through annual implementation plans and performance indicators.

The Cabinet approved the disposal of the former Chalk Pit Depot in Great Bookham. Councillor Natalie Bramhall, Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure, explained that the depot is no longer required for operational requirements and has been allocated for seven units in the Mole Valley Local Plan.

Councillor Mary Huggins, Divisional Member for Bookham and Fetcham West, said that the site had been derelict for 25 years and that its redevelopment would be welcomed.

The Cabinet agreed to declare the asset surplus to operational requirements, approve the sale of the depot, and delegate authority to the Executive Director for Environment, Property and Growth, with the Director of Land and Property, and the Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure, to finalise the transaction.

Councillor Lewis presented the financial report for February 2025. At the end of February, the council was forecasting an overspend of £15.6 million against the revenue budget, which was an improvement of £1 million on the previous month.

The overspend was primarily in adults, children's, and place directorates. Councillor Lewis noted that the majority of the children's overspend was in home to school transport assistance, but that this overspend had reduced by £1.5 million during the year.

The capital budget was forecasting an underspend of just over £14 million, due to underspending in land and property, infrastructure, and IT.

The Cabinet approved a proposal to transfer £10.66 million of funding from the capital pipeline to enable the maintenance of waste infrastructure. Councillor Lewis explained that Surrey County Council is the statutory waste disposal authority and is responsible for the transfer, treatment and disposal of all household waste.

The Cabinet also approved a reimbursement of £623,000 to Waverley Borough Council for the council's share of the additional council tax raised in 2023 as a result of implementing changes to the empty home policy.

Councillor Deanus presented his monthly report. He noted that Surrey Fire and Rescue Service had improved their safe and well visits by 66% over the past two years, with over 84% of these delivered to the most vulnerable residents. Operational crews delivered 777 operational risk visits, exceeding their target, and business safety teams completed 1,650 fire safety audits.

Councillor Deanus also highlighted the rollout of the HAAS Alert system, which uses real-time data from emergency vehicles to provide alerts to civilian drivers. He noted that there had been a £7 million investment in the fire service fleet, introducing nine new appliances.

Councillor Sinead Mooney, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, asked how the fire service defined the most vulnerable resident, and Councillor Deanus responded that it was done in partnership with adult social care and other voluntary and statutory organisations.

Councillor Heath praised the work of the Trading Standards Service and asked whether they were still sending out stats on their achievements. Councillor Deanus said that he would check that the comms were going out to the right people.

Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure Decisions - Tuesday 22 April 2025

This meeting of the Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure Decisions concerned the disposal of a property in East Horsley ⁵. Councillor Natalie Bramhall, Cabinet Member for Property, Waste and Infrastructure, approved the sale of 30 St Martins Close, East Horsley, Leatherhead, KT24 6SU, declared it surplus to operational requirements, and delegated authority to the Executive Director for Environment, Property, and Growth, Simon Crowther, and the Director of Land and Property to finalise the transaction.

The main item under consideration was the disposal of 30 St Martins Close, East Horsley, Leatherhead, KT24 6SU. The report sought Councillor Bramhall's approval for the freehold disposal of the property following an open market campaign.

Key aspects of the disposal included:

• Property Details: The property is a three-bedroom terraced house [^6] that was transferred to Halsey Garton Residential Ltd (HGR) under a 40-year lease in August 2020. It became vacant on 13 January 2025. [^6]: A brochure for the property is available. Part 1 Appendix 1 - Brochure - 30 St Martins Close
• Marketing and Bids: The property was marketed by Curchods, a residential marketing agency. The report indicates that Curchods recommended the highest offer based on the status and financial terms of the bidder, as detailed in a Part 2 report (not public).
• HGR Involvement: HGR holds a 40-year lease on the property, expiring in August 2060, at a peppercorn rent[^7]. As part of the disposal, HGR will surrender its leasehold interest, receiving a premium from the gross capital receipt of the sale. The HGR Board requested that the property be handed back to the council and sold. [^7]: A peppercorn rent is a nominal rent, often used to maintain a legal agreement.
• Financial Implications: The disposal is subject to standard costs of sale, including legal and agency fees, estimated at approximately 2% of the sale value.

The reasons for the recommendations included: Terms have been agreed to sell the freehold interest to the party, and at the price, noted in the part 2 report, and the Council has no operational requirements for the property.

The report also detailed several consultations that had taken place: HGR Board, Shareholder Investment Panel, and Property Panel.

The report also noted several risks and their mitigations: Purchaser withdraws from the purchase, Void costs, Mortgage-ability and funding, Net Zero Carbon targets, and Survey.

Planning and Regulatory Committee - Wednesday 23 April 2025

The Planning and Regulatory Committee of Surrey Council were scheduled to meet on 23 April 2025 to discuss a planning application relating to Land at Merrist Wood Golf Club, and to confirm the minutes of meetings held earlier in the year. The meeting was also scheduled to include petitions, public question time, and members' question time.

Here are the details of the topics that were included in the report pack for discussion:

The committee were scheduled to consider a planning application, reference GU/24/CON/00011, for Land at Merrist Wood Golf Club, Holly Lane, Worplesdon, Surrey, GU3 3PB. VV Contractors Ltd, formerly known as Lavershots Oaks Limited, have applied for permission for:

The importation and deposit of inert materials and soils on 55 hectares of land to construct and remodel the existing golf course, with associated water features and the creation of heathland and wetland habitat.

The planning report notes that the application site is in the metropolitan green belt, where such a development is considered inappropriate.

The application seeks to import 369,038 cubic metres of inert waste material, alongside 58,753 cubic metres of site derived soils to remodel the existing golf course. The proposed works include: Repositioning, reprofiling and enlarging all 18 fairways and greens, Increasing the number, size and height of tees, Increasing the size of putting greens, Reprofiling the practice range outfield, Erecting bunding along the southern boundary, Constructing an above ground storage lagoon along part of the northern boundary, Constructing a new water body in the south-east of the site, Extending two existing water bodies in the central area of the site, Installation of a range of pumps, pipes and drains to facilitate rainwater harvesting and irrigation, and Constructing mounding in various locations across the Golf Course and practice range outfield.

The applicant has stated that the purpose of the development is to rebrand the golf course to a high quality facility, address the deterioration of the course, and address design defects.

The report pack included a summary of the responses received from statutory and non-statutory consultees. Guildford Borough Council raised concerns regarding control over the development during the two-year period, given the proximity to residential properties. The County Ecologist said that the survey data provided was outdated, and that further information was required regarding protected species and habitat details. The County Highway Authority said that further information was required to assess the impact of the proposal on the site access junction with Holly Lane. The Environment Agency objected to the scheme on two matters, flood risk and impact on fisheries and biodiversity. Natural England said that further information was required regarding the soils on site, as there appeared to have been a large area of grade 3a soil⁶.

The report pack also included a summary of the publicity undertaken and key issues raised by the public. A total of 109 letters of representation had been received, comprising 107 objections and two letters of support. The concerns raised predominately related to the number of HGV movements generated by the proposal, and flood risk following increased flooding experienced in the area.

The Planning Development Manager recommended that the application should be refused for the reasons set out in the report. These included that the proposal was considered inappropriate development in the Green Belt, that it had not been demonstrated that there was a need for the development, and that insufficient information had been provided to allow an assessment of the likely impact of the development in terms of vehicle movements.

The committee were scheduled to confirm the minutes of the meetings held on 26 February 2025 and 26 March 2025.

The Minutes Public Pack 26022025 Planning and Regulatory Committeehttps://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/documents/s102217/Minutes+Public+Pack+26022025+Planning+and+Regulatory+Committee.pdf show that the committee: Approved the minutes of the previous meeting, Heard and responded to five supplementary public questions, all relating to the Horse Hill site, and Considered two applications relating to land at Queen Mary Quarry, and land at Manor Farm, Laleham.

The Minutes Public Pack 26032025 Planning and Regulatory Committeehttps://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/documents/s102218/Minutes+Public+Pack+26032025+Planning+and+Regulatory+Committee.pdf show that the committee: Acknowledged that, due to a technical issue, the minutes from the previous meeting were omitted from the published agenda, and agreed that the minutes would be carried over for approval at the next meeting, Heard and responded to two supplementary public questions, one relating to Horse Hill, and one relating to Brockham Wellsite, Heard and responded to one member question relating to Brockham Wellsite, Considered an application relating to Brockham Wellsite, and Withdrew two proposals relating to Weydon Academy.

Surrey Police and Crime Panel - Thursday 24 April 2025

The Surrey Police and Crime Panel met to discuss the Surrey Police Group's financial performance, police complaints, misconduct, vetting, and workforce planning. The panel noted the reports and discussed concerns around timeliness of complaint handling, officer numbers, and wellbeing. The panel also received updates on antisocial behaviour, shoplifting, and commercial theft.

The panel received a report ⁷ on the oversight of police complaints, vetting and police misconduct, which described how the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) fulfils their obligations, as well as further work undertaken by the Commissioner’s Office to scrutinise police vetting and the handling of police misconduct cases.

Salish, the Commissioner's Complaints Lead, explained that the performance of the Professional Standards Department (PSD) is monitored monthly, with regular meetings to discuss trends and areas of concern. The Commissioner's Office also attends joint quarterly meetings with the Independent Office of Police Contact (IOPC) and PSD.

The panel heard that there had been an 11.3% increase in complaints, a national problem that is thought to be down to the accessible way that complaints can now be made. However, this increase in demand has led to an increase in timeliness, which is a concern.

Councillor Smith raised concerns that the report could be seen as dismissive of the possibility that there are more underlying issues to be complained about, rather than just over-recording. Salish responded that Surrey Police are very ethical when they record complaints, and that they record everything that the complainant wants recorded.

The Commissioner added that it is important to take all complaints as genuine, even if they may seem trivial. She also noted that the category of police complaints is incredibly broad, and that many of the complaints received are about communication or lack of.

Councillor Wilson asked what data was being relied on to conclude that accessibility has led to the increase in complaints. Salish responded that a number of factors cause an increase in complaints, including that more people want to complain, and that they know that they can complain more easily. He also noted that the administration team within the PSD are very thorough and they go through everything meticulously to make a report and record it as a formal complaint.

The Commissioner added that when an event happens that's quite big in Surrey, particularly if it gets national coverage, it can lead to a real spike in complaints from people who have no particular connection to the event.

Councillor O'Leary asked what common reasons or themes emerge from the timeless reviews where delays of the completion were found to be disproportionate and not have a reasonable cause. Salish responded that sometimes a complaint can be delayed when it's placed in what they call subjudice⁸, and that the court case would always take precedence over a complaint investigation. He also noted that there have been a couple of occasions where there's been unexplained delay, and gave examples of cases where there had been delays of several months.

Ms Sherriff asked what insights have been produced from the analysis of the data from contacts by members of the public. Salish responded that 28% of contact is in relation to complaints about Surrey Police, 22% relates to members of the public wanting to make a report, but they're making it to the OPCC rather than Surrey Police, and that there are also a number of general inquiries and contacts about antisocial behaviour.

Councillor Wilson asked how Surrey Police are working to improve its responses to police perpetrating abuse in light of the super complaint on the matter submitted by the Centre for Women's Justice in 2019. Salish responded that the force has done a tremendous amount of work in this regard, and that it feels number one of the police and crime plan for the Commissioner. He noted the fantastic relationship that the force has with the outreach services who come in and provide that critical advice, that critical support service to victims of domestic abuse. He also noted that the force have been really proactive in identifying those officers and bringing them up in front of misconduct hearings.

Councillor Chen asked what Surrey Police are doing to ensure that it's going to be able to align with the changes to the police abetting an accountability system which will be announced by the government. Salish responded that the Surrey and Sussex Police Vetting Department have adopted in totality the new vetting APP⁹, and that their threshold for approving vetting is much better now than it's ever been before. He also noted that there have been more dismissals than ever before, because the standard and the threshold has changed dramatically because of what we have been seeing in the delineating inquiry, the Baroness Casey review, and the Sarah Avraib author of what's happened in the Met.

Councillor Smith asked about the outcomes in the table on page 15 of the report, noting that only two allegations were not proven, and that 90% of cases resulted in some sort of sanction. He asked if this meant that proceedings are only started when the misconduct is so obvious or serious as to make it a no-brainer, and therefore maybe less serious but still important situations are not getting to proceedings. Salish responded that there are two different sets of proceedings, a misconduct hearing, which would deal with those cases that would warrant dismissal, and a misconduct meeting, which would deal with those breaches of professional behaviour that would not warrant dismissal.

The panel noted the report.

Kelvin Menon, Chief Finance Officer, reported a £0.9 million underspend on the revenue budget, but overspends in some areas, particularly overtime costs.

Councillor Azad asked about the most significant changes in the financial position since last month, and how it can be demonstrated that these are necessary and proportionate. Kelvin Menon responded that there hasn't been a great deal of change since last month, and that the £100,000 change is probably to do with the payroll forecasting.

Councillor Cheyne asked about the wages and salaries forecast to be overspent by £3.4 million, and what impact is expected on the overall budget and service provision, and what mitigation is in place to control this overspend. Kelvin Menon responded that £1.4 million of the overspend is due to the pay rise that was agreed after the budget was set, and has been funded by a special grant from the Home Office. He said that £2 million of the overspend is due to overtime, and that there is an overtime review group in place that is looking at what has been charged for overtime, how it can be avoided, and what can be done in shift patterns and such like to try and reduce that level of overtime.

Councillor Smith suggested a more detailed breakdown within each of the lines on the second table for what's over and what's under and what compensates, and a key for the acronyms and jargon used in the grants and income paragraph. Kelvin Menon agreed to include more numerical detail in the next report and to provide a key for the acronyms.

Councillor Kennedy's question was read out, asking about the £0.7 million transferred to a reserve for the purchase of short-life assets and that this was not budgeted for. Kelvin Menon responded that the £0.7 million was excess interest received on balances, and that it is being used to fund some of the short-life assets, such as vehicles and IT equipment.

Councillor Wilson asked why the target in head count numbers and not in full time equivalent¹⁰. Kelvin Menon responded that he doesn't set the rules for the target, and that we just have to comply with the rules as they are set.

Councillor Smith referenced the savings of £3.8 million baked into the budget and delivered, and another £1.4 million that was found. He asked how these savings were found, in what areas have the savings arisen, and whether they are one offs or are they ones that are repeatable year on year. Kelvin Menon responded that each of the number of budget areas have been looked at quite closely by the finance team, and that they have been in areas such as estates in the finance division, in IT, and local policing. He also noted a new contract for telephony and Internet that has yielded around £300,000 worth of savings.

Councillor Cheyne asked how officers who are seconded to other areas and other forces outside of Surrey are accounted for within the headcount, within the figures, and how their salaries and expenses are paid, and whether this whole secondment has any significant effect on Surrey Police Group's finances. Kelvin Menon responded that if an officer is seconded to a regional body, then that's looked after by Thames Valley Police on our behalf, and those officers stay within our headcount, but they are paid for by Thames Valley Police. He also noted that if the Metropolitan Police phone up and ask for assistance, then those officers' offices stay on Surrey Police, but then we can bill the Met at nationally approved rates for mutual aid for billing those officers.

Councillor Wilson asked about staff attrition, and whether it is at the kind of expected levels. Kelvin Menon responded that the attrition rate for police staff is higher than for police officers, and that part of that is because we can't compete with the private sector, certainly in technical roles.

Councillor Jain asked about the forecast of overtime, and whether it is possible to tell the panel what the position was versus this time last year as it relates to overtime in terms of the trends relating to reasons for overtime as well as the costs. Kelvin Menon responded that the projection for overtime between 2024 and 2025 is at the same sort of level, but that there is still a lot of overtime. He noted that a large chunk of it is in areas such as contact, where there have been a number of staffing issues, and that quite a lot of officer overtime is for firearms officers and specialist operations officers.

Councillor Jain also asked whether any options have been considered for attracting different types of demographics into the police staff roles. Kelvin Menon responded that stands are held at a number of different careers fairs for the university, for Epsom College, and all those sorts of places for school leavers, and that there is a new marketing campaign for police staff to try and stress what a good organisation it is to work for.

The panel received a Workforce Planning Update.

Councillor Cheyne asked about the PCSO attrition rate and the projected establishment, and how considerably the vacancy rate of 16% below target is, what effects this is going to have on services to residents, and are there any plans in place to correct this. It was noted that organisationally 10% is considered with intolerance, and that the force is keeping a laser-like eye on it, and monitoring it through the various boards and governance forums, and that it is improving as per the report.

Councillor O'Leary asked how the CCP board and the SRMMS consider the force attrition rates and regional trends, and what learning and actions have these recently produced. It was noted that it is extraordinarily expensive to live in Surrey, particularly on a lower salary, and that all those economic challenges make certain roles less attractive, make you look for other roles or not apply in the first place. It was also noted that there is a shifting public perceptions of the nobility of policing because of some of the horrible incidents that have happened over the last few years.

Councillor Smith asked for reassurance that the underlying causes of wellbeing concerns are also being addressed at the same time as the wellbeing strategy. It was noted that there is an update with the force at the next resource and efficiency meeting where they're looking in detail at their new wellbeing strategy, and that some of the issues outlined in the staff survey were officers not even having the right equipment, and that sometimes people just didn't know who to ask for the equipment.

Councillor O'Brien asked how the recent clarity from the Home Office on the specifics required to deliver the government's neighbourhood policing guarantee will be expected to impact upon the workforce, whether these new requirements will have any effects on other parts of the workforce, and how the release of the interest in what you call a neighbourhood. It was noted that the Home Office had a call for all PCCs and officers to talk about some of the specifics required, and that there were still some questions around it. It was also noted that the Home Office have been clear that none of this is mandatable, and that there's no extra money coming with this.

Councillor Wilson asked about the Government's announcement in March of a funding increase for rural and wildlife crime units, whether any clarity has been given on what funding will be awarded to Surrey or how this will be deployed, and how the force will work with the National Rural Crime Unit and the National Wildlife Crime Units. It was noted that Surrey and any other area has not been allocated a specific local share of the funding, and that support is being directed at the National Rural Crime Unit and the National Wildlife Crime Unit.

Councillor Jain asked whether private security companies are used by Surrey Police to assist in the enforcement of public space protection orders, how these contracts are awarded, and how they are funded. It was noted that public and space protection orders are put in place by the councils, and the force will sometimes support enforcement through PCSOs and officers, and that if there was any additional security put in place, such as a private contractor, that would be contracted through the council.

The panel received a verbal update on antisocial behaviour, shoplifting and commercial theft.

It was noted that there have been 876 more shoplifting offences charged in the last 12 months, a fourfold increase, and that the force are launching their new retail crime strategy next week.

It was also noted that the force secured just under £353,000 through the Safer Streets 5 fund, which was split between Guildford, Red Hill and Walton-Pontemps, and that the force is currently carrying out an ASB survey.

Councillor Chen raised a situation in Cobham, which got very badly reported by the press and by social media, and gave a totally wrong slant on it. She asked whether there is an area there that needs to be addressed, but also where practices have changed to make sure that where we do have shoplifting and commercial offences, the premises are actually visited, rather than just a telephone call and a crime number, perhaps, as happened in this case. It was noted that everything is assessed on a threat and harm basis, and that it won't always be appropriate for an officer to visit because a Mars bar has been stolen, but that the chief constable is absolutely clear with his officers that all reasonable lines of inquiry need to be pursued, and that includes getting that evidence at the earliest possible opportunity, and that will mean, usually, a visit.

Councillor Motion noted that the chief constable said right before him that he was going to prioritise dealing with theft from shoplifting is theft, and that he will have to wait for the data to come out in the next few days, hopefully, that will demonstrate whether that's been successful.

Councillor Smith asked whether PSPOs can work to prevent attacks on swan people with catapults and also by dogs not kept under a control, and how effectively the force communicates with relevant partners, such as the RSPCA. It was noted that PSPOs cover a broad range of issues, which are largely around ASB rather than animal cruelty, although there will, of course, be offences in that category that end up being picked up within the time space of the PSPO. It was also noted that the force has been working with the Shepparton Swan Sanctuary, and that the Commissioner wrote to the Home Secretary on behalf of one of the volunteers at the sanctuary regarding the law around catapults to try and help us better prevent some of the horrendous injuries that those volunteers are seeing in terms of injuries and deaths of wild birds and the work that the sanctuary do.

The panel noted that two complaints had been received since the last meeting, and that one will be considered an upcoming meeting to disapply the regulations.

The Commissioner stated that over the last four years there have been 69 complaints to the panel accusing her of transphobia, and that in light of the Supreme Court's ruling on women's rights last week, she hopes that the panel will now agree that insisting sex is the relevant consideration under the equalities legislation and that any attempt to deny or seek to remove someone from their job for saying so is legally incorrect, and that we can all move on from this.