This week in Surrey:

Road Safety Investment Approved Amid Petition Concerns

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth Decisions, Councillor Matt Furniss, approved a list of schemes outlined in annexes one to four of the Vision Zero Road Safety Capital Investment Programme report for delivery beginning in the financial year 2025/26. Read the full story.

• The schemes aim to reduce road casualties, tackle speeding, and make walking, scooting, and cycling to school safer.
• The investment programme includes £1 million for 20 mph speed limits, £1.2 million for road safety outside schools, and £0.4 million for rural speed limit projects.
• Decisions on investment beyond 2026/27 will be for the new local authorities to decide following the outcome of the Local Government Review.

However, the meeting also addressed a petition requesting traffic calming measures and a 20mph speed limit in Ford Road, Bisley. Dr Ayres, who presented the petition, criticised the council's previous decision to redirect HGVs from Lucas Green Road into Ford Road, arguing that the petition was about the safety and wellbeing of vulnerable road users.

The residents of Ford Road should be able to use the road to gain access to the local amenities without such fear and intimidation that they experience when confronted by coaches and HGVs at 30 miles an hour in what is fundamentally a single track highway.

Anne-Marie Hannam, Principal Traffic and Commissioning Engineer, responded that the council would like to introduce a 20mph speed limit, but that this would require traffic calming measures to be successful, and that the scheme would be included on a new programme of schemes that the council is looking for funding for in the future.

Dr Ayres raised concerns that no one from the council had visited the site to assess the level of anxiety experienced by vulnerable road users, and suggested that the council should take a road safety approach rather than a vehicle compliance approach.

Audit Committee Approves Treasury Management Report Amid Borrowing Concerns

The Audit and Governance Committee approved the Treasury Management Outturn Report for 2024/25, which summarises the council's treasury management activities and ensures compliance with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA)'s code of practice¹. Read the full story.

• The report highlighted an increase in gross borrowing of £312 million during the year, with a strategy of internal and short-term borrowing to fund new capital expenditure.
• The council remains compliant with its debt and investment limits as agreed by full Council in February.

Councillor Stephen McCormick raised concerns about the £8.8 million overspend on interest repayments and the increase in short-term borrowing. Andy Brown, Deputy Chief Executive and Executive Director - Resources, explained that the council is holding on to short-term borrowing due to interest rate forecasts suggesting rates will decrease. He also announced a member development session on 23 June about debt and reserves.

Pension Fund Audit Plan Deferred Over Fee Concerns

The Audit and Governance Committee did not approve the Surrey Pension Fund External Audit Plan for 2024/25, pending clarification of scale fees. Read the full story.

• The plan provides oversight of the external audit of the 2024/25 Surrey Pension Fund statement of accounts.
• The committee questioned why it was being asked to approve the plan with TBC figures and requested clarification on the difference between noting and approving the plan.
• It was also raised that the plan should be presented to the pension fund committee and board before coming to this committee for approval.

Councillor McCormick questioned why the committee was being asked to approve the plan with TBC figures and requested clarification on the difference between noting and approving the plan.

Other Matters

• The Audit and Governance Committee noted the proposed changes to the council’s financial regulations and commended them to the council for approval and inclusion in the constitution. Read the full story. Councillor McCormick raised concerns about the recommendation being to note the changes rather than approve them and questioned who had been involved in putting the changes together.
• The Audit and Governance Committee noted the Internal Audit Annual Report and Opinion for 2024/25, which provides an opinion on the adequacy of Surrey County Council's control environment. Read the full story. Councillor McCormick raised questions about section 106 payments and the single view of a child lift follow-up.
• The Audit and Governance Committee noted the Counter Fraud Annual Report for 2024/25, which covered counter-fraud work completed in the year from 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025. Read the full story. Councillor McCormick asked about council tax single person allowance and empty property activity.
• The Audit and Governance Committee reviewed and commented on its annual report for 2024/25, commending it to July's council meeting. Read the full story.
• The Audit and Governance Committee reviewed progress against previously agreed actions related to the effectiveness self-assessment and highlighted further areas for development. Read the full story.

Upcoming Meetings

• The Buckinghamshire Council and Surrey County Council Joint Trading Standards Service Committee will meet on Monday 09 June 2025 to discuss the joint service budget, the Official Food Standards and Feed Controls Service Plan, vapes enforcement, service performance, and the trading standards enforcement policy. View the agenda.
• The Strategic Investment Board will meet on Monday 16 June 2025. View the agenda.
• The Health and Wellbeing Board will meet on Wednesday 18 June 2025. View the agenda.
• The Surrey Police and Crime Panel will meet on Thursday 19 June 2025. View the agenda.

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.