- and a very nice feast it was, for which I have as before to thank you, the tax-payers. I am referring, of course, to the ‘Surrey County Council AGM Luncheon’ after Full Council, with poached salmon, fresh strawberries with peppered crème fraiche, and a ‘local Surrey cheeseboard’. It was served formally in the Ashcombe room rather than the so-called  ‘mess’, which in any case at present is being used as a staff restaurant since the normal restaurant was flooded some weeks ago.

I’m glad to say, though, that your hospitality is being much less tested than in my early years as a County Councillor. Alcoholic drinks are no longer served during working hours, so where in the past we enjoyed a sequence of wines, now we had a very pleasant fruit drink. Also, this level of service and fancy food is no longer a frequent occurrence – lunches after Full Council take place in the Ashcombe, but with a limited menu and  served buffet style.

Back from battle

Yesterday’s first full meeting of Surrey County council yesterday at the start of the ‘civic year’ was less than a week after elections to a number of Borough and District councils. Every politically active County Councillor was under pressure to get out there campaigning with local party members. A number of ‘two hatters’ were fighting Borough or District seats themselves. (Combining the roles of ward Councillor and County Councillor comes close to a full time job, but some people, mainly energetic retirees, manage it.)

Here comes the chopper …

In Woking a third of Woking Borough Council seats are ‘up’ each year for three years, but next year there are ‘all up’ County Council elections, when everyone who wants to go on being a County Councillor has to fight for their seat.

This makes a difference to the pace of and tone of political business. The party in power will be focused on achievements and good news stories, while in the opposition we find ourselves increasingly focusing on evidence of failure and lost opportunities.

Tories Muster the troops

The Annual Meeting is when Committee places are allocated, along with positions such as Committee Chairs and Vice Chairs (generally helped along with additional responsibility allowances.) Places on Select Committees have to be allocated proportionally to the strength of political parties, but positions of responsibility do not. At one time opposition members held some of these positions, but the current administration has kept them exclusively for the Conservatives, and this year is no exception. This power of patronage is a powerful tool in developing political skills and rewarding loyalty in ‘back-bench’ Conservatives.

Not surprisingly the Chairmanship of the Council is always held by a Conservative. Lavinia Sealy was reappointed this year, even though the Conservative Leader, in nominating her, commented (to laughter from his own side) that ‘she even likes putting her own ideas to the administration’.

I have a great deal of respect for Lavinia’s sincerity, intelligence, and benevolence, but unfortunately she is also what I would think of as an archetypal Surrey Conservative. Her summary of ‘what was important in the last year’ was framed around royal visits, from the major royals downward; ‘as always, we had the Duke of Kent coming to an enormous number of things.’

The Leader Makes for the Moral High Ground

After Lavinia had spoken for a long time, we got David Hodge’s statement as Leader, setting out his stall for the coming year. I cannot fault his ambition in terms of wanting his Administration ‘to champion the disadvantaged’. He ‘believe[s] strongly we must fulfill our responsibility … as corporate parents’ in looking after children in care.  He announced ‘additional investment of 2 million every year to 2017 for joint work [with partner organisations] … to support the disabled and elderly’ taking in particularly such problems as dementia and people mental health difficulties, and also the damage done by domestic abuse. He spoke of a ‘duty to residents never to sweep these issues under the carpet …’

Fine words …

… but getting the butter onto the parsnips may be more of a problem, especially with the horrendous muddle and pain about to be inflicted by government ‘welfare’ reforms – see my post on the effect in Surrey here.

• Chris tries to face up to a leap-year hang-over
• Poppy and Lucian fail to do her homework
• Hugo goes to find out Zac’s intentions towards Hugo’s boat and daughter
• A visit to Leonie shows Janice set to add injury to insult

Read more in  ThirteenMarch

.

Like it or loathe it, there are going to be a number of bicycle races and Olympics-linked events bringing both spectacle and inconvenient road closures to Surrey streets this summer.

 June:  The Tour Series

 The Tour Series – or the Halfords Tour Series, or the Johnson Tech tour series, if you’re willing to name the sponsors – comes back to Woking for the fourth year on Tuesday the 15^th of June.

 The circuit will be the same as last year, using  part of Victoria Way, Guildford Road, Church Street West and Goldsworth Road. These will be closed from 10.00 o’clock in the morning to midnight. Driving in from Goldsworth Park on Lockfield Drive and along Victoria Way towards the main entrance to the Peacocks car park will be possible all day, but traffic that otherwise would go out of Woking through Victoria Arch will be diverted down Parley Drive and Triggs Lane.

 The women’s teams will race at 5.00 pm, the men’s at 7.00pm, and the awards ceremony will be at 8.30.

 In the afternoon, before the professional races, the track will be used for ‘Community’ races: a race for teams from schools, another open to any (amateur) team of four, selected either in qualifying heats on machines in Wolsey Place on the 15^th and 19^th of May, or by ballot. There’ll also be a ‘free wheel’ event allowing anyone to ride around the course – but on a first come, first serve basis, with details becoming available in May.  

 Television coverage will be the next day on ITV4 from 8pm.

 July and August

 The Olympic Torch Procession comes to Surrey on the 10^th, 17^th and 20^th of July. It doesn’t go through Woking, but on the 20^th it will end the day at Stoke Park in Guildford for a ‘night of celebration’.

 There are supposed to be ‘rolling’ road closures that the procession will get through in about 15 minutes so that the road can be re-opened. However there’s no way of knowing how many or few people will turn out to try to see it go by, and what effect that will have.

 The next time to look out for Surrey road closure chaos deliberately created for sport purposes will be the 28^th and 29^th of July, with first the men’s and then the women’s Olympic Cycling Road Races looping round Surrey from Hampton Court through West Byfleet, Gomshall, Dorking, around Box Hill (9 laps for the chaps, two for the girls, and back through Esher.

 On Wednesday the first of August time trials will come into Surrey at Elmbridge.

 Roads will be closed early in the morning, and cars are liable to be removed from midnight the day before.

 The Woking Local Committee of Surrey County Council was told at the end of March there has been liaison with health and emergency services, and we had a verbal assurance that if there were an emergency requiring it the race would be halted.

For the organisers deliberate disruption is a nightmare scenario, made less unthinkable by events at the Boat Race this year. The other worrying question is, what happens if the M25 suffers a  blockage because of an accident while the A25 is closed for the race?

 Olympic rah-rah

 ‘Visitors coming to Surrey during the Games period, will be welcomed by colourful and spectacular flags, banners and bunting that has official Olympic branding. Tourists will be in no doubt that they are visiting a county that is hosting the Olympic Games.’

 Don’t ask me how much we’re going to be paying for that from taxes – the £300,000 the Government Olympic Executive has given SCC for ‘dressing the county during Games time … [to be] branded with Olympic livery’ will be a small portion of the costs to the public sector overall. LOCOG is giving £25,000 to every nation training at an approved venue.

 I’m sure we’ll put questions about money to Council after the event, but at the moment all we’re likely to get is the story of how much good the Olympics will do Surrey businesses. One example is that the teams from Guatemala, UAE, Slovenia, Malta, Philippines, and Bangladesh will be training wholly or partly in Woking, using Bisley.

 When you think it’s all over …

 Surrey has managed to ‘capture’ the last stage of yet another cycle race, the ‘Tour of Britain.’ This will be on Sunday 16^th of September, after starting in Suffolk the previous Sunday. The Surrey leg will start in Reigate and end in ‘on the cobble stones of Guildford’s steep High Street.’ To get there it will do two loops around the Surrey countryside, at one point coming up towards Woking, going through Mayford and Send.

 The press release issued by the Surrey Cabinet Member responsible says ‘this could boost our local economy by up to £5.5 million.’ Note the ‘could’ and the ‘up to’.

 This is recent news, so I don’t know what it will mean in terms of road closures and general inconvenience.

 Am I being unduly sour?

I don’t know – the cost/added business argument is very difficult to weight up. My feeling it that is depends on how much people living in Surrey enjoy these events; for example, if lots of people get a thrill from seeing the Olympic torch go by, that will be a big justification for the difficulty and expense involved.

What do you think?

Surrey CC press release about Tour of Britain here

Olympic Progress Report to Woking Local Committee here

• Poppy gets a Valentine card she doesn’t want
• Lucy goes out for the first time ever
• Chris gets closer to Celine
• Hugo helps Sarah with her nomination forms, while Janice gets nasty

Read more in ThirteenFebruary

.

I’ve been made well aware over a number of years that the bollards acting as a ‘bus gate’ in Knaphill are a source of great frustration and aggravation for people living in the roads on the Brookwood Hospital estate close to Knaphill Village.

Frustration, because an easy route for cars into the village and onto the road into Woking is – in theory – blocked.

Aggravation, because for substantial periods of time the bollards have been out of action, left in a down position. The way through is then still illegal and potentially dangerous but it’s also very tempting, and some drivers seem to be using it with impunity.

Some history

When the Local Committee looked at this some years ago, consultation showed two to one people in favour of removing the bollards and letting traffic through. I gather a poll on the Knaphill Residents Association website recently showed a similar result.

We were forced to accept two ‘killer’ arguments against this:

a)      the initial planning constraints set by Woking Borough Council requiring the bus gate to be retained.

b)      The physical difficulty and cost of making the exit onto the Broadway safe for all traffic.

 So what’s going on with those bollards?

 I have just got the answer to my written question at the recent Local Committee about this. It falls into several parts:

 Me:   ‘For what proportion of time during the last three years has the bus gate between Redding Way and the Broadway in Knaphill been fully operational?’

Answer: ‘The bus gate was fully operational for approximately 21 months in total, (down for approx 15 months)’

Me:   ‘What are the main causes for the bus gate having failed?’

Answer: ‘The causes for the bus gate having failed are mostly due to bus driver behaviour (causing fail-safe default, or damage), some due to other driver behaviour (illegal), and some vandalism, as set out below:

 ·            Bollards stuck down due to tail-gating vehicles, or buses not waiting for the Green signal which indicates that bollards are fully retracted – 5 reports.  All attended and resolved same day.

·            Bollards damaged by bus striking them when not waiting for the Green signal which indicates that bollards are fully retracted – 2 reports.  These were attended for the first assessment visit on the same day by our maintenance contractor (Motus Traffic Ltd), but final repairs completed 2 – 3 months later by the specialist contractor (ATG Controls).   

·            Bollards damaged by vandalism – 2 reports.  One of these was completely repaired in approx 2 months by ATG.  The other has just been repaired (Tuesday 27 March).

·            Bollards failed due to “routine maintenance faults” (such as worn parts etc) – 3 reports.  Two of these were repaired the same day and the other one was within approx 2 weeks.’

 Me:  ‘What measures can be taken to improve the situation, and if these measures are not currently in hand, what would be necessary to allow them to be taken?’

 Answer: ‘The ideal solution for quicker repairs would be a direct maintenance contract or Service Level Agreement with ATG, the specialist contractors (or manufacturers).  This would require extra funding, plus there would be some legalities to be resolved for this (ref Contract law).  In addition to this, based on “prevention is better than cure”, it would be great if there were some way of changing driver behaviour (especially bus drivers).  Training is already given to bus drivers by colleagues in Passenger Transport. Temporary CCTV monitoring could be an option to consider in the future.

What ‘next steps’ I can achieve from here I’m not currently sure – I already knew some of these answers, though others were a surprise – but clearly this has to be an ongoing battle. The explanations sound honest, but the situation is far from satisfactory.

The change in the way  youth services are provided means there’s £17,000 up for grabs in Woking as small grants – £500 to £1,000 or exceptionally up to £5,000 for activities that will benefit young people, but especially those at risk of dropping out or getting involved in anti-social behaviour. But since about one in ten of young people are in the categories that will put them most at risk, there aren’t many positive and inclusive activities that won’t count. 

This £17,000 is for Woking – other boroughs have their own separate funds.

This is the first year of the scheme, so not many people know the grants are available. If you or someone you know would be helped to run something good for young people in Woking with that sort of money, check out the information on the SCC website here .

Unlike the Member’s Allocation, these grants can as easily be for activities as for providing equipment etc, and so far as I can see they’re not ‘seedcorn’ money, in that there’s no assumption that the same organisations can’t come back another year to ask for a repeat sum for the same purpose.

Cllrs Bountiful?

This is just one of a proliferation of small funds that County Councillors are becoming involved with administering in the name of ‘localism’. I don’t think we always get it right, and quite often it leads to disproportionate amount of work when you take into account the hours put in by charities and voluntary organisations on unsuccessful bids.

But in this case the money is there, the application date is short, it has to be spent in the financial year starting right now, and ideally allocated in the next few months. If you can use it, go for it!

When I was first elected as a County Councillor in 2004, one of the local problems I wanted to see tackled was the difficulty of crossing Lockfield Drive as a pedestrian to go from Goldsworth Park to Knaphill or St Johns, and specifically from Denton Way to walk up Amstel Way. Changes to the kerbs now being made go back to that time.

In the middle of the day Lockfield Drive may not seem much of a barrier, but on dark winter mornings the speed and unpredictable flow of traffic can make it a nightmare to cross for the secondary school children, some as young as eleven, who walk up to the Winston Churchill school. This had been a challenge for my own children, and there had been a letter campaign in the GPCE News.

A light-controlled crossing was the obvious ‘ask’, but where should it go? Money was found for a survey to work out where the children actually crossed. The result gave a surprisingly picture: they used a number of points on Lockfield Drive between Denton Way and Clifton Road, as well as the obvious crossing point on the Woking side of the roundabout.

In October 2007 a plan to narrow the carriageway to make the distances to the pedestrian islands shorter and decrease the speed of traffic coming onto and off the roundabout went to the Woking Local Committee. It was approved and the design work done, but got put on a long list to wait for funding.

Then Surrey County Council went through a series of reorganisations and cuts. In one year there was no money at all for local schemes. We did get the controlled crossing further up Lockfield Drive near Kirkland Avenue where a significant number of people – again including school children – needed to cross; and then the crossings at Kirkland Avenue and the Waitrose end of Denton Way, but Amstel Way came out relatively low in priority.

The chance has now been taken to make these improvements. There was £25,000 of this year’s ‘Integrated Transport’ (ITS) money available to be spent in this financial year and nothing else of that size with greater priority ready to go. (The crossing planned near Sythwood school should also be built, but costs three times as much and has hit design problems.)

If remodeling the kerbs works as well as the designers hope, the same approach to making easier crossing point for pedestrians will be taken at the Hermitage Road roundabout with Redding Way and the Lower Guildford Road, again helping children and parents going to local schools – this has been an increasing problem with the development of the Brookwood Hospital estate, and I’m told there’s even more scope there with the larger roundabout to make it genuinely safer for people crossing its arms.

…

At Wednesday’s Children and Families Committee there was a paper titled ‘Supporting children and families through welfare reform’. It anticipated how the Welfare Reform Bill will affect people in Surrey. You can find it here.

The Officers who write these papers can’t express political opinions, but what they did write is strong stuff.

What the proposed changes will mean to Surrey families

Appendix 2 (here) summarises the changes. The quotations below are tasters only

Universal Credit:

… initial consensus that the key objective of Universal Credit, (making work pay), makes sense is beginning to break down as more detail has emerged, particularly in respect of childcare costs.

… the design and delivery systems for Universal Credit are likely to pose major challenges for a lot of Surrey people (and children) who use services eg monthly payments as the normal payment will not help people to budget and the expectation that all claims should be online will require substantial local support for those without internet access and/or skills.

Punishing claimants who don’t get it right:

Job Seekers Allowance ‘job seeking contracts’ to be replaced by more one-sided ‘claimant commitment’ with non-negotiable conditions that take no account of the individual’s circumstances, education, health problems and job availability. … The majority of research (including Department of Work and Pension’s own evidence) suggests sanctions don’t work but cause additional hardship (and ‘punish’ unintended ‘victims’ i.e. children). Given the chaotic and troubled lives of many of our service-users, they will clearly be most at risk from the new proposals and place additional demands on the County Council eg young people, drug and alcohol users and people with mental health problems.

New £50 minimum “civil penalty” where claimants fail to disclose … penalty also impacts on appointees: Surrey County Council staff failing to report moves into care or hospital (which happens frequently) could directly increase service user debt.

The new ‘Social Fund’

Local authorities are being given the responsibility to run a non-statutory, unaccountable local emergency scheme that replaces a national benefits safety net currently subject to regulations, guidance and a two-tier ‘appeal’ process subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.

Child Maintenance

Parents with caring responsibilities will have to pay £100 to access the proposed new statutory maintenance system plus up to 12% of any money raised by the collection service … unfair impact on women. Many may settle for private arrangements instead, which may be much less than they would have received through the child maintenance systems … automatically disadvantage low income and more vulnerable parents … most children and young people in poverty live in a lone parent household. In Surrey this equates to 72% of all 0-19 year olds in poverty, around 16,000 children and young people… may act as a disincentive to leave violent/abusive relationships.

From the introduction to the paper:

Those most affected include groups towards whom many County Council services are already targeted, for example: people with disabilities; children in poverty; care leavers; and people in troubled or chaotic situations such as those fleeing domestic abuse; people with mental health difficulties, or those with substance abuse problems …

Some of the impacts highlighted:

Housing benefit caps and changes to entitlements relating to size of accommodation could mean … a risk of children becoming looked-after due to homelessness. There may be significant ‘churn’ in school admissions and potential disruption to children’s educational attainment if families need to move … due to unaffordable housing.

There will be reduced payments to disabled people, both in work and out of work, and to disabled children and young people. Analysis by Every Disabled Child Matters shows a family with one disabled child will lose up to £1,400 per annum.

The equalities implications laid out clearly:

The complexity of the welfare benefits system makes it difficult to quantify the financial impacts of the reforms for Surrey families. There will be negative impacts for some, particularly those in already vulnerable groups towards whom many County Council services are targeted. Those most affected will include people with disabilities; children in poverty; care leavers over 22; and people in troubled or chaotic situations such as those who are fleeing domestic abuse; people with mental health difficulties, or those with substance abuse problems. Children from many of these same groups are more likely to be in poverty and less likely to have positive outcomes in terms of their health, education and socially (Families in Poverty Needs Assessment, 2011). Although it does not follow that a reduction in benefits will automatically lead to poorer outcomes for these children, there is a clear correlation between poverty and poor outcomes. Surrey’s Families in Poverty Strategy sets out measures to be delivered jointly with partners that are intended to ensure a coordinated local approach to tackling family poverty and its effects.

As Caroline Budden, the Head of Childrens Social Services said, ‘the risk is that [the] local authority will end up stepping in and picking up the bill because of our statutory responsibilities’. She wasn’t talking about paying household bills (not SCC’s responsibility) but the considerable costs of picking up the piece when a family falls apart and children may need to be taken into care.

Other verbal Officer comment:

‘[it is true that] change will create a simpler system … net impact in most families that there will be less benefit … [front line workers need to be] helping the family understand what is happening to them … a lot of people who are experts this week will not be experts next week as the changes move in.’

‘Benefits maximisation should be at the heart of all we do, as with equalities act … should be second nature … needs to be some sort of strategic overlay that brings it home to the staff at the front line.’

None of the Committee opposed the basic principles of the Bill – not surprising given both the deeply Conservative character of party politics of Surrey County Council,  and our limited role as a scrutiny committee. The key political point was made by Mary Angel, the Cabinet member, who said: ‘I think what the Government is doing is trying to reduce the benefits bill.’

‘

There are two hundred more children in Woking whose parents have asked for places in reception this autumn than there should be room for, except that seven additional reception classes will be provided in existing schools. These are:

 Westfield

Goldsworth

St Dunstan’s

The Marist

Sythwood

St Johns

Pyrford C of E

 The plan is to permanently expand the first three schools on the list, Westfield, Goldsworth and St Dunstans; but this won’t be definite until consultation has been carried out after Easter.

 It’s hoped this will be enough – there are often changes in numbers, with children dropping out as well as new applications coming in – but if necessary a further class will be provided in one of Woking’s schools.

 School place planning is now back as an active priority for Surrey County Council, and the process is more consultative and transparent than I have known it to be in the past – hence this post!

.

… life has disrupted art … episode 6, February, will be along soon …