For most people ‘Local Politics’ equals ‘boring’.  For me, natural history programmes and football are nearly as tedious. But last night’s SCC Woking Local Committee meeting would have deserved careful elucidation by David Attenborough, while there were points I wanted to shout ‘Yeah! Goal!’  Before I get too carried away, I have to add the serious warning that much is liable to be undermined by underfunding.   A reminder in case you’re new to this game: Surrey’s Local Committee consists of the seven County Councillors for Woking matched by an equal number of Woking Borough Councillors. Its main remit is local transport, handled by the whole committee, but there are some just-Surrey bits for the County Councillors.

A lot happened last night, so I’m splitting this report into this introduction and three more postings, so that you can skip the bits you’re not interested in.

I won’t pretend to cover everything. Good stuff for Knaphill and Good stuff Goldsworth West are here in detail, and before them a piece on Transport for Woking.  

The rest: 

Councillor Philip Goldenberg got the committee to ask Surrey’s Executive not to reduce the level of funding for local transport, and to change the balance between maintenance and new road schemes so that it disadvantaged Woking less. The rest of the Committee went along with this, so long as we rubbished the Government at the same time.  

There was a paper by Trading Standards on their genuinely good work (I’ve written a column ‘in Praise of Trading Standards’ before now) which also stood as good PR for them, while arguing gently that new responsibilities olaced on them by central government meant they needed more money for additional staff.  

There was much else about Woking transport, and roads specifically, both discussed and mentioned in the reports to the Committee. But if you want full detail about other areas than Knaphill and Goldsworth West, tackle your own County Councillor or look at the Surrey web site.  (But don’t try asking Shamas Tabrez or Geoff Marlowe about new road schemes for Woking Central or The Byfleets they put forward for inclusion in the Local Transport Plan. None were submitted.)

Transport for Woking 

This will be the little brother (or sister) of the proposed ‘Transport for Surrey’. Both will be advisory bodies drawing in a range of interests: local authorities, bus and train companies, transport users and community organisations. Despite the name, neither of them will have quite the clout or cash of ‘Transport for London’.

Nevertheless it is a very good idea, because Woking is a transport and planning hub and in great need of better co-ordination and improved transport, including not just a proper bus station but an ‘all modes interchange – the development of bus station, taxi, pedestrian and cycling facilities serving the railway station.’

By far the most entertaining part of the discussion at yesterday’s Local Committee meeting was the double-act between Ray Morgan, Woking’s Chief Executive, and Iain Reeve, Head of Transport for Surrey. Ray Morgan was particularly forthcoming.  

County Councillor Andrew Crisp noted that Transport for Woking would be Officer led and not include Councillors. Ray Morgan replied ‘we want some hard-nosed, sometimes quite challenging discussion about what is possible’. After this they would give ‘information to Members to let Members make the decisions’, but ‘people behave differently when there are politicians in the room.’ Perhaps sensing that the politicians in the Council chamber would appreciate a little more involvement, Ray Morgan agreed it was ‘perfectly reasonable for this to be a standing item [on the Local Committee agenda, but] … don’t expect this to be a quick fix … I’ve yet to see Arriva arrive at a meeting, progress is sometimes a little slower than you’d like.’  

Ric Sharp, Borough Councillor for Knaphill,  picked this up by asking about the attitudes of other partners. Ray Morgan said that when he spoke to ‘representatives from SW trains and Network Rail’ and pointed out ‘opportunities to release capital’ there was a ‘considerable change of attitude’ so that ‘it’s fair to say … I’m encouraged there’s a chance of getting them there …’  And if potential partners continue unhelpful?  ‘If the County and the Borough will act as one we will be more powerful in persuading…’ 

Amen to that.

Littlewick Road

Last June Bronwyn Vine and Sue Lewis brought a petition asking for improvements to the crossing at Littlewick Road from Goldsworth Park to the group of houses which includes the Peter Pan Nursery. Although there is an official footpath, it doesn’t look like one, and drivers go down that straight stretch of road at considerable speed.

Unfortunately there’s no room for a pedestrian refuge, but it does need much clearer marking. Some signs went up, but I have been pressing for more to be done. At the Local Committee meeting I asked what the current position was, and got the following answer:

‘Although signs were installed to warn drivers of the crossing point, from a recent survey it has been noted that they are not in the most suitable location. It has also been noted that as the crossing point it not up to standard on the ‘Goldsworth Park’ side and the crossing as such is not particularly visible from a drivers perspective, dropped kerbs and reflective posts will be installed by the end of March 2008 together with the repositioning of the warning signs to better highlight this crossing facility.’

Yes! By the end of March! Three cheers for the end of the financial year! I checked with a supplementary question that the Engineer concerned had talked to Sue Lewis and sorted out the placing problem, and I hope all will now be at least much improved, even if not perfect.

Local Allocation Money 

I sponsored a bid for money to get a cooker, projector screen, and notice boards for the new Church Hall at St. Andrews.

I was also instrumental in realising that Beaufort School’s problem in having two demountable buildings that are no longer wanted might provide at least a temporary solution to Woking and Maybury Sports Club’s need for facilities. I didn’t speak on this, because I have an interest as Vice Chair of Governors at Beaufort School, but I was glad to see the necessary £39,340 allocated. The sports club might still decide to try to go for a £250,000 permanent solution straight away, but if not, this is good news for Beaufort.

Less good – Lockfield Drive 

A few months ago Country Councillors were asked to name road surfaces in their Division that especially needed attention. Lockfield Drive was one of mine. In answer to a question, I was told by the Local Highways Manager that he didn’t know yet which schemes would make it onto the list for special funding: ‘I don’t know where Lockfield drive will come – if it makes it, great, if not then [it will have to be] through regular funding.’

 (Diana Smith and Olly Wells in Beechwood Road. Olly lives on the border of St Johns and Knaphill, and is a Governor at St. Johns school, just up the road. See ‘34/35 assurance’ below)

 Lower Guildford Road

We approved the initial study for a Puffin crossing over Lower Guildford Road just below Northwood Avenue. It could not be placed any further up, because of problems with the road. A lot of people cross this road, including school children, and children going to the playground. 

Along with the crossing we’ll get a 30mph speed limit, and a number of Vehicle Activated Signs on the roads around the Hermitage Roundabout. 

One objection was a potential increase in the misuse of a small service road running past the entry to the Lansbury Estate. After this scheme was published, I went with the Local Transport Officer concerned to listen to some of the residents’ worries. Standing there for about half an hour, it was clear cars used it avoided coming out onto the lower Guildford Road before turning right into Northwood Avenue; and similarly in the other direction. Since this is part of the highway, this is ‘rat-running’ it wouldn’t usually come high in any list of priorities for road works. But the crossing may put residents in a much worse position if it means drivers can easily see they can avoid the crossing by nipping down parallel to the main road.  

So the Local Transport Office will be looking into possibilities for closing one end of the road and consulting with local residents. The report will come back to the Local Committee in June. 

Beechwood Road 

Beechwood Road is a steep and winding residential road which takes a lot of through traffic. The picture does here gives an idea, but does not show the whole picture because it was taken in the daytime and at half term, with not many parked cars and relatively low traffic. Residents have been concerned for years by the difficulty of negotiating it safely, and a worrying record of near-misses, minor incidents and damage.  This year each County

The good news is that ‘Knaphill Scheme A, Beechwood Road– Speed Reduction and accessibility improvements’ has come in with a ranking order of 25 out of 91 for cost effectiveness. It now has funding planned for an Initial Design in 2008/9. The bad news that is that construction wouldn’t be until 2010/2011, at best. But this was the highest ranked scheme of any put forward, and the only not entirely on the back burner with no dates for work. So I feel pleased. 

Scheme 2 – Barrs Lane I suggested a change of the speed limit to 30 mph by the houses and the construction of a footpath because of the clear ‘desire line’ where people actually walk down towards Mizens Railway. It was accepted as a scheme, but only came out ranked 74, which is not hopeful.  However I also suggested that such a scheme would have a pre-requisite better drainage, and also might need a controlled crossing of Anchor Hill to allow pedestrians from Goldsworth Park to reach it, not to mention that many residents would like to be able to cross lower down than the traffic lights to get to Waterer’s Park with their children, and … 

Anchor Hill – Pedestrian Crossing Facility … 

… is now at number 30 in the rankings, albeit without any proposals for when the funding would be made available for construction. We’ll need to keep gathering evidence and argument for this one.  Barrs Lane/ Anchor Hill Flooding About a year ago I put a motion to Council suggesting that flooding should be tackled much more systematically because with changes in weather patterns it is a problem affecting the whole of Surrey. At that time I was told by a senior Officer that moves to create a database of problem places for flooding in

34/35 Assurance

Olly Wells asked a formal public question about the 34 /35 bus service, which is losing its Section 106 money (popularly known locally as ‘The Sainsbury Money’ in April. We knew that there was money being assigned to section 106 replacement money in Surrey’s budget, but not that it would definitely go to maintain this service, particularly in the evenings and at weekends. Olly pretty well got this assurance in a written answer from Laurie James, Service Planning Team Manager, Transport for Surrey:

‘The supplementary funding announced in the Leader’s Budget Statement, to replace monies for bus services previously obntained through Section 106, is welcomed. Services 34 /35 are recognised as being important routes in the Woking area and have seen significant patrnage grownth since they were enhanced in 2002.’

‘At present there are no plans to fundamentally vary the level of service on routes 34/35. However, like all supported bus services, they are periodically reviewed to ensure that they continue to provide good value for money in terms of the investment being made as there will be an ongoing need to provide support to services across the county which is sustainable and within the funding allocated by the Executive.’

Olly asked a supplementary to try to get further reassurance. Laurie James (bus guru par excellence at SCC) was not present. My notes become a little unclear here, but I believe it was Iain Reeve, in charge of Transport for Surrey, who replied : ‘Supplementary funding will continue with that particular bus route for the time being’ and ‘I don’t see any particular reduction with that particular route.’

I feel this is genuinely good news, and that we have to continue to demonstrate our support for good local bus services by being very aware of any threat to them.  ‘  

 Less good bit – Raglan, Victoria, Inkerman crossroads  

Although improving this junction had a high ranking initially, the traffic engineers cannot see any effective and generally acceptable way to improve it beyond the traffic refuges and traffic calming measures already in place. So it’s now been dropped from the list. Please let me know if you feel strongly about this. 

They’ve done what we told them – a month later 

At the beginning of December County Council Officers reacted to massive planned cuts in budget for youth work with the panic cancellation of interviews and a ban on new appointments.

 I put a motion to Full Council a month ago saying that the freeze should be lifted immediately, arguing that it should never have been imposed.  The Conserbvative Executive Member responsible said it was ‘an Officer decision’, and wouldn’t accept the obvious truth that an arbitrary cut-off date leaving some areas, such as Guildford, under half staffed didn’t make sense – not to mention the considerable costs and loss of confidence you get when you cancel a recruitment round at the interview stage. And this when for years we’ve been told a reason for the appalling underuse of Youth Centres is that not enough Youth Workers can be persuaded to work in Surrey.

Looking to the future             

A delayed report on the future of the Youth Service is due to come to the Schools and Learning Committee on February the 28^th. Councillors from all the political parties have said for years that our Youth Centres are not properly used, but whichever group of Conservatives has been in charge, they’ve failed to do anything effective about it.

            Youth Development staff do great work with some of the youngsters in Surrey who need their support most. But residents are always telling us that ‘places to go and things to do’ for all young people should have a higher priority. New ways of working need to be found to let this happen. The Youth Development Service itself should be best placed to do this, so long as it is not weakened by unimaginative hard-line Tories with their unwillingness to look for genuine reform and efficiencies, rather than cuts and sell-offs.

‘Told you so’ is small consolation

            As for Vince Cable with Northern Rock, there’s a certain ‘better late than never’ satisfaction in having our proposed course of action adopted.  I hope it’s not too late to improve morale and attract the new staff who are essential part of bringing about a much-needed change for the better. 

For each section of this report there’s a summary in italics at the top. Feel free to skip to the bits that interest you.

SCC Committee meetings are not usually like yesterday’s (Tuesday 12th February).  Although for most of Surrey there is ‘no change’ , groups of parents from the Oxted and Effingham areas arrived at County Hall in coloured vests with slogans; feelings ran high.

Yesterday’s special meeting of the Schools and Learning Committee was an ‘extra’ concentrating on school admissions, and the criteria used to decide how places in most of the County’s Community and Voluntary Controlled schools are allocated.

The starting point was a set of proposals very much like last years, including an unresolved sore point around admissions to the Howard of Effingham School, and a very controversial change to the catchment area for Oxted School. (Catchment areas only exist in exceptional cases.) The Chairman used her discretion to allow parent representatives to speak, which made for a more constructive and democratic session.

Deciding how decisions are made

… is itself a long process. The committee ‘decision’ was on what to recommend to the Executive before the proposal goes to Full Council. The recommendations could be totally ignored, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

Proposals went out for consultation in November 2007. Consultation documents went to a long list of interested parties including Headteachers, Chairs of Governors and Parent Governors in Surrey’s state-supported schools. Written responses had to be in by the end of January, and the consultation process was supposed to have finished with the meeting of the Schools Admissions Forum last Friday, 8th February.

The Admissions Forum advises and recommends, then when the consultation is over, the initial proposals come back to County Hall for a decision.
This starts off with the Schools and Learning Committee, which again considers the responses and makes recommendations to go to the Executive on the 26th of February, and the final policy goes to Full Council on the 4th of March.

You might well ask what we were doing all morning when we didn’t have the power to decide anything definitely beyond what recommendations we were going to make. Sometimes it can feel futile, but the iterative nature of the process does mean that proposals can get considered and refined all the way along. It feels a bit like all trying to steer a heavy boat away from disaster and towards a reasonable destination by pushing it along.

It doesn’t help when the bureaucracy trips over a tight schedule. The central paper was e-mailed the day before, but the vital map showing he new proposed catchment area for the Howard of Effingham was tabled at the meeting, in inadequate numbers of copies for those interested, and was not easy to read.

Admission Criteria for most Surrey state schools:

Same as last year

This is the recommendation accepted by the committee:

A. All Surrey schools will operate an Equal Preference System.
B. The majority of Surrey’s Community and Voluntary Controlled schools will use the
following criteria when a school is oversubscribed:
1. Looked After Children
2. Exceptional Arrangements
3. Siblings
4. Children for whom the school is the nearest
5. Any other applicant
The tie-breaker distance measurement by straight line.

(Item 4, Officer Report. Map of Catchment Area will be on SCC web site with this paper.)

Oxted School

Catchment area will include Lingfield, Dormansland and Godstone, but with criteria tougher on siblings and children not in named feeder schools

Oxted is unusual in having a fixed catchment area. It runs up to neighbouring County borders and around Lingfield and Dormansland includes a rural area that nevertheless has a fast train link north to Oxted. The proposal that went to consultation reduced the catchment area to exclude Godstone, Dormansland, and Lingfield.

This caused significant protest in these areas. On response forms, 2232 people disagreed, while only 50 agreed. There was a protest march from Godstone to Oxted, much news coverage, and the local (Conservative) County Councillors also objected.

The compromise that has been reached is a restoration of the larger catchment area, but combined with a feeder school criterion, and with a tie-break of furthest away from the nearest alternative school.

This is the wording:

vi) In response to the consultation:
1. For Oxted School revert back to the extended catchment area to
include Godstone, Lingfield and Dormansland and give joint priority
status to those children living within the catchment area and
attending a named partner / feeder school. Phase in a change to
the sibling criterion from 2010 to ensure that local places are not
jeopardised by siblings who move into / live outside the fixed
catchment area. The September 2009 admissions criteria would
therefore be:
i) Looked after Children
ii) Exceptional arrangements
iii) Siblings
iv) Those children who both live in the catchment area and
who attend one of the following partner / feeder schools:
Dormansland, Godstone, Holland, Lingfield, St Catherine’s,
St John’s, St Mary’s, St Stephen’s, Tatsfield, Woodlea
v) Any other applicant
The tie-breaker within each criterion will be those who live furthest
from the nearest alternative school as measured by a straight line.

(Item 4, Officer Report. Map of catchment area will be on the SCC website with this paper)

The Howard of Effingham

New catchment area. Horsleys in, part of Fetcham out. Tie-breaker distance from nearest alternative school.

Last year the introduction of ‘Equal Preference’ and the standard admissions criteria led to children from East and West Horsley not getting admission to the Howard of Effingham school and being assigned schools as far away, difficult to reach by public transport, and relatively unpopular as Bishop David Brown in Woking.

They appealed to the Schools’ Adjudicator and got an in-year variation that nominated partner schools and after that used distance from the nearest alternative school as a tie-breaker.

The proposal that went to consultation would have retained this arrangement. It disadvantages children in Fetcham and Bookham who also have the Howard of Effingham as their nearest school, but are also fairly close to Therfield in Leatherhead. But Therfield is often over-subscribed, so that child might well have to travel even further to find a school.

The interests of the different communities are opposed, and as was remarked in committee it would take the wisdom of Solomon to settle this one (though no-one suggested closing the Howard of Effingham down).

The compromise proposed is a new fixed catchment area which excludes part of Fetcham. Partner schools are abandoned, but the’ furthest away from nearest alternative school’ tie-breaker is retained.

I asked about the children not within the catchment area whose nearest school was the Howard of Effingham, which would not now be a realistic option. Would entry procedures be changed so that Therfield became their ‘nearest school’?

The answer was that discussion was still taking place with the Head. As the (Conservative) Chair of the Committee said: ‘Hasn’t the consultation period finished? … [this] makes a mockery of dealing with the parents …’. But at the same time, we had to agree that negotiation should not be abandoned solely to keep to the timetable.

This was the recommendation that went forward:
For The Howard of Effingham School change the criteria as
follows:
i) Looked after Children
ii) Exceptional arrangements
iii) Siblings
iv) Applicants living within the catchment area
v) Any other applicant
The tie-breaker within each criterion will be to give priority to those
children living furthest away from their nearest alternative school as
measured by a straight line.

A quick trot through the other recommended exceptions:

The Oaktree and Hermitage Schools here in Woking to get partner/feeder status; Acorns Infant and Brockham Primary School to revert to sibling criteria which favour non-siblings for which it is the nearest school over siblings for whom it isn’t; discontinue ‘shared school status’ to Knowle Park Infant and Kingscroft Junior Schools, and Marshfields Infant and Christchurch Junior Schools.

Does anyone involved in Local Government wake up saying that? At least it means the budget setting process will soon be completed, though the pain of implementation is only just beginning.  

‘Cock ups’ 

Debate was enlivened this Tuesday by my fellow Liberal Democrat County Councillor, John Doran, who drew to the attention of the assembled Council the series of ‘cock ups’ from road management to the expenditure of millions of pounds on an aborted plan to bring County Hall back into Surrey.  Objection was made to the term ‘cock-up’ by a Conservative lady councillor approximately my contemporary (and you can see how middle-aged I am at the top of the page.) Another Conservative backbencher mistook the wood-panelled Council Chamber for parliament, and stood to berate the ‘honourable member for Horsell’. 

Just so we know, according to the Cassell Dictionary of Slang, cock up in the sense of blunder is military in origin, from “SE cock ‘to bend at an angle but with undertones of cock N2″ . Interestingly, even the rude meaning of  cock “remained in perfectly standard use until Queen Victoria’s coronation, shortly after which it joined the ranks of the taboo”

Disappointments and risks

Too many to write about at length! These were the two I picked out to talk about in the meeting:

Cuts are always called ‘efficiency savings’, even when there is small scope for increased productivity. There should be genuine scope for savings through smarter ‘procurement’. But when this is driven by the need to save money, procurement savings can all too easily mean reductions in the quality of service. I think this is particularly the case with buying services for the elderly and disabled - I’ve had several people contact me with their concerns about the care they or their relatives receive.

Schools based their bids for much-needed modernisation and improvement on £20 million of ’supported’ borrowing. But this borrowing will not after all take place - Nick Skellett, the Conservative leader, explained that this is because the supporting grant for this borrowing is ‘lost in this system [of Local Government Finance] that is broken … borrowing we cannot support which probably that Government Department assumes will happen’.

This may be true, but it doesn’t help schools desperately in need of repairs and improvement.

A Curate’s Egg for the Youth Service

 The bright-ish spot was a one-off £500,000 extra for the Youth Service, which goes some way towards cancelling out the £595,000 of ongoing cuts they would otherwise have been expected to make. It was the threat of this cut, and a further 3% ‘efficiency’ cut, which triggered the sudden freeze of Youth Service recruitment before Christmas. This freeze left Lakers, my local Youth Centre, with the prospect of being unable to replace the Youth Worker in charge when she left.

I had highlighted this in a motion to Council in January, calling for an end to the freeze on Youth Service recruitment. (It was defeated)

Now the 3% is not being called for after all because there was a bit more money available from the Government for Early Years services than expected. With this and the £500,000 being restored to the budget, I am disappointed that there was no decision that the Youth Service would soon be defrosted!

We’re nowhere near home and dry yet - this half a million is a one-off, and the Youth Development Service needs to look seriously at different ways to provide the activities that we all know young people in Surrey need and aren’t getting.’

Woking’s new gallery, The Lightbox, has been praised by critics in the national press, and by ordinary people enjoying its restaurant, permanent local history display, changing local exhibitions in the Upper Gallery, and larger exhibitions. There’s an education room, links with schools are being encouraged, and there are activities geared to families.

But the Lightbox has been slated by correspondents writing to the local press as a waste of taxpayers’ money. One colleague suggested to me I should be careful about speaking out in praise of it, because ‘it doesn’t play well on the doorstep’.

2D – 3D, the new exhibition in the main gallery, opened last Friday the 1st of February. It is a selection of sculpture and sculptors’ drawings from the personal collection of Chris Ingram, the businessman who also owns Woking Football Club. They are modern pieces by Jacob Epstein, Elizabeth Frink, Henry Moore, and others.

Most of them are easy to like, with rounded shapes that become more complex and fully human with viewing. My favourite is a life-size figure by Eduardo Paolozzi: ‘Portrait of the Artist’, modelled on ‘The artist as Hephaestus’. I must confess this is largely because it has stood in the café area for some time before being moved into the main exhibition hall, and I focussed on it during a creative writing workshop. Familiarity, in this case, bred admiration.
Enjoying and appreciating art is a personal experience that can take time. If, like me, you are not deeply knowledgeable, to come away with a feeling for one or two pieces is enough. Sometimes more – the rush around a huge National collection, a significant journey away – can be less. This is even more the case for families with children.

The ‘2D – 3D’ exhibition is small enough to begin to take in over one visit, and also – very important! – free, so that it’s possible to come to see it, and revisit at will, without it costing anything extra to your Council Tax or past lottery ticket. The existence of the Lightbox has allowed Mr. Ingram to provide much of the value.
I am not a total softy when it comes to arts funding. The Lottery takes money from the less well off. Tax-payers don’t have bottomless pockets. In my opinion a utilitarian approach to Arts funding is justified.

But here we have great value for money: a unique exhibition open free to everyone, in the centre of Woking. Anyone of any age could get something from looking around it. If you’re in Woking, give it a go.

This site is intended to be a lot of things … amusing, informative, and above all a personal ‘minority report’ on the convoluted and sometimes surprising workings of Surrey County Council as seen by an ordinary, ‘backbench’ Divisional member, with some extras about Knaphill, Goldsworth West, and Woking as they seem interesting to me.
Please come back soon!