Tomorrow is the First of April. It seems that after all very little will change in Surrey in terms of bus pass conditions for the over-60s and disabled - unless they live in Surrey Heath. Nevertheless a lot of people will be needlessly anxious and confused. 

The trouble will be that passengers and the bus drivers are likely to be misinformed as a result of indecision, late changes, and the resulting impossibility of providing clear and correct information about the changes to bus passes.  Many have been told that concessionary fares won’t apply until 9.30. The situation for disabled people and their companions has been even more unclear.

If you’re new to this story, see my previous posts! 

Here in Woking, I’ve heard from some over-60s that they have now got the new bus passes, with a letter explaining the start time remains 9.00 am.

The latest information I have comes from an e-mail sent by David Munro, the Executive Member for Transport (Surrey’s equivalent of a Transport Minister) last Thursday, the 27th. In it he told Councillors that when we are asked by residents, we can tell them concessions start at 9.00 am (except in Surrey Heath) and are 24 hours for the disabled. I understand this also includes a companion for a disabled person.

I hope this is right, but I wouldn’t engrave it in stone just yet.

There are occasions when I am happy to have no immediate prospect of becoming a member of Surrey County Council’s Executive. One of these was just over a week ago, when I received - for information only - the stack of papers one and a half inches deep for the meeting on 25th March.

KS 2 Music

The Executive Committee papers for 25th March serendipitously opened at appendix E of Annex 2 of item 11 part A - 2008/9 Service Delivery Plans and Detailed Service budgets. This confirms that the Council is on its way to spending £185,800 that turned up among the ring-fenced educational grants in the budget papers.

I have found it interesting to trace this coming through after reports in the Education pages of the national press earlier in the year that the Government was going to ensure that all Key Stage 2 (upper junior) children would have the chance to play a musical instrument.  I requested more information at the Schools and Learning committee, and eventually a report came back explaining this pledge went back to 2001. It was followed up by a number of pilot schemes, under the name ‘Wider Opportunities’.

Surrey Arts started off with 15 pilot schemes, which have now extended to 62, and should reach all Surrey schools by 2011. The musical instrument funding carries on for another three years after this one.)

In addition, there will be some extra money and resource through the ‘Sing Up’ initiative, including a KS2 singing project.

Overall, it will mean whole classes being taught music through learning an instrument or singing, giving a foundation for later musical work in secondary school. At the moment it’s the enthusiastic, well-organised schools that have already put in their bids to be part of this ‘Wider Opportunities’ scheme which will benefit, but the aim is to make it or a something very similar available to all schools by 2011.

The instruments are given to the schools on a loan basis, but belong to Surrey Arts, as a resource building up over time that should not be lost as children - or, indeed, teachers - move on. 

The state of our roads

One important item that was intended to go to the Executive on the 25th for consideration has been held over for two weeks to the 8th of April.  This is Surrey Transport budgets - priorities and delivery plans. I won’t try to reproduce and discuss everything the paper says - it’s item 7  for that date, and should be available on the Surrey County Council web site.

The main point to make is that money is being shifted from road schemes into maintenance. According the the paper, 20% of principal non-classified roads need repair while the national average is 15%.  But doing this will disadvantage some Boroughs, such as Woking, with a lower total road mileage than more rural areas. In Woking, the money for improvements such as pedestrian crossings is likely to be slashed, while our residents still complain to us about roads and pavements in need of serious repair, not just patching. 

In Woking the only ‘Major Maintenance’ proposed is 208 metres of Victoria Way. (Guildford gets 5,000 metres. )

Woking gets about 3,000 metres in four Surface Treatment Schemes; Guildford more than I can add up without a calculator (in excess of 35,000 metres) in 27 schemes.

You could argue that this shows how fortunate we are in Woking, that we already have so much better roads than elsewhere. But I wouldn’t like to stand up in front of a Residents meeting and attempt that argument.

It becomes even more difficult given that Councillor were consulted on which roads in their areas needed work the most. I sounded out Borough Councillors and Residents Groups, and in the end put forward my three. I’m told that all of them qualified to appear in the prioritised list of roads requiring major maintenance, but they are numbered so far down that in my more pessimistic moments I get a ‘not in my lifetime’ feeling about them!

But at least they are on the list, and that’s the first step to allow effective nagging.     

In my report on the 4th March Full Meeting of Surrey County Council I wrote about the answer to a written question on concessionary Bus Passes. This said four authorities  in  Surrey (Epsom and Ewell, Mole Valley, Elmbridge, and Woking) had at the last moment decided to go it alone on offering bus passes to the elderley and disabled. They would continue with the present start time of 9.00 am rather than the later 9.30 am that had been planned throughout Surrey.  I found this a considerable but pleasant surprise.

Back in Woking, Borough Councillors I spoke to knew nothing of the change. One of them told me it was impossible, the answer to the question in Council must have been misleading.

Yesterday I wrote my regular monthly column for the Goldsworth Park Community Association newsletter, and tried to check whether there was any obvious development I had missed by putting the terms ‘concessionary bus fare changes Surrey’ into Google. I was immediately led to a page on the Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s website dated that very same day - Friday 21st March. This gave 9.00 am as the start time, referred their residents to a local number to apply for the pass, and gave an explanation in terms of proximity to Transport for London, which also has 9.00 am. 

I have tried to find an equivalent page for Woking, Elmbridge and Mole Valley, but failed.

April the first - April fool’s day - seems an extraordinarily appropriate time for the new arrangements to start.

 ps I have just discovered that Surrey issued a press release on the 20th saying: ‘The National Concessionary Bus Scheme will begin at the start of April and Surrey County Council is doing everything possible to make sure the start goes smoothly.Surrey administers the scheme across the county and is working with the 11 borough and districts across Surrey who will implement it, giving free bus travel to the over 60s and disabled people within certain times.Surrey had asked for a unified scheme across the county but, in the event, districts and borough authorities could not agree to this leaving six councils starting at 9am and five at 9.30am.’

The problem with a web site is it goes stale. Looking at the report on Full Council a full eleven days ago is less inspiring now. Even for me.

Formal committee and Council meetings come around in a cycle; in between times there is a drift of meetings, information gathering, and ’casework’. So whenever there is nothing major to report back on, I’m going to bring together a number of these bits under the ‘I’m Still Here’ banner to give some account of what I am doing as a Councillor when not at Council meetings.

It will just be a taster - some things are confidential, some just too fiddly or tediously political to include.

Earlier in the week I visited one of Surrey’s childrens’ homes. County Councillors are in the strange and rather disconcerting position of being ‘corporate parents’ to Surrey’s Looked After Children, which is quite a responsibility.  I was impressed by the staff and the way these children were being cared for. I will come back to write about what we still need to do for Looked After Children fairly soon, but all is far from dark and gloomy.

The Knaphill Residents Association AGM was on Wednesday - a very well organised and well attended event. It was my week for residents’ meetings, because the next evening was the Goldsworth Park Community Association committee meeting - open to all residents of Goldsworth Park - at Goldwater Lodge.

Before the GPCA meeting was the ‘Police Panel’ meeting for Goldsworth Park, when the Neighbourhood Specialist Officer, PC Richard Martin, and his team of Police Community Support Officers held one of the regular open meetings with residents to discuss local issues. Some of the points made:

• There is a ‘Designated Public Place Order’ now in effect on Goldsworth Park (but not the immediate area of Waitrose) which allows the police to remove alcohol from anyone in that area - though they do say this doesn’t mean your wine will be confiscated if you decide to have a bottle with a picnic on the recreation ground.

• There has been a successful plain-clothes operation around the lake and shopping centre over half term. There were no arrests for anti-social behaviour, but a number of youngsters haved had their names and addresses taken, and some parents have been visited.

You can find more details of local policing on Goldsworth Park at:

 http://www.surrey.police.uk/neighbourhood.asp?area=WKGP

I’m also a member of the Management Committee of a Pupil Referral Unit, which had its termly meeting this week.   

Some other concerns

The bus-bollards in Knaphill are still playing up. I contacted SCC about this, the bollards  were mended, and I was told that the mechanism had been altered so that it should be less sensitive - but I notice they were down again today, and cars were driving through. I will follow up again.

Details of an over-large tree that Serco have not dealt with to the satisfaction of those living closest to it have been passed on one of the Borough Councillors to chase.

I am still looking for a Governor for one of the Primary Schools in Knaphill. This is because County Councillors have the opportunity to nominate ‘LEA Governors’ to the Governing Bodies of Community Schools on their ‘patch’. LEA Governors don’t need to have existing connections with that school, only the potential to be a good ’critical friend’ to the school, both supporting and, in the nicest possible way, holding to account the school’s management.

Governors with specialist skills and knowledge outside education can be very valuable. Someone with a good grasp of finance, or knowledge of building can help the Governing Body make better decisions. So can someone who will just sensibly and tactfully bring a fresh point of view into the school.  

If you live in the west of Woking and would be interested in finding out what being a School Governor involves, please contact me on 01483 871909 

As ever, this was a meeting with a lot of papers and a number of issues. Perhaps inevitably I found myself paying more attention to some than others. This is known as teamwork. If we were ever in power I guess it would come under collective responsibility.

So, as before, I’ll break this report up into pick-and-mix sections:

• School Admissions and information about appeals
• Motion on the Childrens Trust and Looked After Children
• Heathrow Consultation
• Interesting answers to questions - including concessionary fares

There was also a motion on ‘Self Reliance Areas’ put forward by my colleague Fiona White. It was asking the Council to commit to three years funding for projects in less well-off areas, but got amended into good intentions only. More details are on the Surrey Liberal Democrat website, which you can link to from the sidebar.

The apparently naive written question can sometimes elicit surprising answers. My colleague Chris Slyfield asked a question to the Executive Member for Transport that he had been asked by elderly and disabled people in his area: ‘who had made the decision, and why, to alter the time on their Bus Passes from 9.00am to 9.30am’. Chris pointed out that this made it difficult for them to get to early morning medical appointments.

There was a clear reply from the Executive Member (Surrey’s equivalent of a Minister for Transport) explaining that this was a national change. From the first of April, funding for travel for the over sixties and disabled between 9.30 and 23.00 on weekdays and all of weekends and public holidays will come from Central Government. Anything beyond this will have to be paid for by the ‘Travel Concession Authorities’, which in Surrey are the Boroughs and Districts.

The last I had heard about this, none of the the Boroughs and Districts were going to put in the extra. 

So it was a bit of a surprise, even if I feel this is a move in the right direction, to be told that: “After a great deal of deliberation the Boroughs and Districts of Surrey failed to reach a consensus position on the scheme to be offered across the County. Seven Boroughs have elected to offer the National Concession, whilst the remaining four (Elmbridge, Epsom and Ewell, Mole Valley and Woking) have agreed to offer a start time of 09.00 for both 60+ and disabled pass holders.”

Surrey is stuck with co-ordinating this scheme, with no control over policy, administration or funding.  The conclusion of the Executive Member’s answer is, I think, something of an understatement: 

“This is likely to cause confusion for both service user and bus drivers, given that the majority of bus routes pass into at least two local authority areas.”

And it’s due to start in less than a month!

For most of the County there was no change over the arrangements recommended at the Schools and Learning Committee, which you can find in my report from the 13th of February.

Arguments and negotiations went on up to the very last moment for the Howard of Effingham school. At the Executive meeting on the 26th of February the new catchment area was clarified and finalised, and feeder schools identified, so that the fourth priority after Looked After Children, Exceptional arrangements, and siblings, is:

‘Those children who both live in the catchment area and who attend one of the following partner/feeder schools: Oakfield, Eastwick, St Lawrence, The Raleigh, and The Dawney’.

This is similar to the arrangement for Oxted, and in both cases an extra, fifth criterion was added: ‘Those children who live in the catchment area but do not attend one of the partner/feeder schools named in (1v) above’.

For children living within the catchment area for the Howard of Effingham School (but not for Oxted) the tie-breaker is ‘those who live furthest from the nearest alternative school as measured by a straight line’.

For Oxted, the tie-breaker is the same, except that it applies to all applicants and not just within the catchment area.

The standard tie-breaker over the rest of Surrey remains home to school distance, measured in a straight line.

These proposals were all finally passed, despite an attempt by Councillors representing areas on the Fetcham side of the Howard of Effingham school to change the tie-break to the standard home-to-school distance.

There is a fundamental problem of too many children wanting to go to the same, good school here, and no obviously fair solution. All the way along, negotiations and compromises came in late. There is a potential problem in that children, particularly on the Fetcham side, may find that if The Howard of Effingham is their nearest school, but they are excluded on the ‘next-nearest’ rule, they will then come lower in the ranking of priorities at the ‘nearest alternative’ than children for whom that school is their closest.  And, indeed, most other LEA schools to which they may apply.

This could in theory leave some children travelling long distances to schools in which their parents have little confidence. In my opinion, some arrangement should be made to make sure that children from the Fetcham area can be assured of a place at Therfield if they are not offered a place at The Howard of Effingham.

I suggested it would take the wisdom of Solomon to settle this, but that Solomon’s answer might be to close The Howard of Effingham down, and that would also take the autocratic power of Solomon. The response from the other side of the Chamber was that what we need is the riches of Solomon. There is sense in that: what we really want is a good school within easy reach of every child.

A practical few words on appeals -

Parents have the right to appeal. They have to do so by 28 March for Primary Schools, and 18 April for secondary schools. They can get the necessary forms and information from the Surrey Contact Centre, on 08456 009009. (There are extra staff on at the moment to cope with the additional calls, so it should not be too hard to get through.)

The new School Admission Appeal Code says: ‘Parents must be advised that their friend or adviser at a hearing cannot be a member of the local authority, a member of the admission authority concerned, or a local elected politician, as this may lead to a conflict of interest and place undue pressure on the panel.’

The most County Councillors can do directly is write a letter of support for parents to submit, and even then we are advised to ‘carefully consider the content and how it could be perceived.’

Parent can get support from:

Advisory Centre for Education - ACE. Tel 0207704 9822, www.ace-ed.org.uk

Surrey Partnership with Parents  Tel 01737 737 300 e-mail pwp.ses@surreycc.gov.uk

Choice Advisor (for secondary admissions) Sharon Oliver, tel 01737 737314, www.pwpsurrrey.org/choiceadvice  e-mail sharon.oliver@surreycc.gov.uk

- or directly from the School Appeal Service, where Angela Bridgman is the Manager. Tel 020 8541 9029

The heading is here because Andrew Crisp, Executive Member for Schools, Children and Youth Services, put forward a ‘motherhood-and-apple-pie’ motion. It welcomed Surrey’s new Children’s Trust and progress in the performance of Looked After Children, thanked staff for good work, recognised the importance of partnership working, and called on the Government to give us enough money, while reducing bureaucracy, so that everything gets better.

What’s not to like? 

I had a go at reminding Council of a few salient facts:

• National Childrens Homes worked in partnership with Surrey to keep chidren out of care until its funding was suddenly discontinued during the BDR.
• Staff in Childrens’ Services have been coping with the bureaucratic aftermath of rushing in ‘SAP’ systems that required unecessarily high level agreement for small purchases.
• It’s only relatively recently that mechanisms were put into place to make sure that Looked After Children either had or were offered regular medical and dental checks.
• Looked After Children on the whole do much worse in school than their peers. Although a lot of excellent work has been done to improve the situation, the gap is not narrowing enough.

A lot of progress is being made; I have met some remarkable people employed by Surrey to look after our chidren (for all Surrey County Councillors, jointly, have parental responsibility for Surrey’s Looked After Children); and while there is no room for complacency, I have a considerable amount of admiration and respect for the determination of fellow Councillors on the Committees concerned to make Surrey work better place for children, especially those in difficulties.

It would have been a hard motion to oppose, so we decided not to, and it went through nem.con..   

But am I being unduly cynical in thinking it would probably never have been brought at all, were it not for the fact that Surrey is currently undergoing a tough ‘CA / JAR’ Government inspection, with a high concentration on services for young people?

The response to the Government consultation proposals for the expansion of Heathrow Airport is determined by the Executive, but Liberal Democrats John Doran and Ian Beardsmore gave the issue an airing at the previous Full Council on the 22nd January. John and Ian’s motion to oppose any expansion was amended to add ‘unless and until comprehensive and credible investment whicih satisfactorily addresses the environmental and surface assess issues … ‘

Not exactly what we wanted, but better than embracing the whole concept of heavily increasing airtraffic into Heathrow.

The Executive ‘Response to the Government’ that has now been brought to Full Council for information but not for decision was also not as bad as it could have been.

While recognising the economic value of Heathrow, ‘Surrey County Council cannot support any further expansion of Heathrow Airport on the basis of the proposals set out by the Government in its consultation document.’

‘The Council notes with some regret that the proposals in the consultation paper are so gravely flawed that the irretrievably undermine the arguments for the economic benefits they could bring.’

The ‘Response’ emphasises the need to get in place ‘measures to mitigate the environmental shortcomings of any expansion. These would include a whole range of practical schemes such as AirTrack, involving a new stretch of rail from Staines to Heathrow, allowing direct trains on the lines from Reading, Guildford, and Waterloo.

In my view the climate change implications of increasing air traffic when we should be making an enormous reduction is a more important consideration than the increases to local congestion and so on. So I was heartened that even the Conservative Executive puts top of the list of why the proposals fail, that they are ‘based on … excluding aviation from the targets for reducing greenhouses gases and emissions’., They continue to say ‘the immedidate need is for investment to improve the quality of the Airport, not the quantity of the flights.’ 

Perhaps they were listening to us, at least a bit.

The work being started on the tow path between St. John’s and Woking is routine maintenance. Three dead trees are being taken out and dead wood pruned out of another six trees. The lovely row of oaks is not being rooted out.

Between Kiln Bridge and Parley Drive two sections of the bank are going to be restored where they have eroded in the past and narrowed the tow path.

The application for planning permission to widen and improve the tow path more generally has not yet been decided. If it is allowed, the present maintenance work may overlap with these changes, but it is not pre-empting the planning process.