Well, it was a fine enough day, though the traffic thundered past on Victoria Way as ever, when assorted interested parties gathered at the Lightbox for the launch of Cycle Woking.

Unfortunately through a diary muddle I arrived late for the talk and presentation about the scheme in the Ambassador Room. But the main points were covered at the previous Local Committee Meeting, reported below. and I was there for cutting of the ribbon on the towpath, along with a lot of other people - the picture above was taken by a friend after the main photos had been taken, and the antique and other bicycles had swept further along the towpath, leaving this section with its celebratory balloons looking rather lonely!

There is going to be (another) extra Local Committee Meeting on the 3rd of December to approve further developments of the plans. As usual, it will start with a half hour available for informal questions from the public at 6.00 pm, and for once I am in full agreement with the (Conservative) Chairman that it would be a great if we could make sure residents know about this, and that any who would like to ask questions or express a point of view come along.

This Tuesday’s meeting of the Local Committee was held especially to approve the plan and Programme for Woking that Surrey County Council has to submit to Cycling England to get hold of the £1.8M awarded to Woking, as one of ten towns emerging successful from bidding for the title ‘Cycling Town’.

Money

We don’t just get handed the money - it has to be matched by an equal amount raised from other sources. Given the general state of Surrey’s roads, the huge sums of money needed to repair them, and the cuts we are actually seeing Surrey County Council making in planned spending on Woking, it would be unwise to rely on County Hall handing over that sort of sum of money simply because this is a good, ecologically sound idea.

Contributions to matched funding will come from ’section 106 and section 27B’ money paid by developers and negotiated when planning permission is given; plus money squeezed from Woking’s ‘local allocation’, used for local road schemes - improvements such a controlled pedestrian crossings.

The paper to the committee says the ‘programme will need to be reviewed on an annual basis and the Local Committee for Woking decide on the priority given to the elements of work included within the Woking Cycling Town against other Integrated Transport schemes which are funded using the Local Transport Plan devolved budget.’

I think this message from the Local Highways Manager roughly translates as: ’Look, there’s a great two-for-one offer here but you guys on the Local Committee are going to have to fight out between you what gets dropped while we grab it.’ With the unspoken extra thought: ‘Unless you can get your Dad (ie County Hall) to stump up some more.’

(If you see the Developers as rich uncles, they’re less rich than they used to be … )   

But for the moment Surrey, in partnership with Woking, is going forward with a ’we’ll make it happen’ approach, which I find I have to applaud - this really is going to be a great improvement, and a practical contribution to reducing traffic congestion and sparing the environment.

The six essentials    

• Improving existing routes
• Making the Basingstoke Canal path a great route through the Borough with good links off it, including ways to and through the town centre, with a way of riding from the Canal to the station through the centre of the town.
• A better North / South route that will join up with National Cycle routes at Chertsey and Guildford.
• More bike parking, especially at stations. 
• Encouragement for people to cycle more.
• Links with schools

The Fancy Bits

There’ll be better signing. The trails will be named after planets and their moons. (Other towns have been looked at to see how they do things, and themes are common.) Lighting is currently not on the plans, but is recognised as being highly desirable, at least for the heavier use parts of the canal path near the centre of Woking.

I asked whether we mightn’t have some sculpture, as I’ve seen on some trails? This hasn’t been thought of yet, but the bridges will all be clearly named, so that they can be used as landmarks.

What it means for Knaphill and Goldsworth West

Although strictly only the stretch of towpath from Hermitage Bridge to Brookwood is in Knaphill, this is a significant route, as I saw when I bicycled it at the end of the school day last Monday. A number of children from the Winston Churchill school walk down along the Hermitage Road, cross fast-moving traffic, and then walk along the muddy and difficult path to the north of the canal, through the Country Park. Some primary school children also go in the opposite direction, from Brookwood school back towards Knaphill.

This route, on the same side as the Brookwood Hospital Estate, is broader than the towpath on the South side, but anyone using the Canal as a through route would have to cross the canal to change sides at the Hermitage Bridge, which has a very narrow path.  So the current intention is to provide an extra footbridge over the canal, so that pedestrians can avoid the crossing on the Hermitage Bridge, and then use the North side up to the bridge at Brookwood Crossroads.

Unfortunately that will make the rather splendid wheelchair-friendly ramp down to the southern path (itself currently impassable to wheelchairs) redundant. But I think it’s probably the right decision, given the number of people who will be able to access the northern path relatively easily.

As I understand it, the surface should be as good as the currently existing stretch from Woking Town Centre to Kiln Bridge. (The next section, to Hermitage Bridge, isn’t quite finished but should also come up to that standard.)

A good, safe pedestrian and cycling  route into St. Johns  or indeed all the way to Woking, will be a real benefit, for all ages.  One of the big problems for young or less well off people on the Hospital Estate is how to get off it - buses are expensive, parents not always available to drive.  And the more people who use the path, the safer even nervous people should feel it is to use.

(Which is not to guarantee there will be no problems - for example, motor cycles are going to have to be deterred from using the track, for everybody’s sake.)

So eventually, if we can get this section properly sorted out for Knaphill (including the new Hermitage Bridge) plus improvements and even some extensions to existing bike routes through Knaphill, I think we’ll be doing quite well. 

The improved routes into and out of Woking and will be good for Goldsworth West too, and its likely the whole of Goldsworth park will be targetted quite early on for ‘personalised travel planning’. What this’ll be I don’t know; I trust it will be a benefit and not a nuisance.

The launch will be this coming Monday, 22nd September, from 10.00am to 4.00pm at The Lightbox. I hope it doesn’t rain, so that I can get there comfortably by bike!

A: I asked questions about them at the special meeting of Surrey’s Woking Local Committee on Tuesday, since the meeting format allowed the usual quota of member and public written questions. 

The main meeting was about Woking’s ‘Cycling Town’ plan and programme. which I’ll put in a separate posting.

Alexandra Gardens

For years there has been a certain level of aggravation for residents from use of the Vyne car-park in Knaphill by youngsters to gather and socialise. This summer, for a variety of possible reasons, has seen this become more of a nuisance for residents. The local police held a meeting for residents, which was also attended by representatives from Woking Borough Council, but not from Surrey County Council, so I asked the following:

Is the Youth Development Service aware of the concerns residents and the local police tema have about the gatherings of young people that have taken place in the car park by Alexandra Gardens in Knaphill? Will the Youth Development Service provide support or outreach to these young people?  

Answer from Surrey County Council’s Youth Development Officer:

The Youth Development Service (YDS) are aware of the issues of young people gathering in the car park of Alexandra Gardens in Knaphill, this issue has been raised with community safety partners on the Joint Action Group.

Surrey Police colleagues are aware that a small number of individuals are to blame for incidents of anti-social behaviour and continue to work with this small group. The Police and YDS are confident that the majority of young people “hanging around” adjacent to Alexandra Gardens are not engaged in any anti-social and/or criminal activity. And as a result of consultation with young people, are working with partners to negotiate the possible lighting of the local MUGA during the evening for the benefit of the majority of young people in the area.

Currently our resources for Knaphill are devoted to the Youth Arts Centre which is running to full capacity at present, with the projects on offer being fully attended by over 100 young people each week. Nevertheless the YDS continue to look to ways to reach more young people, and are working with the voluntary organisation, “Outside Light”, to offer their volunteers basic youth work training to support engagement with young people in this area.

It would be a wholly positive step to see more local residents get involved with their community, something the YDS have successfully been doing with the youth for a number of years now. And to this end the YDS continues to offer help in training groups of volunteers, such as identified in Knaphill, to provide further opportunities to young people.

Real-time information

The last few times I’ve taken the ‘bus I’ve been disappointed by the lack of helpful ‘real-time’ information on the displays - they tend to show the timetable, with ‘real’ buses not showing up on the listings.  The new computer systems should have been working by now, so I asked the following:

Why is the ‘real-time’ information about bus arrivals still not working effectively? When will it reach its previous levels of usefulness? 

Answer from Surrey County Council’s Passenger Transport service:

 The present situation with the Real Time Passenger Information is: –    All Arriva/Safeguard & relevant Stagecoach/Countryliner buses are equipped and working on the system. There are a few ticket-machine issues that are in the process of being resolved, by either sourcing other ticket machines (Safeguard), or by development work being undertaken with regard to the interface configuration (Countryliner). –        On-street displays: high level of predictions shown, although a few problems still to be rectified. A few power issues to be resolved. (185 out of 207 displays operational)–        Training on Trapeze RTPI system still being given to some bus control room staff and Surrey staff to enable full monitoring of the system.–        SCC staff in regular communication with bus operators to encourage their drivers to log on correctly & for staff to report equipment faults.–        Forthcoming roadworks, particularly in the Guildford area, leading to diversions from the regular bus routes, are likely to cause some minor problems to the effectiveness of the RTPI system.

–        A few issues still to be “ironed out”, e.g. finding a total interchange solution at Guildford Bus Station.

Rather than be simply negative, since it looks as if at least part of the issue lies with the drivers, I asked in follow up whether they could please be told how much passengers appreciate it when the information is there on the boards.

Finally, road closures in the town centre, which also tend to play havoc with the buses, which in its turn can seriously affect the disabled and elderly:

Does the Local Highways Manager anticipate that there will be any need for road closures in the centre of Woking during the next three years that would necessitate the re-routing of buses, as happened with the building and repair to the station approach canopy?

Answer from Surrey County Council’s Local Highways Manager:

I am aware that the A320 Victoria Way will be closed to through traffic for highway resurfacing works. For eastbound vehicles from Century Court to the Roundabout (at junction with Chertsey Road) on 29/30 September between 2000 to 0600hr and for westbound vehicles between A3046 Chobham Road to A324 Lockfield Drive from 1 to 5 October, again between 2000 and 0600hr The bus companies have been informed of this closure.

At the time of responding, I am not aware of any other closures within the town centre area, however in the future the County Council may receive funding to carry out highway works that necessitate a road closure, the utilities may serve a Notice on the County Council indicating that they wish to carry out works to their apparatus or install apparatus that would need a road closure to carry out the works safely.
Development related works might also require sections of road to be closed. In an emergency the highway network within the town centre could be closed for a number of reasons, including utilities such as gas or water leaks, major highway defect, or a police incident.

This seemed to me a little cautious, but I could get no further reassurance, and only a fairly general undertaking to take into account the difficulties of the disabled and elderly, with a reminder that Surrey had not expected the long delays over the Canopy outside the station.

Still here, and very chuffed to have been on the Liberal Democrat Voice short-list for best new blog of the year (hence the rather fun graphic above).

I didn’t win - the excellent The People’s Republic of Mortimer swept the board with Best New Liberal Democrat Blog, Liberal Democrat Blog of the Year, and best Liberal Democrat posting.  It’s a bit of a blogger’s blog, reminding me of Sf Fanzines of the past, and quite unlike my own rather puritanically limited information-before-opinion approach on this website. To use someone else’s joke, people who like this sort of blog will like this blog - check it out!

Wednesday’s ‘Children and Familes’ Select Committee meeting was the first since Surrey’s Joint Area Review. This was the highly critical inspection of Children’s services in Surrey that came out in July, which showed Surrey service to be ’inadequate’ in too many ways.  (See posts 22nd July and 29th July)

There is a lot of work going on around the required post-JAR action plan, but that hasn’t come to the Committee as yet. Instead we had the Performance Figures for the first quarter, ie May, June and July.

They were better presented than sometimes in the past - in large enough print that I didn’t have to get out my magnifying glass (you think I’m joking?), extra information for the indicators on ’red’ and ‘amber’ and some clear explanations in the ‘analysis’ column.  

Officers and Politics

One of the problems with select committees is getting enough information to carry out any useful scrutiny or contribute to policy development. This is certainly the case in Surrey, where the Conservatives have such an overwhelmingly large majority that they can fit several factions the size of our 12-person Liberal Democrat group comfortably within their numbers, so that it sometimes feels as if Committees can be easily side-lined. The Chair’s opening remarks on this item included the view that one of our problems in scrutinising is was how we could ’get good information into this committee.’

Jim Leivers, who has been Interim Head of Children’s Service since taking over as the headline JAR became known within the higher levels of the organisation, said:

‘One of my worries about being very frank and very open is that this [committee] will be [used] politically’ and was concerned that the information provided by is Officers should be used ‘not to pursue a political aim or ambition’.  

I felt obliged to point out that this was a public meeting, and anything said could be reported freely. I report it now as a small example of the tension between accepting the existing balance of power in order to work co-operatively within a democratic framework to influence outcomes, and using every legitimate means to show what is wrong with those outcomes and change the balance of power. 

I generally find Mr. Leivers frankness about the real politics and genuine political choices underlying the work of this Committee refreshing, and will continue to quote his insights when they are made in public. Should he read this, I hope he will be pleased to see some of his more positive statements included below. (For convenience, I’ll attribute them ‘JL’)

There were questions about whether the all the ‘reds’ showing a significant failure to meet targets would be eliminated, with the answer ‘You will not see a removal of all your reds … [there is] a very, very difficult agenda for us all … there is a focus that we’ve not had before on ensuring that our performance improves … within two years you will be able to say your indicators are not on red and you are moving into good … ‘ (JL) 

What was happening this spring    

When you look at the figures, there is an awful lot of red around - only just over half the indicators are green, and a third are red. For example, the number of children in care went up; the proportion of them placed more than twenty miles from their home has nearly doubled; none of the children who left care aged 16 or over during that 3 months had as many as five A*-C GCSEs. 

The emergency review of cases that was carried out pre-publication of the JAR but when the results were known to a number of senior Officers and politicians saw more children being brought into the care system, which accounts to some extent for the first two indicators, while some of the young people leaving care in that first quarter took exams but the results were not yet out.

All children in care should have a Personal Education Plan, but the proportion fell from a peak of 79% in February to 61% in April, recovering only to 66.9% in June. (’ … the excuses really aren’t there’ J.L.)

However there are positive steps in hand to resolve this particular problem, with the appointment of a ‘Virtual Head’ supervising the education of Looked After Children, and an additional PEP co-ordinator. We’ll be hearing from the new ‘Virtual Head’ in a later Committee meeting, and no-one could disagree with Chairman Yvonna Lay’s comment: ‘I would like to see the PEPs sorted out by the next quarter.’ 

The Risk Register

On the ‘risk register’ for the service, the big areas of red are no surprise: we are depending on improving and unifying multiple computer systems, some of which are ‘dysfunctional’, and which en masse prevent the effective introduction of better record keeping. Poor record keeping and processing of information is a major issue. The continued high use of agency staff is another long-standing problem.

The ‘continued growth in population of Children with a disability because of better medical care’ is also a long-standing risk, and the ‘mitigation actions’ to ‘develop a long-term strategy  … as part of overall corporate Business Delivery Planning process’ is repeating what has been said many times before, with its underlying political implications: the ‘key issues’ section of the paper says ‘This cannot be addressed through existing resources in Children’s Services’.

Money 

Not surprisingly, given that the Inspection and the Government response to it has forced Surrey to take action to bring services up to an acceptable level, there are significant overspends. A £5.1 million shortfall is currently projected on the current year’s budget.  The overspends I think are most irritating are the ones that were predictable and/or should have been prevented. For example:

SEN transport in the ‘best case scenario’ faces an overspend of £1.6m. Previous budgets had assumed efficiency savings of £0.9m from reorganisation around the Transport Co-odination Centre.  This is a complex story, with situation-normal-all-fouled-up software problems, and also organisational ones.

‘Core establishment’ staffing has an overspend of £0.2 million, but it would have been £1.2m if there hadn’t been an underspend on staff in residential services, mainly because of the failure to open Ruth House for respite care. This £1m overspend is because of an ‘unachievable vacancy factor’  - empty posts that were reckoned not to be filled, but had to be filled to do the essential work of the service, and so were filled by expensive agency staff. There was supposed tobe a reduction of agency staff from 40 to ten by the end of this financial year, but at the end of June there were 94 of them, covering posts which include ’social care, education officers, and business support.’  

 It was confirmed in committee that the ‘vacancy factor’ that is one root of these problems goes back to the BDR, but as Jim Leivers also said, as an Officer: ‘We really can’t comment on why it was set in the first place.’ But as a Liberal Democrat, I can have the pleasure of saying to the Conservative Executive, ‘we told you so’.

Ruth House - an adequately full story at last

Ruth House is the residential facility linked with Freemantles School in Mayford Green, Woking. It’s intended to offer week-day boarding to some pupils at the school, which is for children on the autistic spectrum, and respite care for for children with complex needs at weekends and in the school holidays.

I became aware of it a year ago, when visiting Freemantles School with the Committee, but in spite of asking questions both in Committee and in Full Council have not until now got an adequately full account of why it was not open, saving the County money, and making life better for children and families.

This year’s budget assumed that opening just one of the four units at Ruth House would save £0.4m by offering respite care for children with complex needs in a Surrey-provided home. Multiply this up by four, and you’re more than compensating for the £0.8m saved on residential staff costs this year.

Building it has been a complex project, staring in 2001 which has suffered many delays and set-backs, and is only partially open now. In those seven years, among other things it fell foul of the BDR. Hazel Buxton, from Estates Planning and Management, explained that there had been one person in charge of managing the project until April 2006, but after he left he was not directly replaced. There have been problems with construction, with understanding and providing exactly what was needed by way of kitchens, bathrooms and laundry areas, with making sure the money was available to recruit staff, and then with recruiting them and training them on the right time-scale to fit with the readyness of the building.

We were given a long and serious paper explaining the history of Freemantles’ move to Woking and the  building of Ruth House in detail, how lessons have been learned, and how the County’s new organisational structure would prevent this happening again. You can read it on the SCC website - it’s in the committee papers at item 8.  There’s also been a good Ofsted report on the one open residential unit out of the final four.

Of the four units, the first was working fully in July; the second will be fully open from October; the third by the end of the year; and the fourth early in 2009. We were assured by Mr. Leivers that the staff was now in place, and the project was now on line, on target, and would open on the time-frames in the report.

I was still not entirely reassured, and asked about Chetwode House, another new facility for respite care at risk of delay.  But the Tories can’t be blamed for this one - the site is the home of Great Crested Newts and agreement has to be arrived at with English nature for their ‘humane removal’.

(Sorry this is a bit boring, but now Local Committee meetings have been cut down to 3 a year, it would be a pity to miss the opportunity to make use of this one!) 

The Committee papers for the extra SCC Woking Local Committee Meeting on the 16th of September are now out and published on the SCC website at:

http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/legcom/CouncilP.nsf/MeetingsByDate?OpenView&Start=1&Count=30&Expand=10.8.11#10.8.11

The main item on the agenda is the plan and programme for ‘Woking Cycling Town’ (sic), and I’ll report back on this after the 16th.

But since this is a full, public meeting of the committee I’ve checked with the Local Partnership Team that it offers the usual opportunitites for public participation, by asking either a formal or an informal question. And you don’t actually have to be there to send in a written question.

This is what the SCC website says:

Asking an informal question

The Local Committee has a formal meeting at least three times a year. At the beginning of each meeting, there is an Open Public Question Time, where you can ask questions. This is usually between 6.00pm and 6.30pm.

The Local Committee cannot guarantee to answer on the spot but promises to get you an answer in ten working days or, if it is a particularly difficult question, to report progress made in that time.

These questions and responses are not recorded in the minutes.

Asking a formal written question

To get your question and the answer recorded in the official minutes, you need to submit it in writing (including email) to Surrey County Council Local Partnerships Team (Woking) at least four working days before one of the three formal meetings.

Any member of the public who is an elector of the Surrey County Council area can submit a written question on matters within the terms of reference of the committee, but there are some rules:

• questions cannot be asked on planning applications (it’s a Woking Borough Council responsibility)
• each person can ask only one question
• your question and the answer will be available on paper at the meeting
• you do not have the right to speak, except to read out your question and ask one supplementary question
• you can require the answer to be read out at the meeting
• no more than eight questions are allowed overall. If your question cannot be taken because there are more than eight already, you still receive a reply in writing, and you can ask for your question to be dealt with formally at the next meeting.

Asking a formal question can be a useful way of drawing attention to specific problems when SCC fails to answer, or only gives a bare acknowledgement and a reference number. (I’m sorry to say I’ve reached the point with one enquiry where I’m going to have to recommend to one of the resident in my Division he does just this as a way of drawing attention to a specific problem.) It’s also good because information gained this way is unambiguously in the public domain, and can be quoted, for example on websites like this!

Meetings are held in the Council Chamber of Woking Borough Council. For more information, contact Nick Porter, the Local Committee and Partnership Officer, on 01483  518095 (e-mail nick.porter@surreycc.gov.uk) or Shaista Salim, the Local Support Assistant, on 01483 518094 (e-mail shaista.salim@surreycc.gov.uk ) 

The ‘Schools and Learning’ Committee this Tuesday re-inforced some existing worries, but did offer some reassurance about Surrey’s ‘Key Stage 2′ results for this year.

Worry One: potential £3.5m overspend

Schools get most of their money directly, based on a formula that relies on the number of pupils in each school. But the ‘Dedicated Schools Grant’ which pays for a mix of necessary LEA services ranging from funding to support pre-school children in nurseries, School admissions services, and support services for children with Special Educational Needs is under severe pressure, with a £3.5 million shortfall forecast.

One major pressure has been the enormous increase in children with Special Educational Needs that can’t be met in Surrey’s own schools and instead are sent to independent institutions, or places run by other authorities.

These can be very expensive, and unfortunately recognising and meeting the child’s need can become a battle-ground between parents and the Local Authority. The number of appeals that go to a tribunal have rocketted  from 32 to 144 a year. Lynn McGrady, Head of Finance, commented: ‘most tribunals go against the Council, mainly because of medical [issues].’  She explained that much private provision offered parents a package of medical and respite care along with education, which Surrey’s own provision could not match. We were told (not for the first time) that well-clued-up parents will employ a barrister to argue their case for them because although this is expensive, it is far less expensive than paying privately for the care the child needs. As a result, ‘the first point of contact with the parent is quite adversarial’. (Nick Wilson, Head of Schools and Learning)

It seems incredible to me that next week, in the Children and Families committee, we will again be talking about Ruth House, the much-delayed respite facility attached Freemantle School for autistic children, which will now not be open until 2009.

The JAR’s strong criticism of CAMHS (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service) is also relevant here, as is Surrey’s ceasing to fund organisations such as the National Children’s Homes programme that offered support to families.

No-one could blame parents for getting the best provision they can; the shame is that in finding the ‘best’ they are not offered strong enough options to let them keep their child at home.

But even if all was well with the provision Surrey tries to make, the problem is getting more severe. Nick Wilson again: ‘We are seeing more, and more complex, children.’  

Level 2 SATS - Don’t Panic!

You may have seen iin the press that some of Surrey’s SATS results showed a sharp dip this year - for example, level 5s in English falling by 7%.

It’s not the fault of our schools, or of the children. Now Surrey has compared its results with other similar authorities, it’s clear that the effect is widespread, and probably has two causes: bad marking, and the ending of ‘borderlining’. Ellie Searle, Performance and Service Development Manager, explained that in the past all pupils with marks two points below a grade boundary had their papers re-marked. To avoid a falsely favourable balance in the figures, marks two points above the boundary should also have been re-marked. But rather than do this, ‘borderlining’ has been done away with altogether, taking away that favourable bias.

One bit of good news coming out of the resolution of exam marking problems, though this time at the GCSE level, is that four out of the five Surrey secondary schools listed by the Government for their ‘National Challenge’ as having under 30% of their pupils getting 5 GCSEs at A* - E, including Maths and English, have now come up above that threshold. 

School Dinners

… are provided by Surrey’s Commercial Services (CS) to 98% of primary schools in Surrey, and 50% of secondary schools. Schools are free to go elsewhere, but CS are the ‘provider of last resort’, willing to provide meals even for small schools. According to Beverley Baker, Surrey has been at the forefront of the healthy school meals debate.

One problem for the service is that they have to work in the kitchens that schools provide, and modernising and refurbishing these does not usually come very high up the priority list when it comes to schools’ expenditure.

CS also runs the catering at Surrey offices, and offers a cleaning service schools can buy into. It’s run at arms-length from the Council, and last year managed to make a moderate surplus (for such a large organisation) of £197,000, which was promptly taken away from it to contribute to Council balances. 

Worry 2 - Exclusions

Surrey has a high rate of exclusions compared to similar counties; and as the JAR report noted, a higher proportion of Looked After Children and children with Special Educational needs are permanently excluded than for the rest of the population.

The highest rates of exclusion are found in the east of the county, in Reigate and Banstead. Not surprisingly, persistent disruptive behaviour is the most common cause.

New requirements for schools to provide educational cover for children after the fifth day of an exclusion is persuading some schools to set up special internal units, while the Surrey Alternative Learning Programme should be set up by September 09 to offer more options for learning to these difficult pupils.