This time last year Liberal Democrats on Surrey County Council campaigned, with some success, against a sudden and counter-productive freeze of recruitment to the Youth Development Service.

I have a sense of deja vu today seeing the decisions made this Tuesday by the (Conservative) Executive.

According to the paper tabled at that meeting, at the end of October 2008, the Council had underspent its overall budget by £7.5 million. However there is a forecast overspend of £7.5 million by the end of the financial year.

(To put this in context, Conservative Surrey lost £20 million in Icelandic banks while saying ‘there are no short-term implications for front line services or jobs …’. It also had an underspend of £58 million on its 2007-2008 capital budget.)

So now both current spending and staff recruitment are subject to hasty changes of plan.

The paper, which was agreed by the Executive, argues that ‘over the past year the Council has continued to operate effectively without using its core establishment budget. There is no reason why, in principle, the Council cannot continue to operate at this level.’

Vacant posts are therefore not to be filled unless they appear on a ‘Red List’ which will include posts in Childrens Services ‘linked directly to achieving the improvement action plan’, and posts in Adult Services similarly linked to their improvement action plan. Other posts will be considered one by one on an ad hoc basis.

For 2009 -10 ‘the general principle is that the Council has run effectively in 2009/09 on current staffing levels and therefore can continue to do so in 2009/10′

There are two things seriously wrong with this:

• Surrey County Council only got a score of 2 out of 4 (’adequate’) for achievement and performance management in the Audit Commission’s Corporate Assessment. It’s not just Children’s Services and Adult and Community Care that are not run as effectively as they should be. Ask our residents about the state of the roads, and the difficulty of getting anyone to fix them. The complacency involved in saying ’we don’t need more staff because the ones we’ve got are handling everything well’ astounds me.

• Even assuming Surrey has enough staff,  this is no way to go about using them to the best effect! Teams may continue to function through good will on a short term basis while a position is being filled, but this does not mean it will be the best post to leave unfilled permanently. Whatever happened to deciding what the skill sets needed for the work are, and recruiting to fill them? And what about the problem of making sure expert staff are where they are needed in the County, not spread arbitrarily, according to who has not resigned or retired? 

As long ago as June 2007 the Liberal Democrat Leader, Hazel Watson, asked the Council to recognise that the County Council’s workforce planning was ineffective. Something should be done about it. Unfortunately the Council decided it’s workforce planning was fine, and our motion was overwhelmingly defeated.

Following that came the freeze on the recruitment of Youth Workers noted above, which did real harm before an extra £500,000 was found in the budget for the current year, while the Youth Project has to come up with some sort of solution to the Youth Development Services’ perpetual lack of resources.

Now we have this freeze.

But we still have no effective workforce planning. It’s a shame.

  

Q: WHAT DOES SURREY HAVE IN COMMON WITH HARINGEY, MILTON KEYNES AND DONCASTER? (AND NOWHERE ELSE?)

A: OUR CHILDRENS SERVICES HAVE BEEN RATED ‘INADEQUATE’ BY OFSTED, WITH A 2008 RATING OF 1 OUT OF 4

This judgement is not solely on the services for children in need that were the subject of the JAR (Joint Area Review) earlier this year. In the letter explaining their decision (find  it here to download as a pdf) Ofsted say the Annual Performance Assessment is a:

“snapshot based on the evidence considered…I should emphasise that the grades awarded are based on an overall ‘best fit’ model…within a judgement of inadequate overall, Grade 1, there could be some aspects of the overall service that are adequate or even good. Judgements are made in a rounded way, balancing all of the evidence and giving due consideration to outcomes, local and national contexts, priorities and decision-making.” 

Surrey’s overall services for Children and Young People were graded using the ‘Every Child Matters’ outcomes as follows:

• Being Healthy - Grade 2 - Adequate
• Staying safe - Grade 1 - Inadequate
• Enjoying and achieving - Grade 3 - Good
• Making a positive contribution - Grade 2 - adequate
• Achieving economic well-being -Grade 2 - adequate
• Capacity to improve, including the management of children’s services - Grade 1 - inadequate

This has given the overall rating of ‘1′, inadequate.

The Conservative Executive Member responsible is ‘very disappointed’ at this overall scoring of Surrey’s Services for Children.

Surrey’s schools make it one of the top-performing authorities for exam results; Ofsted rates most of Surrey’s state schools good or excellent; fostering and adoption services have had ratings of good or excellent.

I don’t want to attack the good work that is done, and which is reflected in the ‘Good’ (but not ‘excellent’) rating for ‘enjoy and achieve’.

But Surrey’s score should be at least good. In stark contrast to failing authorities such as Doncaster and Haringey, at the last census 67% of Surrey’s workers had middle-class professional or administrative jobs. The credit crunch may be changing the figures, but the parents of something like a quarter of children of secondary school age choose to send their children to private schools.  If Surrey can’t do better, where can?

Unless the newspapers pick it up, you won’t find this rating at all easily on the SCC website. (I looked for it and couldn’t find it - but I expect the press office would tell me it’s there, at the bottom of layers of menus.) The Assessment was published on the 17th of December, and the two pieces of ‘news’ for that day, according to Surrey County Council, were the Conservative Leader going to Buckingham Palace to receive a CBE from Prince Charles (here) and the report of the publication of a booklet for young people in Woking by the Youth Developement Service which I helped fund through the Local Allocation. (here)  

So I make no apologies for pasting below some of the negative findings, without attempting to give a balanced picture. These are direct quotations, and I have struggled with the formatting, but will leave them as they are rather than re-type and perhaps introduce errors.

Overall effectiveness of children’s services Grade 1 (Inadequate)

Surrey County Council delivers services for children and young people which do not meet the minimum requirements for users. The council’s capacity to improve, including its management of services is inadequate. 

Although there are some early signs of impact, many actions are at a very early stage and as of yet have had limited impact. The contribution of local services to improving outcomes for children and young people at risk, or requiring safeguarding, is inadequate.

Health indicators are, on the whole, better than statistical neighbours. However, there are significant weaknesses in services to the most vulnerable. For example, there is inconsistent provision for children and young people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities and there are significant numbers of teenage pregnancies in looked after young women.

… the gap between children who are looked after and their peers bythe end of Key Stage 4 is still very wide.

Exclusion rates are high, particularly for children with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. Not enough excluded children get sufficient appropriate education.

Being healthy Grade 2 (Adequate) 

The rate of decline in teenage pregnancy is inadequate and the proportion of young women who are looked after that become pregnant is increasing.

… Some schools are reluctant to engage with sexual health staff and preventive programmes. The county has missed is own Chlamydia screening target.

 Effective models of multi-agency working for children with learning difficultiesand/or disabilities are not provided consistently across the county.

 Reconfigured arrangements for the child and adolescent mental health services(CAMHS) have not yet made significant impact on inconsistent access to services and the skill levels of staff at all tiers of service. 

Staying safe Grade 1 (Inadequate)

 

Initial and core assessments are of poor quality and not completed within timescales.

 The proportion of child-protection reviews that are held on time is below the national average.

The stability of placements for looked after children has deteriorated.

Progress by the Local Safeguarding Children Board in fully embracing the protection brief and moving towards the wider safeguarding brief has been slow. New systems to ensure that all staff working with children across the partnership have a criminal record bureau (CRB) check, qualification and identity check have not yet been fully implemented.

Enjoying and achieving Grade 3 (Good)

 

Fixed and permanent exclusions are high and the proportion of children and young people with statements that are excluded from both the primary and secondary sector has risen. In the secondary sector this is well above average. 

The percentage of permanently excluded children and young people provided with 20 hours or more of tuition a week is one of the lowest in the country. 

Too many looked after children who do well at Key Stage 3 do not progress to realise their potential at Key Stage 4. The proportion of looked after children that attain five or more good GCSEs, at 9.6%, is significantly below their peers.

Making a positive contribution Grade 2 (adequate)

The provision of prevention and intervention services for young people at risk

of offending is neither coherent nor coordinated across the county.

Work with children and young people who have offended only meets minimum requirements

 

Achieving economic well-being Grade 2 (adequate)

In work-based learning, overall success rates for all groups of young people, although improving year on year, remain below the national average.

The percentage of teenage mothers who are in employment or training islower than found nationally.

Although all looked after young people had a personal advisor in 2007/08, the percentage with a pathway plan continues to decline and is significantly below average. 

The percentage of care leavers in suitable accommodation has increased but is still below average.

Although the council has recently updated its accommodation strategy foryoung people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities there is insufficient access to appropriate housing.

 Insufficient access for young people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities to  benefits information or support to help with travel costs to college.

Capacity to improve, including the management of children’s services Grade 1 (inadequate) 

The council’s capacity to improve its services for children and young people is inadequate and its management of these services is inadequate

 … for this APA there is not yet sufficient evidence of a track record of improvement in outcomes. …There are some early signs of impact. …However, other actions are at a very early stageand the impact of it is not yet evident. Therefore many aspects of provision and partnership working that were identified as being underdeveloped at the time of the JAR still remain.

… the cost of placements for looked after children is much higher thanaverage with a high proportion of young people in agency placements and outside county boundaries.

Workforce planning is at an early stage and cannot demonstrate impact. In some aspects this is inadequate. For example, the percentage of residential child careworkers who have obtained the NVQ Level 3 in Health and Social Care is significantlybelow that found nationally.  

 

This Tuesday (9th December) we had a one-topic debate in a special Full Council meeting, chosing which of two models the County Council will follow from next June: a stronger Leader of the Council, chosen for four years; or an elected Mayor. (We’re talking a Boris/Ken style Executive Mayor here; there’d still be a Chairman to run meetings and do the ceremonial bit.) Government legislation is forcing this change - the status quo is not an option.

There has been minimal consultation, but it is not a topic that has fired the public imagination. From a population of over a million in Surrey, there were 158 reponses, with 100 in favour of a mayor and 58 for the Leader and Cabinet model. Such a small number is not enough to be statistically significant - though still, I thought, interesting.

The vote was overwhelmingly in favour of the ‘Leader and Cabinet’ model, with two votes against (and so in favour of a Mayor) and 4 abstentions.

I was one of the two in favour of a Mayor. These are some of the reasons why:

• A Mayor would be directly elected, not elected by councillors. A Mayor would have to please the electorate; a leader has to please the elected.
• Under the proposed Mayoral system a Mayor would be elected by a ’supplementary vote’ system which would mean that if there was not overall majority, second choices would be counted. The Mayor would have to have at least some support from more than half of those who turned out to vote in order to be elected. Liberal Democrats have been arguing for the Single Transferable Vote for years. We should not be afraid of it now.
• If Councillors are afraid of the voters taking a ‘plague on all your parties’ stance and electing an ‘unsuitable’ or ‘unqualified’ mayor, it is because local politics is too small and self-regarding a world. Which is a shame, because what is decided at local level can have a very real effect on the quality of life of people living in Surrey. 

Free Vote - freely expressed opinions

The (Conservative) Executive recommended going for the ‘Strong Leader’ model, but all political parties had decided to allow a free vote.

Nevertheless is was virtually clear from the outset that we were not going to have a Mayor of Surrey this year.

We still managed to talk for most of the morning, Arguments against were mainly in terms of the extreme candidate, and to do with localism - a feeling that a Mayor elected for the whole of Surrey would somehow reduce representation of the different communities that are felt to exist within Surrey more than a ‘Strong Leader’.

I jotted down some of the comments that particularly caught my attention. They are not especially balanced between points of view expressed:

• Tony Rooth (Conservative) ” … Hartlepool - having elected Peter Mandelson as their MP - they elected another Monkey as their Mayor … “
• Andrew Povey (Conservative) ” … try it [Leader model] for a term and look at it again … ‘
• Bill Barker (Conservative) ” … because this was a Government proposal I was prepared to dismiss it out of hand … [but] the system here I don’t like … if anything goes wrong we blame the Officers; if anything goes right, well there’s a nice press release … I believe there’s some merit in this … “
• Hazel Watson (Liberal Democrat) ”This debate is something of a distraction from our main task … I do not dettect a massive groundswell of support for a Mayor in Surrey … “
• Andrew Crisp (Conservative) “… neither option offers a way forward and that’s why I will abstain from the vote … let’s not pretend that all 80 of us make decisions … what they propose now is only an inch further forward to what we need … we should take the next few years … to decide what is best for the people of Surrey.’
• Chris Slyfield (Liberal Democrat) “Many of the people I talked to knew nothing about this whatsoever.”
• Fiona White (Liberal Democrat) “I actually wonder what the residents of Surrey think is the most important thing  … when what they want is a well-run Council. … My concern is whether there is anyone [suitable] in Surrey [to] atttract the number of votes necessary … a poor choice would be there for a four year period … [and] could do an awful lot of damage.  … I will be voting for the strong leader option as the least worst …  ”
• Peter Hickman (Residents Association) “We are voted in to do the best for our residents and I think an elected Mayor would counter this … “
• Exchange between the Chairman, Angela Fraser (Conservative) and Victor Agarwal (Labour): AF - “Are you sure you don’t want to say anything in support of your Government?” VA - ” … those people who don’t go up to vote, will it make any difference to them? … [I support a] strong leader because … have checks and balances … there’s no easy answer to this … “  

An interesting morning’s debate. I do understand the nervousness around the idea of a directly elected Mayor, and had their been any radical voices other than mine (I’m not sure who the other person voting with me on the show of hands was) and a realistic chance of significant change, I might have found the choice of how to vote weighed heavier on me.

(Where have all the radical Young Liberals of the 1960s gone? They can’t all have followed Peter Hain …) 

I think I would still have voted in favour of extending popular democracy, even if there had been a risk of winning.

  

Last Wednesday afternoon was the equivalent of a motorway pile-up of meetings.

First, from 15.00 to 17.00, came a meeting of Local Committee members to look at Transport issues for the future. This was technically a sub-group of the full Committee, and so met in private, so I can’t write about it directly. Afterwards, in open public questions at 6.00 pm, the Highways Manager explained to Anne Roberts, Borough Councillor for Byfleet, that a scheme to reduce speed limits in Parvis Road, Byfleet, had now reached number three on the list … which gives you an idea of what was going on, but more will be revealed formally next year.

Then came a briefing on ‘Self Directed Support’, which is a way to let individuals who need and are entitled to social care to be more in charge of how that care is provided by giving them a budget - this is an important change, and you can find out more about it on the Surrey Website here.  

Finally, at 6.30, the formal Local Committee meeting got going.  This was an extra meeting, which had been  meant to be very brief. It was added for the sake of item 9 - to formally agree some more proposals for the ‘Woking Cycle Time Strategy’. But this got sandwiched between other routine items such as questions, and  ’Members Allocations’ grants that have to be approved by the County Councillors on the Committee.

I’m not complaining - we got through quite a lot of interesting / significant stuff. The selection below is very much mine - look at the papers for the meeting on the SCC website (here) for the response to the petition on White Rose Lane’s lack of a footpath; Pegasus buses (though we did get a motion through saying that cosideration should be given to extending this to Woking - in fairness, how long can Guildford go on as a successful pilot without any plan to roll it out to other areas? - and the very extensive role and work of the Community Highways Officers. If you go to the website to look at the graphs concerning the handling of customer inquiries, showing a steady rise nearly to the top - look carefully at the way the graph stops at 70%.   

Knaphill Youth Petition

Cllr Olly Wells brought a petition about Youth Services to the last Local Committee meeting, phrased as follows: 

We the undersigned ask the Woking Local Committee to endorse the view that Surrey County Council should take a full leadership role in providing more ‘places to go and things to do’ for young people as part of the overall Youth Offer within Surrey. We ask that underused youth centres and school premises are regarded as a resource that can be ‘brought to the table’ locally in partnership with authorities such as Woking Borough Council and with Voluntary organisations to provide a wide range of positive activities for young people out of school hours, with affordable access by public or community transport. In the Knaphill area, we request that a Youth Offer be developed which includes:

·        Lakers Youth Centre open regularly at evenings and weekends as a ‘youth hub’ and including youth café style provision.

·        Youth café style provision compatible with its present use being developed at Woking Youth Arts Centre                                                 

·        An additional ‘drop in’/youth café facility on the Brookwood Hospital estate and within walking distance of any new housing.

·        More sports opportunities for all local young people using existing school facilities and recreation grounds.

I couldn’t be at the meeting myself, but it seemed well received. However the Committee did not take on board the request that they should endorse the petition - since they have no power to grant it, that was the most that could be asked - so I requested that it be brought back to us this time.

I argued that the first paragraph was what Surrey already acknowledged it should be doing, alongside the re-alignment of the Youth Development Service to do more targeted work; and that the specific requests made for Knaphill should be used as an example of the sort of provision that was needed generally.

After some negotiation over wording, the following motion was passed:

Woking Local Committee endorses the view that Surrey County Council should take a leadership role in providing the statutory ‘youth offer’, and asks for the vision put forward in the Knaphill Youth Petition to be referred to the Youth Project for consideration as an example of the provision the Children and Young People’s Commissioning Partnership should work towards.’ 

Maybe not a huge step forward, but another little bit of pressure reminding County Hall of how important better Youth Provision is at local level.

Bicycles through the centre of Woking

Item 9 - Access improvements to Woking Town Centre - was the main reason for the meeting, though it came close to the end of the evening and didn’t enjoy nearly so much argument in-depth scrutiny as I think it might have if we had been fresher.

Route no 5 of the Cycle Plan - to be ‘rebranded’ the Pluto route - will bring cycles in along the Victoria Arch branch of Goldsworth Road. The existing crossing will be changed so that pedestrians and bikes can use it. We then go through the Market, where there is enough highway land so long as stalls are stopped from encroaching on it, and across Cawssey Way at another improved set of crossings. From there the path will go through Commercial Way and down Chapel Street.

There are of course problems that have to be thought about and twiddly bits to cope with them. Taking some of this on trust, I think it looks a good improvement. My main reservation is the proposed withdrawal of the traffic order stopping traffic coming into the east end of Commercial Way, where the bollards have been down so long that the argument is that some people takes any notice of it anyway. The reason is to allow access to some additional planned Disabled parking. I am not happy able removing this restriction and not putting anything in its place - but other options are being investigated.   

Finally, on the Oriental Road side, some parking bays are being re-sited to make room for more cycle parking.

‘Member Allocations’

This is money Local County Councillors can direct towards things and activities of benefit to the Community in Woking. Byfleet did well - £2,000 for refurbishing the changing facilites at St. Mary’s school, on the grounds that this will be for community as well as school use. Woking sea cadets can spend £2,000 on four new canoes. I put was glad to put my name to £750 for the DeVyne dancers to run a series of dance workshops, etce

The biggest outgoing was a bid tabled at the meeting for £10,000 to ‘Bikeability’, which has replaced cycling proficiency, to subisdise 500 Woking primary school children who are unable to pay the full cost. The suggestion at the moment is that the allocation criterion will be free school meals. It’s only one off funding, and schools will be on their own with the idea that when they’ve seen the benefits, they will be able to ‘raise funds in future years’.

By co-incidence, I have separately been told by a Governor in a local school that the cost has gone up for cycle training from £11 to £19.50 a child, with those on free school dinners training free. So how precisely this £10,000 will be used and how big its benefit can be is currenly obscure to me. 

There will be money coming into Cycle Woking for the ’soft’, psychological aspects of persuading people out of their cars and onto their bikes. I hope we’ll be able to direct some of it towards better bike training.  At the cost of £19.50, too many of them are going to miss out at school.

Just a reminder: if you are involved in doing something that benefits the community in Goldsworth West (the Knaphill side of Waitrose) or Knaphill, there is still over £50,000 to be allocated by the Woking Local Committee this year. Forms and the criteria for awards can be got from the Local Partnership team - contact details here. And ‘phone me to talk about what you’d like to do. (01483 871909).

The conditions are the same if you live in another part of Woking, but you need to contact your own County Councillor. If in doubt, have a chat with the Local Partnership team - they can be very helpful. 

This is a question quite a number of people have asked. Sadly, there is little evidence he would. My reasons for writing this have been documented on this site since the publication of Surrey’s ‘JAR’ in July, but I’ll repeat them now, and try to succinctly bring the story up to date.

This spring, Surrey failed its Ofsted inspection of safeguarding services for Children, which were inspected during the Joint Area Review. Safeguarding, along with provision for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, was found to be ‘inadequate’.  

In answer to a recent question in Council from my colleague John Doran about the Baby P. case, the Conservative Executive Member admitted this ‘shocked’ the Council. In my opinion, that shock was symptomatic of complacent optimism on the part of the Tory Council, combined with what has now been demonstrated to have been and a failure of performance and data management within the Children’s Service, such that it’s hardly surprising the Inspectors also decided Surrey’s capacity to improve by itself was ‘inadequate’.

The situation is so bad that the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families issued a ‘Notice to Improve’. If Surrey County Council doesn’t meet the standards set out, central government may impose its own arrangements. As Jim Leivers, the new Interim Head of Children’s Services said in the Children and Families committee: ‘The only show in town now is our Improvement Notice’. 

The Improvement Notice lists a number of ‘indicators’ that the Secretary of State will use to test whether the changes being made are doing enough. One example is the number of initial assessments being carried out within 7 working days of a referral. The Notice says this must reach 65% by the end of March 2009, and 77% a year after that. But the most recent information brought to the Children and Families Committee showed it dropping between the first and second quarters of this year to 44%. 

Other problems are failures to carry out Criminal Record Bureau checks; high levels of vacancies, mostly covered by locums; and uneven workloads. Some social workers carry as many as 30 cases while others are at 9. Preventative services, to keep children out of the care system, are not good enough, and have  been cut back in recent years. As Jim Leivers said, the new team is ‘having to fix the most basic of things in your organisation.’ 

A cross-party Task Group has been set up to track the Post Inspection Action Plan, of which I am a member. A lot of work is going on currently, for example in improving CRB checks and recruitment, not only of Surrey’s own staff but of contract staff. But the Children’s Service is fire-fighting on all fronts. Over the last years the Conservatives have failed to act effectively on the performance indicators that should have shown up poor practise, and made disastrous cuts to preventive services in short-sighted cost-cutting exercises, most notably durinig the ‘Business Delivery Review’.                                              

And all the time challenges are increasing. More children are coming into the care system, and there are increases in the number children with Special Educational Needs, because better medical attention means a greater number of disabled children survive. 

There is a huge task ahead, but with a great deal of attention now focussed on the Action Plan, from outside Surrey County Council as well as from within it, I hope real progress can be made.   

As a minority party, we don’t get many motions passed by Full Council. In my view this motion is the most potentially significant put forward by a Liberal Democrat and agreed  by the Council as a whole.

Stephen Cooksey (LD County Councillor for Dorking and the Holmwoods) proposed:

‘This Council notes that the present Parliament has approved theIdentity Card Act 2006.

This Council believes that:

• the use by government of the ID card and database will have a detrimental effect on the relationship between the individual and the state;

• the scheme will impose wholly disproportionate costs on the Council and other public bodies which will include both implementation and operational costs;

• this will have a damaging effect on all residents of Surrey.

This Council resolves, unless required to do so by law, to:

(1) take no part in any pilot scheme or feasibility work in relation tothe National Identity Card Scheme;

(2) establish as Council policy that National Identity Cards will notbe required in order to obtain Council benefits or services;

(3) refuse to participate in the national database.’  

Spelthorne, Mole Valley and Guildford Councils have already passed similar motions unanimously.

 In Surrey County Council we didn’t quite manage to make it unanimous - and not solely because of the two Labour party Councillors, who could be expected to support the Government’s legislation. (Otherwise, the motion was in keeping with both Tory and Liberal Democrat policy.) 

The vote split 46 for and 20 against, with 2 abstentions. Victor Agarwal (Labour) asked for a named vote, which was actually more interesting than unanimity; and demonstrated that our motion was not ‘motherhood and apple pie’, and so not worth opposing.

Obviously among the Woking Councillors John Doran and I were in favour; Shamas Tabrez was not there; but I will not rely on my memory to say how others voted. When the full minutes are on the SCC website you can check for yourself here.

I’ve been told a bit more about the recent Youth Development Service appointment in Woking.

The new full-time Neighbourhood Youth Worker for West Woking, based at Lakers  and ‘tasked to develop and increased and improved services to young people on Goldsworth Park’ but also working with Paul Clarke at the Woking Youth Arts Centre in Knaphill, is Kevin Cody.

In East Woking, Zahira (’Zee’) Virani will be taking over from Tracey Osborn at Sheerwater Youth Centre, while also working with Theresa Lee at Woking Youth Centre.

It’s hoped that both Zee and Kevin will be able to take up these posts in the second half of January.

The Old Library at Knaphill is up for sale, for the good reason that the building had reached the end of its useful life  (after being there ‘temporarily’ for 50 years) It would have been prohibitively expensive to build a new library on that site. The real alternatives were to close the library down and have no library in the village, or go for the now-existing successful and significantly library in Anchor Crescent, next to the Post Office. Anticipating the sale of the Old Library has allowed Surrey to meet the cost of the  new library.

Unfortunately the Old Library is standing empty, with nothing currently happening to it. Quite understandably people are asking why it couldn’t be turned to some use that would benefit the community - one suggestion has been a Farmers Market, though the current economic climate has turned decidedly unfavourable.

I’ve been talking to Surrey’s Property Services, and found that these are the limitations on what can be done:

The building is currently not  safe for members of the public to use. There are a number of problems, including no services (no water or electricity). The building is not fully water and wind-tight.  I am told that to bring it up to the point of meeting health and safety regulationi s so that you could allow members of the public to use it would cost a minimum of £30,000.

If a community group were to raise £30,000 for this, the longest Surrey would be willing to grant them a license for would be one year.

Surrey’s Property Services anticipate the property market will improve in due course, and as soon as they get a decent offer they will accept it - they want to realise the money, not hang on speculatively. But that still isn’t likely to be any time soon.

I am concerned about the appearance of the library as a dead spot in the centre of the village for however long it takes for the site to be redeveloped. The small garden by the path doesn’t strictly have any right of public access, but if a community group wanted to maintain it - and had the means to do so - Surrey would look at giving an on-going license to use it, with a one month notice period.

But is there anyone really wanting to take this on, not just to stand by approving of someone else doing it? As I have said before, I am happy to make sure that proposals are properly considered. It would be easiest done through another organisation like the Knaphill Residents Association - or perhaps one of the churches or Youth Groups? - But even for someone with a mind to volunteer to help with a community project, there are many other things that need doing, many other organisations that need help.

In the meantime, I will continue to talk to Surrey’s Property Services, and post anything new as and when possible.     

I’ve just heard that earlier this week the Youth Development Service succeeded in appointing a full-time Youth Worker for the west of Woking, who will be based at Lakers Youth Centre.

As well as leading the work there, they will supervise Woking Youth Arts Centre (WYAC)in Knaphill. (Although I think if there were a higher level of staffing at WYAC it could be even more fully used, it does have staff in post, so it shouldn’t be a matter of asking the newcomer to do more than one job.)

Inevitably it will take some time to get them here, but they should be in post not too long after Christmas.

Rock on the Hill party

… was thrown at the Kings House Coffee Shop on Monday night by Eileen Martin and her team from the Knaphill Residents Association for all those who were involved with the Rock on the Hill series of three music events for young people in Knaphill over the Summer. These were mainly young people, from the Winston Churchill School, the Woking Youth Arts Centre, and the Knaphill Challenger Scouts.

The High Sheriff of Surrey (did you know there was a Sheriff of Surrey?) gave out awards and certificates, and there was much-appreciated pizza and icecream for all.

I think the the experience gained by those taking part made the series of events well worthwhile, though it would have been even more valuable if more under-eighteens had been there to enjoy these well run gigs; but such things take time to build up, and Eileen has kept the enthusiasm and the teams going so that there’s going to be another ’Rock on the Hill’ event on the 2nd of December at the Winston Churchill School. More info at http://www.myspace.com/rockonthehill, unless you’re trying to view it on a computer using the SCC server - in which case you’ll find ‘Access Denied’ and that your attempt to access the site has been logged.

(Gosh, that makes me feel really baaaad … reminds me of my days in the Young Liberals when we were radical …)

I should add, you can’t get in to Rock on the Hill unless you’re under 18 or helping. For me the former is out, so it will have to be the latter. 

JAR - the Secretary of State states her terms

I mentioned in an earlier posting that Surrey has now been issued with its ‘Improvement Notice’ following the appalling Joint Area Review of Childrens Services. I couldn’t find it on the SCC website, so contacted a senior officer. He sent me the link a couple of days lates, and at that point it wasn’t so hard to find. Whether because the site had been adjusted or I hadn’t been looking properly to start with is perhaps not very useful to ask.

If you want to look at it, you can find it here.  I hope.

It’s quite clear and stark, ending with a reminder of the Government’s statutory powers to intervene directly.

While on the subject of the JAR follow-up, I was recently sent two printed copies of the Young Persons Jar.Very nice quality paper, colour printing, large font size, full-page colour photographs including nice photos of the Executive Member and of Andy Roberts, described simply as the ‘Chairman of the Children and Young People’s Commissioning Partnership for Surrey’, though probably better known within Surrey County Council as Surrey’s Strategic Director for Children, Schools and Families.

I feel a Question coming on for the next full Council meeting about costs (even though we did have to publish it, did it need to be like this?) and the claim that is was written ‘by young people, for young people’.

Last Friday was suprisingly performance oriented - an unexpected call at 10.30 to stand in, instantly, leading Knaphill library’s Mother and Toddler rhyme time. It was fun. More fun than when there’s time to prepare and get nervous. Heads and shoulder, knees and toes … the wheels on the bus … and one of my favourites, a modern variant on Hickory Dickery which goes ‘Rocketty Tocketty’, and the mouse goes ‘fun!’ , then ‘coo!’ then ‘whee!’ to rhyme with one, two and three. 

In the evening, Surrey County Harp Ensemble.We had the school hall at Westfield instead of the usual over-crowded music room where the harps are at serious risk from the sharp edges of the music stands.  New repertoire - some O’Carolan, and some film music, to go with our utterly unique version of the theme from Pirates of the Caribbean.

Earlier that week, the Local Committee ‘Awayday’ - neither away, being held in Quadrant Court, Woking; nor a day. More a few hours in the evening, and since it was held in private I can’t write it up. But it involved a number of Surrey and Woking Officers as well as the Woking and Surrey members of the Local Committee, and a lot of exchanging of ideas and information. 

Warbury Lane VAS: Surrey and EDF again

There have been the usual e-mail and telephone inquiries and comments to follow up. Including pushing a residents patient but determined complaints about the new but not-working VAS sign at Warbury Lane up to Director level, having failed at Local Highways Manager and Head of Service levels.

I am told it is now working, though I have yet to see it myself.

EDF, you may not be surpised to know, was again involved.

EDF and OFGEM have both agreed to make an appearance at the Transportation Committee on the 3rd of December. The meeting will be at County Hall, and should be open to the public. Although I’m not a member of the Committee, I think I’m going to have to be there to hear what’s said - minutes never catch the authentic flavour.