Meeting documents

+ Cllr Ken Pedder - Chairman

+ Cllr Richard Brooks - Vice-Chairman

+ Present

Also present: Councillors Chris Pitt and David Whitcroft.

PART I

(public)

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16th September 2003 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman welcomed the following guest speakers to the meeting:

Sergeant Paul Blomfield – Surrey Heath Neighbourhood Sergeant, Surrey Police

Brian Townley – Chairman, Blackwater Valley Network

Sergeant Blomfield reported that, within Surrey Police, Surrey Heath, Woking and Runnymede formed the North West Surrey Division. He had served in Camberley and Frimley for 25 years and was currently the Surrey Heath Neighbourhood Sergeant.

Within the Division, three main teams operated, those being:

Sgt Blomfield explained that he would look in particular at the role of the Neighbourhood Team and its interface with the Council and other partner agencies. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 gave a duty to both the police and councils to solve crime and the main task of the Neighbourhood Team was to reduce long term crime.

The Neighbourhood Team worked with the Council and other agencies in initiatives such as the St Michael’s Project, where police resources had been focused on the Ward for a period of two weeks, with continued, reduced focus thereafter, including the establishment of a Neighbourhood Panel. It was intended to continue a number of projects in the Ward but to roll out this model to all wards in the Borough.

Sgt Blomfield noted that there were three inter-linked routes to tackle incidents, namely enforcement, education and engineering. Whilst the police focused on enforcement and education, social engineering responsibilities lay mainly with the Council, through initiatives to reduce the opportunities and reasons for people to resort to crime. He hoped, in the near future, to stage an informal event when Members would have the opportunity to meet the whole Neighbourhood Team.

The police and other agencies liaised at a strategic level through the Responsible Authorities Group (RAG). The Community Incident Action Group (CIAG) met every two weeks and focused on the people who caused problems, and the Tasking and Co-ordinating Group (T&CG) tackled the places where problems arose.

In terms of how the Council could build on existing support for the police, Sgt Blomfield noted the following:

Although these officers had no powers in law, their work in the community and in particular with young people was already bearing fruit.

Sgt Blomfield outlined some of the ongoing projects initiated by the community support officers, highlighting the co-operation that had been forthcoming from local communities and the rapport with young people, who did not see the community support officers as a threat, as they had no legal powers.

Given the notable success in the pilot projects, the Surrey Police was looking to fund an increase in the number of community support officers by three, focussing their efforts in the rural parts of the Borough. Partner support had been sought towards the funding of the additional resource. Surrey County Council had offered to provide £5,000 per officer per annum for up to three officers and the Borough and Parish Councils were actively considering the proposal.

The Committee welcomed recent initiatives to target specific problems and particularly welcomed assurances that these would be rolled out across the Borough. Members also voiced their support for the Community Support Officers initiative and the proposal to recruit a further three such officers to work in rural parts of the Borough.

Sgt Blomfield was asked to look at the interface between the police and members of the public, given the frequency with which residents raised this with their ward councillors. The Committee also requested regular feedback for local councillors on police initiatives in their respective wards. Sgt Blomfield noted that his team compiled this type of information on a regular basis and that, as such, a member of his team could be given responsibility for providing a regular weekly e-mail update for members on issues in the Borough. He would also be happy to attend further meetings of the Committee to discuss Borough issues.

The Committee thanked Sgt Blomfield for his very clear and helpful presentation.

The Executive, on 13th January 2004 (minute 162/E refers), had considered an urgent report in relation to the proposed closure by Surrey County Council of Blackdown School, Deepcut and the consultation process thereon which had failed to include the Borough Council. The Executive asked this Committee to consider the consultation paper as a matter of urgency, to formulate views on the County Council proposals and the apparent policy of the County Council not to formally consult this Council as part of its consultations regarding school closures.

Given the requirement for responses to the Consultation Paper to be submitted by the end of January 2004, the Executive had asked the Committee to notify the Chief Executive of its views. He, in turn, after consultation with the Leader of the Council, would respond to Surrey County Council on this matter.

The Committee expressed concern that, despite a specific request to the Education Department, the consultation paper author and the Local Director, Surrey Heath, no County Council officer was available to attend the meeting.

Members noted that in response to this Council’s request, a reply had been received stating that the issue had been well aired in the media and that Surrey County Council had consulted the Surrey Heath Local Committee on the closure. Members noted that Executive Members of this Council were able to attend as observers only for the part of this Local Committee of the County Council in which the consultation was considered. The Ward Councillors were not invited. As such, Members took the view that Surrey County Council had, in effect, consulted a County Council Committee.

The Committee was informed that the full document considered by the County Council’s Executive had not been circulated to the Local Committee and that the Local Committee consultation paper was, at best, biased towards closure.

Members were particularly concerned that children of service personnel, who moved homes and therefore schools every three years, would be dispersed to a number of schools, losing the expertise of the current teaching staff at Blackdown School, despite being identified as a group with special needs.

After detailed consideration, the Committee proposed the following response to the Surrey County Council consultation paper on the proposed closure of Blackdown School:

“This Council appoints governors to school governing boards and takes a close interest in the progress of schools in the Borough. Given the stated desire to work in partnership, evidenced by the drive to develop the Local Strategic Partnership, the Borough Council is deeply concerned that Surrey County Council did not consider it necessary to consult the Borough Council on a proposed school closure within the Borough.

Having considered the consultation paper, Members are extremely concerned that the document contained insufficient information for this Council to comment in a meaningful way on the impact on Surrey Heath.  The seeming lack of adequate research and supporting numerical information suggests that a decision has already been reached on the basis of a poor OFSTED report and that the consultation is an attempt to justify that decision.

This Council has real concerns in relation to the proposed closure and asked its External Partnerships Select Committee to consider the consultation paper and formulate a possible response. A request was made for an appropriate officer to address the Select Committee. In response, it was suggested that consulting the County Council’s Local Committee for Surrey Heath amounted to a consultation with Borough Councillors. Whilst two Members of this Council’s Executive attended the meeting in question, their status was as observers only. Equally, neither the Local Committee nor the Scrutiny Committee of the County Council was given the full document considered by the County Council’s Executive.

It is hoped that future school closures will be few and far between. However, if such action is considered, in relation to any schools in this Borough, the County Council is strongly urged to include this Council as a formal consultee and to arrange for Education officers to make a presentation to an appropriate committee of this Council, in time for a full response to be submitted.

OFSTED were not able to take into account the special circumstances relating to the school but the County Council Education Department can and should, particularly in relation to children of army staff based at the Princess Royal Barracks and Pirbright.

A large percentage of the schools pupils come from army families and can expect to be at the school for a maximum of 3 years. These pupils suffer an exceptionally turbulent and often stressful upbringing, with the increasingly frequent absence of fathers on operations around the world and house moves, often at very short notice. The adverse impact on home and school life can be considerable and the value of school staff who understand the unique pressures on service children and their families is immense.

Is there an intention to keep together this homogeneous group, who experience similar problems? The consultation paper suggests the benefits of keeping the children together, but it seems unlikely that all could attend a single school. It is also clear that dispersing these young people amongst a number of neighbouring schools will be counterproductive and the focus on their very specific needs would be lost.

Members noted that the two nearest schools to Blackdown School, those being Mychett Primary School and the Church of England School in Frimley, do not appear on the list of those schools consulted on the proposed closure and it is understood that they were indeed not consulted.

The County Council calculation of growth in pupil numbers as a result of the development at Alma Dettingen is 8 at each level. With 7 levels, this will mean a minimum of 56 children aged between 5 and 11 added to the existing 100 quoted in the consultation paper. The majority of the occupants of the rented accommodation on the new development will be families with children and the assumptions quoted, in relation to the number of families with children purchasing dwellings, appears to be severely flawed.

The feedback from the Commander of the Deepcut Barracks suggests that pupil numbers from that source are more likely to rise than fall over the next 5 years. The school also operates as an overflow for the Married Quarters at Pirbright. There is no evidence that the Princess Royal Barracks at Deepcut will close and if such a decision was taken, it would be several years until alternative facilities would be available to permit the closure to proceed. The Commander, on behalf of the Army, has expressed considerable opposition, to the proposed closure and in fact praises the school for its efforts and its contribution to the education and development of their children.

Members have considerable concerns over the transportation strategy needed to support the proposed dispersal of children. Many of those in rented accommodation at Alma Dettingen will not have cars. It is suggested in the consultation document that the County Council will provide transport for the first year. There is no commitment thereafter and it is not clear whether or not this facility would be made available if the receiving schools were less than 2 miles from the pupils’ place of residence.

It is likely that a similar position exists at Deepcut Barracks. Equally, assumptions on the impact on traffic levels of the likely home to school movements need careful consideration. It has already been noted that traffic levels have been increased as a result of the take-up of housing on the new estate and elsewhere in the locality.

Members were dismayed by the clear emphasis on ‘negatives’ in the consultation paper. This has effectively put in place a planning blight as parents will be reluctant to commit to a school which may close in the near future. The primary concern of the school has always been the pastoral care of the children. It seems, therefore, that proposing closure as a result of one bad OFSTED report is to lay far more emphasis on the importance of league tables than on the needs of the young people and their families.

On the basis of the above, Surrey Heath Borough Council is strongly opposed to the proposed closure.â€

RESOLVED, That the Chief Executive be advised of the above draft response to the Surrey County Council consultation paper on the closure of Blackdown School, Deepcut.

The Committee received a presentation on the Blackwater Valley Network from Brian Townley, Head of Planning Policy and Conservation and he current Chairman of the Network.

Mr Townley reported that the Blackwater Valley Network was a formal partnership of nine authorities, established in 1996 to develop a vision for the Blackwater Valley. The Network aimed to promote co-ordinated action between the Authorities in the area on land use, transportation and environmental issues, to promote joint working, and share best practice. It promoted the Blackwater Valley with the Government, South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA), Government Office for the South East (GOSE) and other agencies.

The Blackwater Valley had a population 300,000 with an employment level at 140,000. Unusually for a sub-region, none of the five main towns in this area was predominant, with populations ranging from 32-52,000. The area suffered from fragmented public transport, congestion and a skills shortage. It was predicted that, in the next twenty years, the number of jobs would increase beyond the available working population.

The Network had Member and Officer steering groups and technical groups of officers covering specific areas of work. The Council was represented on the Member Working Group by Councillors Mrs Pat Pearce, Bob Smith and David Whitcroft.

The Network included in its achievements participation in the examination in public of Regional Planning Guidance (RPG), the formal recognition of the Blackwater Valley as a sub-region in the RPG and the formal recognition by GOSE and SEERA as a model partnership of authorities.

Mr Townley noted that the Network was currently working closely with SEERA, seeking to influence the shape of regional planning and transport policy and to provide a common vision and strategy for the Blackwater Valley authorities, including a framework for Local Development Frameworks.

It was important that the Network had the opportunity to impact on key decisions within the new regional agenda. In so doing, the Network gave Surrey Heath an opportunity to have more influence on the regional agenda. The Network was also becoming increasingly involved in other bodies such as the Western Corridor Partnership and the London Fringe Authorities Group.

Members welcomed the development of the Blackwater Valley Network, viewing the innovative work and the influence it gave the Borough regionally as very positive. The Blackwater Valley was recognised as a cohesive area for which there would be clear benefits from a co-ordinated approach and the Borough had already benefited, not least from the influence that the nucleus of nine authorities gave and Mr Townley’s input as Chairman of the Network.

Concerns were expressed at the drift towards more regional influence and the potential for Government agencies, through their links with this and other such networks, to require local government officers with ever increasing workloads to undertake further tasks without compensatory funding. However, the Network had made real progress, had completed significant joint work and had given the Borough real influence in the regional agenda.

The Chairman thanked Mr Townley for his presentation and his efforts on behalf of the Borough and the Blackwater Valley as a whole in his role as Chairman of the Network.

The Committee noted that the Council currently appointed to over 50 outside bodies. There have been no major reviews of these over a number of years and there were currently no laid down criteria with which to judge whether or not the Council should nominate to any outside body.

Feedback from councillors on outside bodies had been limited and therefore, probably, so had some of the potential benefits to the Council. Equally, it was not clear which bodies were required to have a Council representative by statute and which were appointed to by preference.

The report proposed 3 main steps:

Members welcomed the opportunity to review the current arrangements, particularly given the importance of the Council’s input to the local community, but, equally, the input of that community into the work of the Council. It was considered that timescales would preclude a report back to the next meeting and that it would be more useful to give full consideration to the various issues involved.

RESOLVED, That a Working Group, be established, consisting of Councillors Richard Brooks, Fran Bennie and Bill Chapman to:

a)     review the draft protocol and amend it as necessary;

b)     review current appointments/nominations; and

c)     report back to a later meeting with recommendations.

The next meeting of the External Partnerships Select Committee was scheduled for 23rd March 2004. However, Members were aware of a date clash with a major transportation presentation through the Blackwater Valley Advisory Committee for Public Transport.

The Deputy Mayor has been instrumental in arranging for a high level expert on transport issues to make the main presentation at the Advisory Committee and a number of Members, including the Chairman, had committed to attend the transportation meeting, if at all possible. As such, it was proposed that possible alternative dates be considered and that, subject to the Chairman being satisfied with alternative arrangements, Members be notified as soon as possible of the alternative date, time and venue.

RESOLVED, That the date of the next meeting, in March 2004, be changed after consultation with the Chairman, and that Members be notified of alternative arrangements as soon as possible.

CHAIRMAN