Meeting documents

+ Cllr  Richard Brooks - Chairman

+ Cllr  Bruce Mansell - Vice-Chairman

+ Present

- Apologies for absence presented

Also present

Councillor Chris Pitt.

Wyatt Gates - South West Trains (for Minute 028/EP)

Councillor Barry Woodhead - Bisley Parish Council (for Minute 027/EP)

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 25th January 2005 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman welcomed Parish Councillor Barry Woodhead, who had attended to make a presentation on the work of Parish Councils, focusing on Bisley Parish Council, and considering how the Borough Council could assist parish councils in their operation.

PART I

(public)

The Committee received a presentation from Parish Councillor Barry Woodhead, the Chairman of Bisley Parish Council and the Parish Council Representative on this Council’s Standards Committee. He explained the role of parish councils, their funding sources and their relative position in the chain of Local Government.

Surrey Heath had four parish councils covering Bisley, Chobham, West End and Windlesham, with a combined population of 21,598 or 34% of Borough residents and a total net expenditure of £424,306.

Parish councils have a limited number of powers and duties, but they all impact directly on the local community. In Bisley, the Parish Council provided allotments, bus shelters, a public clock, the result of a village led Millennium project, litter bins and dog fouling receptacles, public seats and play-ground/recreational facilities. It was involved in crime prevention, through partnership work with Police, County Council, Borough Council, financing a Police and Community Support Officer to be shared between the villages of Bisley, Chobham and West End. It also maintained village ponds and ditches, the village green, open spaces and the war memorial as well as managing common land.

Other parishes had different responsibilities, such as Windlesham, where burial grounds and cemeteries, and public conveniences, were all within their remit.

Parish councils had the power to improve the quality of community life by spending sums of money, presently £5 per elector, on projects that, in their opinion, were in the interests of the parish or its residents.  In Bisley this included annual grants to the Village Hall, Senior Citizen’s groups, Scouts and Guides, the Youth Club and many other worthy causes.

If parish councils did not undertake the various powers and duties, these would fall to the Borough Council and would be funded from Council Tax.

Bisley Parish Council, with some financial support from the Countryside Agency, was working with interested local residents to produce a Parish Plan in a similar project to that carried out by Chobham Parish Council. Residents had been asked how they would wish the area to be developed in the medium to long term. The findings would, in due course, be passed to the Borough Council, in the hope that they could be incorporated into the local plan and local policies.

Parish councils strongly supported partnership arrangements. Focusing on a very local level, they worked with many other agencies to tackle issues such as transport links, services to young people, reducing social isolation, reducing fear of crime, supporting local enterprises, identifying deficiencies in health services and affordable housing and highlighting any declines in employment opportunities.

In terms of the relationship between parish and borough councils, Councillor Woodhead made the following observations:

Planning

Sharing

Funding

Co-operation

Councillor Woodhead concluded by noting that parish councils provided a valuable service. Whilst borough and parish councils might not always agree, there were considerable benefits to be gained on both sides from closer co-operation.

Members welcomed the presentation. Supporting the proposal for regular meetings between the Borough and the four Parish Councils, Members, whilst being aware of the need to focus on any resource implications, asked officers to investigate the other points raised by Councillor Woodhead, particularly in relation to planning issues, and to work with Parish Council Clerks to address the issues raised

RESOLVED, That

The Committee received an oral update from the Chairman of the Services for Young People Working Group, Councillor Stewart Stevenson.

Members welcomed the significant achievements of the Working Group, focusing in particular on the development of websites to assist both young people and professionals and on the strong links that had being forged between the various disparate agencies which had been brought together by the Council through this initiative.

The Committee was advised that the Working Group had achieved its initial target to bring groups together and facilitate a partnership approach to services provided for young people.

It was proposed to have an internal Member and Officer meeting ahead of the proposed full Working Group meeting scheduled for 26th May 2005. Thereafter, it was proposed to hold an annual event, the view being taken that regular, ongoing meetings would not necessarily assist progress at this stage.

Members supported proposals for further communication to young people and their families on available services and proposed the use of Heathscene, pamphlets and static displays, with possible assistance from the Museum, and e-communication, possibly piloting possible information exchange with a small number of schools in the first instance. They welcomed the input from Mr Wyatt Gates from South West Trains, who had attended the meeting for this item and had indicated continuing support for the process.

Continuing concerns were noted in terms of transport, support for burgeoning services and the input of Surrey County Council’s Youth Service. The Chairman agreed to discuss this informally with County colleagues and thanked the Members and Officers for their significant input.

RESOLVED, That the report on the work of the Services for Young People Working Group be noted.

The Speed Management Working Group had been established to monitor and review traffic and speed management targets through consultation with Surrey County Council and Surrey Police and to make proposals to the Committee on possible recommendations to the Executive.

The Chairman of the Working Group, Councillor Bill Chapman, reported that the Group had made progress. He reported on the interim findings of the Working Group, noting that these had been supported by both PC Mark Barry, the Casualty Reduction Officer, and Graham Hodgson, Surrey County Council’s Local Transportation Director.  The working group had reviewed available accident data, targets set by Government and Surrey County Council and measures which could be taken in the Borough to make roads safer.

Given the resource limitations, Surrey County Council had targeted, for the forthcoming financial year, measures which would reduce the risk to children and improve conditions on ‘red routes’, being those routes with the highest and most severe traffic accident levels. Members noted and welcomed current Surrey Police initiatives to reduce accidents in the Borough and considered some innovative projects being piloted across the UK.

The Working Group had identified the following issues for further consideration:

Members welcomed the achievements of the Working Group and noted some initiatives in the Borough including the use of speed awareness equipment on the Portsmouth Road, Camberley which indicated the speed at which traffic was moving on a large flashing light display. The Committee was also pleased to note that the next issue of Heathscene would include a speed management/awareness questionnaire for Borough residents.

The Committee noted that a final report would be submitted by the Working Group in November 2005 and that other interim reports would be submitted as and when there were any significant developments or proposals to report.

RESOLVED, That

The Committee received a report on a possible draft programme for the municipal year 2005/06.

Members noted that the Executive would be consulted on areas of work it would wish the Committee to focus on and that the draft programme would be submitted through the Executive to the Council for consideration.

The Committee agreed that it would be necessary to balance the number of significant presentations submitted to each meeting, to ensure that sufficient time could be allocated to each issue. Members supported a proposal to establish a working group to look at services for older people on similar lines to that which reviewed services for younger people.

A number of possible presentations were proposed including inputs from the Citizen’s Advice Bureau and the Surrey Heath Council for Voluntary Services. These organisations would be invited to attend the Committee meeting scheduled for 24th January 2006.

It was agreed that the Committee should also focus on services provided by Surrey County Council and the Health Service. Given resource and time limitations, it was considered that one area from each should be studied each year. It was proposed that Education should be addressed in the forthcoming year along with either the Primary Care Trust or Dental Provision.

RESOLVED, That

The Committee noted that all representatives of the Council on outside bodies had been asked to report annually to the appropriate select committee, on the work of the organisation and any issues which might be considered significant by the Council.

Members noted reports on the Lightwater and Camberley Police and Community Partnership Groups, and thanked the respective Members for their inputs.

RESOLVED, That

The Committee noted the issue to all Members of the IDeA Members’ Guide to Performance Management.

CHAIRMAN

ANNEX A

EXTERNAL PARTNERSHIPS SELECT COMMITTEE

DRAFT COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME

2005/06

Possible other issues to be allocated: