Source: https://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=120&MId=5113&Ver=4
Timestamp: 2018-10-16 07:31:12
Document Index: 581197203

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 1']

Agenda for Cabinet on Thursday, 14 December 2017, 2.00 pm
Thursday, 14 December 2017 2.00 pm
Budget Monitoring report and Cabinet Member Decisions taken since the last Cabinet meeting PDF 1 MB
Printed decisions PDF 520 KB
Webcast for 210/17
An apology was received from Mr John Furey.
Webcast for 211/17
The Minutes of the meeting held on 28 November 2017 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
View the background to item 212/17
Webcast for 212/17
Mr Tim Oliver declared a non-pecuniary interest for item 5b in that he was on the Surrey and Borders Partnership.
Members' Questions PDF 194 KB
(i) The deadline for Member’s questions is 12pm four working days before the meeting (8 December 2017).
item 4a-Annex A , item 213/17 PDF 20 KB
Webcast for 213/17
There were four questions received from Members. The questions and responses are attached as Appendix 1.
Public Questions PDF 278 KB
The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (7 December 2017).
Webcast for 214/17
There were four questions received from the public. The questions and responses are attached as Appendix 2.
Q1. Sally Blake asked when she would receive an answer to her question.
Q2. Sally Blake stated that she believed that no allowance had been made for the increase to adult social care and health costs if free parking for Surrey residents to have regular exercise in the Countryside Estate was taken away. This was despite considerable evidence that it would increase these costs. The increase could dwarf the income from parking charges and it was even more important with the financial issues faced by the council. She asked if Cabinet would be approving the pay and conserve proposal before these costs had been valued, independently confirmed and taken into account? The Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport would send a written response.
Q3. Mr John Oliver stated that, legally, the car parks are part of common land. This meant that a charge for parking was a charge for access to the common. Given that, for many, the only way to get to the commons is by car, charges would effectively prevent access to the common for those who cannot afford it. He asked the Chairman what could be done to improve the presentation of the law by policy makers to Cabinet Members and to the public? The Chairman would ensure a written response to this question.
Q4. Mr John Oliver stated that the Planning Inspectorate has just advised the Save Newlands Corner Campaign Group that, although the psychological effect of the introduction of parking charge equipment and charges was not specifically mentioned in law, the Inspector could have regard to ‘any other matter’ when considering an application and said it has done so in the past. The council’s own consultation showed that there would be a psychological and cost barrier to 57% of users, either preventing them using the common at all or as often as usual. This was a huge significant effect which prevented and impeded the public from accessing the commons. He asked if the proposals should now be placed before the Planning Inspectorate for a decision, given the very significant effect that they would have to access and that the public should be given the opportunity to make representations about the proposals and if not, why not? The Chairman would ensure a written response to this question.
Mr Keith Witham, Member for Worplesdon, was granted time to make a statement on Item 11 (Car Parking Charging on the Countryside Estate), which was to be deferred until January, as he would not be available to attend the Cabinet meeting in January. He made the following points:
· Common land was not free and maintenance costs were huge,
· He supported the work of the Surrey Wildlife Trust,
· Parking charges would lead to displacement parking and he urged Cabinet to consider ways to combat this at the same time as agreeing any charges. He supported the request of Worplesdon Parish Council for consideration ... view the full minutes text for item 214/17
Webcast for 215/17
Webcast for 216/17
Representation was received from Mrs Watson that information in item 15 (contract award for joint venture development partner) be considered in public. The Chairman stated that the information asked for was contained in a report that was in part 2 of the agenda because it contained information relating to the financial or business affairs of the Council. This was exempt information and to release a single sentence from the report would be to take the information out of context and could be misleading.
Reports from Scrutiny Boards, Task Groups, Local Committees and other Committees of the Council PDF 111 KB
Two reports have been received:
5a) a report has been received from the Environment and Infrastructure Select Committee regarding Pay and Conserve – Car Park Charging On The Countryside Estate.
This relates to item 11 on the agenda.
5b) a report has been received from the Children and Education Select Committee regarding: Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) in Surrey.
item 5b - C&E recs CAMHS Recommendation to Cabinet , item 217/17 PDF 58 KB
item 5b - C&E recs annex - CAMHS Recommendation to Cabinet , item 217/17 PDF 68 KB
item 5ai - response to E&I recs , item 217/17 PDF 65 KB
item 5bii - response to C&E recs , item 217/17 PDF 173 KB
Webcast for 217/17
Responses to reports from the Environment & Infrastructure and the Children & Education Select Committees are attached as Appendices 3 and 4.
Mr Tim Oliver declared a non-pecuniary interest to the report from the Children & Education Select Committee in that he was on the Surrey Borders Partnership Board.
Approval to Award a Contract for the Provision of Online Lessons via Surrey Online School for Surreys Alternative Learning Services PDF 261 KB
View the background to item 218/17
View the decision for item 218/17
The Surrey Online School (SOS) has been providing live online lessons to a range of pupils who require alternative education provision across the county since 2015. The service provides an alternative to more expensive face to face tutoring and is enabling the local authority to cope with increasing demands without incurring additional cost.
To date the services have been contracted via ‘ad hoc’ spot purchases but the continued growth in demand means it now makes sense to implement a longer term contract that will ensure continuity of service and legal compliance, as well as delivering additional savings and supporting the opportunity to generate income.
NB: There is a Part 2 annex as item 14.
item 06 - SOS Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) , item 218/17 PDF 201 KB
Webcast for 218/17
That a contract for the provision of online lesson packages to Surrey Online School be awarded to Tute Education Ltd. starting from 1 January 2018 for a period of two years with an option to extend on an annual basis for two more years.
i. Surrey Online School currently spot purchases places on online courses, in advance from an existing supplier, and then recoups the money directly from the schools or services. In order to continue current levels of provision and cope with increasing demand we are seeking a longer term solution to procurement of courses and places for students.
ii. This new provision provides a more cost effective means of commissioning these services.
iii. Due to the rapid growth of demand for the services offered by Surrey Online School we are now seeking to formalise a contract with a supplier to maintain continuity for the schools and services that purchase online education for students in alternative provision.
The Cabinet Member for Education introduced the report which explained how the Surrey Online School (SOS) had been providing live online lessons to a range of pupils who required alternative education provision across the county since 2015. The service provided an alternative to more expensive face to face tutoring and was enabling the local authority to cope with increasing demands without incurring additional cost.
The Surrey Online School replaced a previous system that Surrey had used (Lift Off) as it was more cost effective and more secure. This was a unique system that no other local authority had in place, thus there was no ‘off the shelf’ provision that could be purchased.
Many schools bought into the service for pupils from Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 4 (10-16 year olds). It was generally used as provision for fixed term and permanently excluded pupils, pupils who could not attend school due to medical conditions, school refusers and catch up. It was also used for children not on roll or awaiting placement.
The curriculum was based on three core subjects (Mathematics, English and Science) plus spiritual, moral, social and cultural development lessons. Each pupil could participate in up to 14 lessons a week and, on average there were 60-70 pupils participating per half term. All lessons were monitored for quality assurance and attendance alerts for pupil involvement were created for the schools and other agencies. User feedback was collated from schools, pupils and parents/carers and this was significantly positive towards the provision. If there were any negative responses, these were further investigated.
Schools found it more cost effective to buy back from Surrey Online School and due to number of places purchased a slight profit was made. To date the services had been contracted via ‘ad hoc’ spot purchases but the continued growth in demand meant it now made sense to implement a longer term contract that would ensure continuity of service and legal compliance, as well as delivering additional savings and supporting the opportunity to generate income.
In response to a query the Cabinet Member explained that virtual schools were set up by each authority whereas the online school was unique to Surrey. Online lessons were differentiated and could be offered to small groups of up to 12 pupils in a range of buildings.
ii. This new provision provides a more cost effective means of commissioning ... view the full minutes text for item 218/17
Surrey Schools' Funding Formula 2018/19 PDF 308 KB
View the background to item 219/17
View the decision for item 219/17
This report sets out the recommended funding formula for Surrey schools in 2018/19 for approval by the Cabinet. All Surrey schools, including academies, are funded from the council’s Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) allocation. Each local authority is required to maintain a local funding formula to allocate DSG funding to individual schools. This funding formula is determined annually, ahead of the council’s main budget decisions, in order to meet the Department for Education (DfE) deadline of 19 January 2018. It follows the annual funding consultation with all Surrey schools during October and the recommendations of the Schools Forum on 10 November 2017.
item 07 - Schools funding consultation 2018 EIA in one doc , item 219/17 PDF 200 KB
Webcast for 219/17
1. That the Schools Forum’s recommendations for the formula funding of Surrey schools in 2018/19, as set out in Annex 2 to the submitted report, be approved.
2. That the proposed Surrey formula factors for 2018/19, as set out in Annex 3 to the submitted report, be approved.
3. That authority be delegated to the Assistant Director, Schools & Learning, in consultation with the Leader and the Cabinet Member for Education to approve amendments to the schools funding formula as appropriate following receipt of the DSG settlement and DfE pupil data in December 2017.
i. To comply with DfE regulations requiring formal council approval of the local funding formula for Surrey’s primary and secondary schools, including academies.
ii. To ensure that total allocations to schools under this formula remain affordable within the council’s DSG settlement.
The Cabinet Member for Education introduced this report that set out the recommended funding formula for Surrey schools in 2018/19. All Surrey schools, including academies, were funded from the council’s Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) allocation. Each local authority was required to maintain a local funding formula to allocate DSG funding to individual schools. This funding formula was determined annually, ahead of the council’s main budget decisions, in order to meet the Department for Education (DfE) deadline of 19 January 2018. It followed the annual funding consultation with all Surrey schools during October and the recommendations of the Schools Forum on 10 November 2017.
She went on to explain that the DfE was to introduce a National Funding Formula (NFF) from 2020/21. During 2018/19 local authorities were expected to manage a smooth transition for schools by amending their local formula in the direction of the NFF. This report recommended transitional arrangements for 2018/19.
The transition to the NFF provided an extra £14m (2.4%) in 2018/19 and once fully implemented in 2020/21, a net increase of approximately £28.5m (4.8%) to Surrey schools. However, after two years with no inflation increases, schools were facing increasing pressures, including rising pay, national insurance and pension costs and funding the impact of the withdrawal of education service grants. Furthermore, the distribution of that funding was not consistent across all Surrey schools. In general, Surrey schools with higher levels of deprivation gain rather less from the NFF as Surrey’s local formula currently allocates a higher proportion of funding to schools serving deprived communities.
A few Members made the point that this was not fair funding but the council would continue to call on the Government for fairer funding. Two Members made funding comparisons with schools along the London borders. Also that grant received for pupils with high needs did not cover the spend in this area.
To comply with DfE regulations requiring formal council approval of the local funding formula for Surrey’s primary and secondary schools, including academies.
View the background to item 220/17
View the decision for item 220/17
Surrey County Council takes a multiyear approach to its budget planning and monitoring, recognising the two are inextricably linked. This report presents the Council’s financial position as at 30 November 2017 (month eight).
item 08 - Fin Budget Monitoring 201711 v0 , item 220/17 PDF 139 KB
item 08 - Annex 1 201711 v2C (1) , item 220/17 PDF 594 KB
item 08 - Annex 2 - 201711 , item 220/17 PDF 264 KB
Webcast for 220/17
That the report be noted including the following:
1. Forecast revenue budget outturn for 2017/18 were £19m overspend (Annex 1, paragraphs 1 and 8 to 38). This included:
£20m underspends, additional savings and income.
2. Significant risks to the revenue budget (Annex 1, paragraphs 39 to 44 of the submitted report) could add £11m to the forecast overspend, included: £8m in Children, Schools & Families and £2m in Adult Social Care.
3. Forecast planned savings for 2017/18 totalled £79m against £95m agreed savings and £104m target (Annex 1, paragraph 45 of the submitted report).
4. All services continued to take all reasonable action to keep costs down and optimise income (e.g. minimising spending, managing vacancies wherever possible etc.).
5. The Section 151 Officer’s commentary and the Monitoring Officer’s Legal Implications commentary in paragraphs 16 to 19 of the submitted report stated that the council had a duty to ensure its expenditure did not exceed resources available and move towards a sustainable budget for future years.
6. Draw down £23,000 from Community Buildings grant scheme for planned spend on school kitchen schemes in 2017/18 (Annex 1, paragraph 61 of the submitted report).
7. £0.5m of the current £0.8m Adult Social Care Major Adaptations capital budget be spent on items purchased from the community equipment store capitalised under the accounting policy for community equipment from 1 April 2017 (Annex 1, paragraph 62 of the submitted report).
The Leader of the Council presented the budget monitoring report for period eight of 2017/18, up to 30 November 2017.
He explained that in February the council set its budget for 2017/18 in the face of: significant rising demand pressures (particularly in social care); falling Government funding and continuing restraint on the ability to raise funds locally. To balance 2017/18’s budget the council had to make plans to deliver an unprecedented £104m of savings. This significant challenge for the council comes on top of already making over £450m savings since 2010.
He also explained that within the £104m savings target, the council had agreed plans for £95m savings, with £9m savings to be identified. After eight months of the financial year, services have already achieved £55m of savings with another £19m on track for delivery, and £5m facing potential barriers. At this stage, £16m savings are now thought to be unachievable in this year.
The council’s 2017/18 budget included significant demand and cost pressures, mostly in social care. In the first eight months of the year, demand had increased above that forecast even a short time ago. For example, in Children’s Services, demand continued to increase and was expected to add an £8m pressure by the end of the financial year. Partially offsetting these pressures, there were forecast underspends elsewhere, including in Children Schools & Families, Adult Social Care, Orbis, Highways & Transport, Waste and Central Income & Expenditure.
The combined impact of delivering lower savings than planned and demand rising faster than anticipated was a forecast year end overspend of £19m for 2017/18. This was a £1m increase on last month’s forecast position due to further market related cost pressures in Adult Social Care partly offset by savings and cost reductions in Orbis, Children’s services and Fire. Additional risks that were outside the council’s control may yet crystallise in some key budget areas and the forecast year end position could potentially worsen.
He concluded that services had already taken action as part of the recovery plan to reduce costs by £4m. However, he also stressed the need to continue to take all reasonable action to manage spending within available resources by keeping costs down, managing vacancies, optimising income and being aware of the current financial position before committing additional future expenditure.
Cabinet Members spoke of the financial and demand pressures as well as work being undertaking in their portfolio areas.
The Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport updated Cabinet on the Eco Park which was due to be operational by May/June 2018. He stated that this was a good achievement, despite much opposition, and that it had been achieved by working together with partners.
2. Significant risks to ... view the full minutes text for item 220/17
Contract award for Joint Venture Development Partner PDF 224 KB
View the background to item 221/17
View the decision for item 221/17
This report provides an update on activities undertaken in response to Central Government’s proposals to tackle the nationwide housing crisis, by unlocking sites for the construction of mixed use development schemes. Through utilising its own land and buildings, Surrey County Council (SCC) has the opportunity to unlock public land for redevelopment use, whilst also creating assets with income generating potential. In order to deliver this opportunity at scale and pace the Council has completed a procurement process for an external partner to deliver these benefits through a Joint Venture (JV).
This report highlights details of the procurement process and in conjunction with the Part 2 report, demonstrates why the JV contract award will deliver best value to our residents.
NB: There is a Part 2 annex as item 15.
Webcast for 221/17
1. That authority be delegated to the Cabinet Member for Property and Business Services; Acting Chief Executive and Chief Property Officer to finalise and enter into:
a. the JV contract documentation, as set out in the submitted Part 2 report, with Places for People Group (PfP);
b. conclude contract requirements for the provision of an operating lease within the parameters set out within the submitted Part 2 report;
2. That the Investment Board:
a. commission the Joint Venture to undertake development opportunities and option analysis for the initial prioritised sites to be agreed by the Shareholder Board when setting the business plan, with future development opportunities following the same process;
b. formulate and present recommendations back to Cabinet for final approval of any development proposal or alternative future uses for the sites; and
c. review additional potential sites and commission feasibility proposals or options analysis for development proposals or alternative future uses of the sites;
3. That it be noted that authority was delegated to the Shareholder Board (SB) to:
a. appoint nominated representatives to the Joint Venture Strategy Board;
b. appoint two nominated Council officers to be representatives of the Council on the Joint Venture Board to oversee and deliver the day to day activities of the joint venture vehicle;
c. approve the Annual Business Plan, Annual Accounts and other applicable control and management member matters of the Joint Venture entity; and its terms of reference have been amended accordingly.
i. These recommendations enable SCC to assist in enhancing economic prosperity within the County, through the delivery of mixed use development schemes, and potentially securing a long term revenue stream to the Council.
ii. Entering into the proposed Joint Venture will provide SCC with an ability to secure the following objectives:
(a) establish a delivery model, which can act as an agent for economic growth and social activity, delivering housing and mixed use developments;
(b) create a focus for skills & training development and local employment opportunities;
(c) utilise its assets, ensuring efficiencies, site optimisation and achieving best value and allowing a pipeline of sites to be made available to the JV partner to ensure economies of scale and scope to the programme of activities;
(d) support delivery of key components of the Investment Strategy;
(e) secure a significant, pre-committed and long term partner able to bring capital and expertise to the region;
(f) support and benefit from wider collaborative opportunities through offering the vehicle to those public sector partners seeking a development delivery vehicle that satisfies their own corporate asset related objectives.
Mrs Hazel Watson spoke to this item and put the following statements and questions:
· Whilst it was good that this was an opportunity for the council to bring empty properties into use the report failed to meet needs of residents and safeguards and sought assurances
· It was shrouded in secrecy and requested a list of land and properties, and their value, in the joint venture
· What methodology was used to say a building was surplus to requirements and would there be consultation with local councillors and residents?
· The key performance indicators were not contained in the report
· What were the termination options and costs?
· She was upset that there was no commitment to provide more than the minimum affordable housing. The venture has missed an opportunity to provide affordable housing and home for those adults and children with SEND.
· Also, would the council be seeking exemption under S123 of the Local Government Act 1972 to substantially boost the level of affordable homes built?
Mr Jonathan Essex then spoke to the item and put the following comments and questions:
· This venture could provide unique opportunities depending on the detail of individual projects
· That when considering the sustainability and equality outcomes for project that environmental and social sustainability also be considered as well as economic sustainability
· He asked for clarification on the 50% of benefits mentioned in the report being shared with a partner. Does this include the sustainability requirements as to take a lower cut for these may be a disincentive?
· There was a need for this council to show leadership and insist on higher standards than other developers.
The Cabinet Member for Property & Business Services introduced the report and responded to some of the issues raised. The report provided an update on activities undertaken in response to Central Government’s proposals to tackle the nationwide housing crisis, by unlocking sites for the construction of mixed use development schemes. Through utilising its own land and buildings, Surrey County Council (SCC) had the opportunity to unlock public land for redevelopment use, whilst also creating assets with income generating potential. In order to deliver this opportunity at scale and pace the Council has completed a procurement process for an external partner to deliver these benefits through a Joint Venture (JV). Due to the commercial sensitivity of the contract award, the financial and commercial details were covered in a Part 2 report.
The Cabinet Member explained that a policy would be drawn up to cover environmental issues and that work was taking place with boroughs and districts to provide affordable housing. Cabinet would receive a report in the New Year detailing the establishment of a Board which would include boroughs and districts and looking at properties. Full engagement would take place with Members and the select committee would report back on its findings.
He also explained the governance arrangements and how there would be six layers of oversight and how they would work and be interconnected. The JV was one part of the delivery mechanism ... view the full minutes text for item 221/17
Award of Framework Agreement for the Provision of Advertising Services for Statutory Notices PDF 153 KB
View the background to item 222/17
View the decision for item 222/17
This report seeks approval for the Council to award a framework agreement to TMP Worldwide for the provision of Advertising Services for Statutory Notices to commence on 1 March 2018.
The advertisement of Statutory Notices in relation to orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is governed by the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 and the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedure Regulations 1992. Under these Regulations the Council has a statutory duty as the Traffic Authority to publish two notices in the press for both permanent and temporary Traffic Orders.
This report outlines the procurement process undertaken, including the results of the tender evaluation. When considered in conjunction with the Part 2 report, it demonstrates why the recommended framework award will deliver value for money, quality and consistency across the Council’s Statutory Notices.
Due to the commercial sensitivity involved in the framework award process, the names of the bidders and their financial details have been circulated as a Part 2 report.
NB: There is a Part 2 annex as item 16.
Webcast for 222/17
1. That the framework agreement be awarded to TMP Worldwide for three years from 1 March 2018 with an option to extend for one period of one year. Over the full term of the framework, the anticipated value is £1.4m (approximately £368,000 per annum).
2. That the Leader of the Council write to the Secretary of State for Department of Communities & Local Government requesting that the legislation regarding statutory notices be reviewed in light of the significant financial cost of producing such notices and to modernise the way that the public access this information.
i. The Council had a contract for Advertising of Statutory Notices, which is due to expire on 28 February 2018 and needs to be replaced.
ii. The Council conducted an Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) tender process, in compliance with the requirements of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and the Council's Procurement Standing Orders.
iii. A thorough evaluation process has identified awarding the framework to TMP Worldwide will provide the Council with the best value for money.
The Cabinet Member for Property & Business Services introduced a report that sought approval for the Council to award a framework agreement to TMP Worldwide for the provision of Advertising Services for Statutory Notices to commence on 1 March 2018. He explained that there was a legislative requirement and no alternative. The Council had a statutory duty as the Traffic Authority to publish notices in the press for both permanent and temporary Traffic Orders. It was a costly service especially when very few people get information from newspapers. The report outlined the procurement process undertaken, including the results of the tender evaluation. Due to the commercial sensitivity involved in the framework award process, the names of the bidders and their financial details have been circulated as a Part 2 report.
a) That there was an increasing use of social media for information.
b) That a white paper had been put forward some time ago to get this legislation changed, but it did not go anywhere.
c) That one parking review had cost £10k in advertising and that this money should be used on the service.
d) One Member asked if the advert could be reduced to one line which directed the reader to the full information on a social media site but was informed that this was not possible.
The Leader proposed an additional recommendation which was accepted.
That the framework agreement be awarded to TMP Worldwide for three years from 1 March 2018 with an option to extend for one period of one year. Over the full term of the framework, the anticipated value is £1.4m (approximately £368,000 per annum).
That the Leader of the Council write to the Secretary of State for Department of Communities & Local Government requesting that the legislation regarding statutory notices be reviewed in light of the significant financial cost of producing such notices and to modernise the way that the public access this information.
The Council has a contract for Advertising of Statutory Notices, which is due to expire on 28 February 2018 and needs to be replaced.
The Council conducted an Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) tender process, in compliance with the requirements of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and the Council's Procurement Standing Orders.
A thorough evaluation process has identified awarding the framework to TMP Worldwide will provide the Council with the best value for money.
Pay and Conserve, Car Park Charging on the Countryside Estate PDF 341 KB
View the background to item 223/17
View the decision for item 223/17
Since 2002, the County Council has contracted with Surrey Wildlife Trust (SWT) to manage the Countryside Estate in order to deliver biodiversity, landscape and access benefits. Our vision is for a financially sustainable Estate which is protected and enhanced for future generations.
Ongoing pressure on local government funding has meant the County Council has had to find savings in this area and since 2014 we have, in the face of severe funding pressures, been working with SWT to identify new ways of generating income in order to ensure the financial sustainability of the countryside estate.
In line with a strategy pursued by many other landowners, the option of charging for car parking has been investigated as a potential source of income to support our vision. This paper sets out a proposed approach to car park charging. The proposal is based on public consultation carried out during autumn 2017.
item 11 - Car Parking Charging ConsultationAnalysisReport_PayConserve v2 , item 223/17 PDF 892 KB
item 11 - PayConserve EIA v2 , item 223/17 PDF 193 KB
Webcast for 223/17
This item was deferred until January 2018.
item 12 - CM decisions Annex 1 , item 224/17 PDF 40 KB
That the decisions taken by Cabinet Members / Investment Board since the last meeting, as set out in Annex 1 to the submitted report, be noted.
The decision taken by a Cabinet Member since the last meeting as set out in Annex 1 to the submitted report was noted.
Approval to Award a Contract for the Provision of Online Lessons via Surrey Online School for Surreys Alternative Learning Services
View the reasons why item 226/17 is restricted
This is the Part 2 annex relating to item 6.
[The decisions on this item may be called in by the Children and Education Select Committee]
That the information within the Part 2 report be noted, in conjunction with the recommendations made in the Part 1 report (item 6).
See Minute 226/17.
See Minute 218/17.
Contract award for Joint Venture Development Partner
View the reasons why item 227/17 is restricted
View the background to item 227/17
View the decision for item 227/17
This is the Part 2 annex relating to item 9.
That the information within the Part 2 report be noted, in conjunction with the recommendations made in the Part 1 report (item 9).
See Minute 221/17.
Mrs Hazel Watson spoke to this item and asked when the various agreement would be available. She also stated that this was a complicated arrangement which would cause confusion and a lack of transparency.
The Cabinet Member for Property and Business Services replied that advice would be sought from the Monitoring Officer regarding the release of agreements. He also denied that the operation process with its various checks and balance was complicated and stated that the agreement could be terminated with six months’ notice.
Award of Framework Agreement for the Provision of Advertising Services for Statutory Notices
View the reasons why item 228/17 is restricted
This is the Part 2 annex relating to item 10.
That the information within the Part 2 report be noted, in conjunction with the recommendations made in the Part 1 report (item 10).
See Minute 222/17.