Guess what – Surrey admits Brexit is bad for us

Brexit is bad for us says Surrey County Council’s impact assessment – now that it has finally been revealed.

Thanks to Monica Harding working with other local Lib Dem members and our campaign with the Surrey Advertiser, the Information Commissioner’s Office have ordered Surrey County Council to release their Brexit Impact assessments.

And guess what, brexit is really bad.
‘No deal’ means that the UK would be treated by the EU as a 3rd country and would be subject to full 3rd country controls, including completing customs declarations and being subject to a variety of border checks.
Brexit is not included as a risk within the National Risk Assessment 2016. Although the risks associated with BREXIT can be drawn from this document
On the Surrey Community Risk Register in a no deal brexit scenario the following risks are identified:
H14 – Food Supply contamination
H60 – High consequence dangerous goods / transport accident
H24 – Emerging Infectious Diseases
H25 – Major outbreak of exotic notifiable disease in animals (including birds)
H37 – Influx of British Nationals

The following risks have also been identified in the SCC report:
Loss of cover due to industrial action by workers providing a service critical to the preservation of life (such as emergency service workers)
Local accident on motorways and major trunk roads
Public Disorder
Notifiable plant disease / Notifiable exotic invertebrate species

Within SLRF partners own risk management processes there is the risk to the supply chain where goods and products are imported from the EU main land

And the kicker – As of 20 July 2018, HMG has suggested that partners should have plans in face for a 4 week period of disruption (i.e. increased controls by EU states at ports, including Eurotunnel) plus a 2 week period to allow the impact to return to relatively normal levels of service.

Key consequences:
Surrey expect long delays in accessing Dover Ports and Eurotunnel in Kent.
Temporary closure or permanent changes to all or part of the M20 and M26 to support Operation Stack and other mitigations for port delays.
Significant reduction in the capacity of the Surrey Highway Network, with consequential increase in local and pan Surrey road journey times, impacting on local residents and businesses.
Significant long term detrimental impact on county’s economic competitiveness, attractiveness
Significant disruption to health and social care delivery within the community; for patients travelling to hospitals for treatment and for critical staff in getting to work

Significant disruption to the Food Supply Chain with delays in the exportation of food from the UK, and importation of food from EU and non EU countries.
Significant disruption to the distribution of medication around the county along with supply chain of medication from outside of the UK.

Significant economic and environmental impacts for Surrey or in other words – total chaos to our supply chains. That’s food and medicine supplies to the shops. We learn of nearly half million homeless in the UK, and one in five children living with severe food insecurity, and then Brexit contingency plans say supplies will be disrupted. Welcome to the land of hunger.

When was the government last right on a timescale? The Prime Minister couldn’t even get the date of the meaningful vote delivered, a simple vote in parliament. What hope ferries delivering vital food and medicine to the UK? How long will 4 weeks stretch on for with failing Chris Grayling, 4 months? 4 Years?

Surrey hid it from us, even though it all its contents were already in the public domain. Why?

Surrey County Council have only included in their impact assessment existing published information. Why did they try to hide it from residents? Were they ashamed of their own lack of activity, or following the minority conservative governments orders against the interests of the residents of Surrey?

Surrey County Council obviously feared the residents of Surrey would be unhappy to learn of their plans, and so decide to keep them hidden. They found the only legal argument they could to try and hide behind. To refuse to provide local residents with information about Brexit preparations, to deny FOI requests, and to keep secrets from residents. They relied upon an exception intended for cases of national emergency and public order. They relied upon the section 36(2)(c) exemption – the catch all exception – using “safe space arguments” to delay the publication of supposedly important contingency plans.

And they have been found to have done so improperly, with the ICO ordering the information be released.

A victory for Surrey residents against a secretive County Council seeking to keep the residents of Surrey in the dark.

Yet the plans are half baked, barely worth the effort of reading. What a farce of a County Council.

Surrey Residents left in the Dark again.

Parking Reporting Back

As mentioned in a previous post, this year Surrey has sought requests for on-street parking changes for the people of Weybridge.  A number of the requests were accepted for implementation – although more were rejected.

Dorchester, Gascoigne, Limes and Minorca
There were a few requests for residents’ permit schemes.  All bar Bloomfield Court were rejected.  Despite the petitions and emails to Surrey Highways about changes needed to parking in Dorchester, Gascoigne, Limes and Minorca Roads the Highways officers’ recommendation to Surrey’s Elmbridge Local Committee was not to make any changes in these streets at this time.

Before Monday’s local committee meeting Cllr Andrew Davis discussed the matter with various members of the committee including Cllr Tim Oliver, Weybridge’s Surrey county representative and County Cllr John O’Reilly, the chair of the local committee.

The two main reasons the highways officers put forward for taking no action now were: there was a comprehensive programme to deal with the parking problems of Weybridge holistically and the petitioned schemes were too large at this stage; and, they could cause displacement.

The counter argument put by Cllr Davis was that taking a holistic approach does not mean that all action has to wait until some comprehensive development occurs.  This wait could be three to five years or longer. And, since all parking regulations will cause displacement, a judgement has to taken as to the significance of the effects of the displacement.

At the meeting, recognising that due process did not allow for a final decision to be made in that meeting, Cllr Andrew Davis requested that ward and divisional councillors meet with the officers to review possibilities, with a view to a decision being made expeditiously under the chairman’s delegated authority.  This was agreed by the local committee, and the chairman said he would use his delegated authority if necessary.

What should happen
The councillors and officers will meet to decide what proposal to put forward and how the informal consultation should be undertaken.  If a consensus can be reached a proposal will be advertised early next calendar year.

Continued Pressure
Surrey can seem remote – because it is. With the best will in the world, it is difficult for Surrey to fully grasp the nuances of parking stress over time and distance.  The highways engineers bring a wealth of knowledge on the effectiveness of each type of measure but we must be continually engaged with Surrey’s parking implementation process if we are to share the scarce resource of parking spaces effectively.  The focus team will work with to you.

Weybridge On-street Parking Changes 2018

See also:

This post deals with the parking schemes that Surrey proposes to implement, subject to the agreement of the Surrey Local Committee meeting at 4pm, Monday, 26 November, 2018 in the Civic Centre.  These scheme will be formally ‘advertised’ as they stand. This is the first stage of public consultation on these schemes.

Streets to have changes – mainly additional double yellow lines for safety reasons:

  • Beales Lane
  • Devonshire Road
  • Fortescue Road
  • Grenside Road
  • Grotto Road
  • High Street
  • Manor Court
  • Mayfield Road
  • Thames Street

DYL = double yellow line, in other words no waiting at any time.

Devonshire Road

In Devonshire Road make the existing advisory disabled parking bay into a mandatory bay at any time, Blue Badge holders only, No time limit’. To improve compliance with existing bay.

High Street

Modify existing loading bay on the High Street to allow all vehicles to load/unload
here, not just goods vehicles as at present.

Manor Court

Manor court to introduce a DYL around the inside of the ‘island’ (access
to the flats). To prohibit parking which prevents access to the flats. To improve
safety.

Fortescue and Mayfield Junction

At the junction of Fortescue and Mayfield introduce DYLs to prevent parking
which obstructs sightlines to improve safety at the junction.

Roads around St George’s Junior School

In Beales Lane the addition of a DYL to prevent parking which causes obstruction to the carriageway and/or footway.

Grenside Road introducing an DYL  at the junction on the west side to prevent parking which obstructs sightlines. To improve safety at the junction.

Grotto Road extend existing DYLs  at the junction with Grenside Road to improve sightlines and safety at the junction.

In Thames Street the addition of a DYL in between existing restrictions near Montrose Walk and Portmore Park Road because it causes obstruction to traffic on the carriageway and poses a safety hazard to anyone wishing to use the footway at this location. Introduce ‘No Stopping Mon-Fri 8:15-9:15am and 2:30-4pm School Keep Clear’ on the opposite side of the road from the end of the existing school keep clear to the buildout opposite the access to Portmore Park Road. To improve traffic flow and safety during school ‘pick up and drop off times’.

Weybridge Parking – Permit Schemes

See also:

This post deals with those parking schemes, requested by residents in the Weybridge Parking Review in 2018, which Surrey Highways officers have recommended to be rejected or for there to be ‘no further action at the current time’. These recommendations will be agreed or rejected at the Surrey Local Committee meeting at 4pm, Monday, 26 November, 2018 in the Civic Centre.

Rejected Scheme

Layton Court.  Residents request a permit scheme and a conversion of grass to hard standing. 16 signatures from 11 households- indicating support by 69%.  The road space directly in front of Layton Court can only accommodate 5 or 6 vehicles, so it does not seem feasible to restrict this to permit holders only and make it available for all 16 households in Layton Court. Taking a very low average of one vehicle per household means that there would be 16 permits sold and only 6 spaces. The creation of hard standing on the verges is not a ‘parking review’ issue. This would need to be considered by the local area highway team, although there is essentially no funding available to meet these kinds of requests.  Officer’s recommendation – do not proceed.

Schemes recommended for no further action at the current time

Dorchester Road.  A request for a resident permit scheme.  Survey indicates 85% support for the scheme.  The county council looked at a permit parking scheme for Dorchester Road in 2015/16 as part of the Weybridge parking review.  The idea was not progressed based on the feedback at the time.  See ‘Town Centre’ petition for further information about parking in this area.  Officer’s recommendation – no further action at the current time.

Gascoigne Road.  A residents’ request permit scheme. Support is 91% (in fact 100%).  The county council looked at a permit parking scheme for Gascoigne Road in 2015/16 as part of the Weybridge parking review. The idea was not progressed based on the feedback at the time. See ‘Town Centre’ petition for further information about parking in this area. Officer’s recommendation – no further action at the current time.

Limes Road.  To have controlled parking at all times or as close to it as possible. Officer’s recommendation.  Because discussions are ongoing about the possibility of providing more off-street car parking space, and we therefore do not feel it is appropriate to bring in further large-scale parking schemes in the town centre at the current time.  No further action.

Minorca Road.  To have controlled parking at all times or as close to it as possible. Officer’s recommendation.  Because discussions are ongoing about the possibility of providing more off-street car parking space, and we therefore do not feel it is appropriate to bring in further large-scale parking schemes in the town centre at the current time.  No further action.

Scheme was recommended for further development

Broomfield Court.  A request for a resident permit scheme.  Resident’s survey had 15 signatures from 14 households from 18 properties, proving 78% support.  Many of the properties in Broomfield Court do not have off street parking.  This scheme seems to have a lot of support and as the area is reasonably self-contained we do not consider parking displacement to be a risk.  Officer’s recommendation. Develop proposals for a parking management scheme including permit parking to operate in part of the road. Carry out informal consultation. If sufficient support for the idea is shown, refine proposals as necessary and progress to formal advertisement.

Surrey’s Parking Review Strategy

See also:

Surrey County has changed the way it reviews parking across Elmbridge – again.  In 2015, they set in place a process for strategic reviews of parking in each of the nine towns in Elmbridge on a three yearly basis.  Weybridge was the second town to undergo a strategic review and found that county essentially ignored the wishes of residents and the advice of borough councillors in Weybridge Riverside. Understandably, this left many people disappointed and angry. County’s decisions did not reflect the needs of residents in town centre streets and appeared to be based on flawed logic.

The current approach

The three-year review approach was abandoned by county in 2017, with county reverting to annual reviews across the whole of Elmbridge.  In preparation for this year’s review Andrew and Vicki discussed parking issues with residents of each street.  Whilst views differed from place to place and, at times amongst residents of the same street, it was clear that certain streets needed prompt action this year.  People have been waiting long enough.

Officer recommendations

However SCC officers have recommended parking control changes in the following streets:  Beales Lane, Devonshire Road, Fortescue Road, Grenside Road, Grotto Road, High Street, Manor Court, Mayfield Road and Thames Street.These are mainly additional double yellow lines for safety reasons:For more information click here.

Streets with schemes that have been recommended not to proceed or where the officer recommendation is ‘no further action at the current time’ are: Baker Street, Balfour Road, Beales Lane, Broomfield Court (further work suggested but set to progress), Church Street, Dorchester Road, Gascoigne Road, Glencoe Road, Heath Road, Heathside Road, High Street, Jessamy Road, Layton Court, Limes Road, March Road, Minorca Road, Old Palace Road, Parkside Court, Portmore Park Road, Radnor Road, South Road, Thames Street, York Road and West Palace Gardens.  Details are listed here.

Can we afford to lose Weybridge Children’s Centre

Surrey County’s financial difficulties are putting at risk one of the most useful and effective community services in Weybridge – the Sure Start for All Children’s Centre, based in Churchfields.

Who needs help?

Surrey says that the closure of this, and other centres is necessary as it wishes to target those children “most in need”. Sadly, the way need is assessed is based almost wholly on national measures of disadvantage which ignores the very real needs and risks to well-being presented by more hidden needs such as unrecognised post-natal depression, domestic abuse and the simple isolation experienced by new mothers in commuter centres like Weybridge.

Why place matters

I spoke this week with the Leader of Weybridge Children’s Centre and came away convinced of the need for there to be high quality services available for children and families in most towns in Elmbridge. Daphne described to me the subtle ways of encouraging reluctant parents to attend the centre, and then access further services, which comes about thanks to informal encounters out and about in town. This is just not possible when parents have to travel to another town.

Weybridge’s centre is very special

Daphne and her deputy also filled me on on the range of innovative programmes they have introduced in Weybridge, which have been adopted by other centres and which have participants from other centres, including: a brilliant 7-week post-natal course; a paediatric First Aid course (only centre to run one) and an NHS facilitated 8-week Cognitive Behavioural Therapy based mental health course for mothers with post-natal depression.

What does OFSTED say?

In 2015 OFSTED visited the centre and found:

“One of the most notable features of their work is how successful the staff are in helping mothers and families become more capable.  This goes well beyond mothers and fathers learning how to become better parents.  It has a track record of helping parents to access education and progress to paid work.”

“The centre leader has done a sterling job of maintaining high-quality frontline services alongside inducting new staff and ensuring it is ‘business as usual’ for families during a period of significant change.”

“Her work is highly respected and valued by partners and parents alike.”

“The centre has been recognised as an ‘excellence in
practice partner’ by the health care provider for its work with parents at their child’s developmental check.”

“Targeted one-to-one support for children and families is effective and highly valued. Parents described staff to inspectors as ‘caring, sensitive, non-judgemental and patient’.”

Case files are of good quality and show the tangible impact that staff interventions have, particularly in empowering families to take control. Parents, including those from priority groups, build skills and confidence from attending specific programmes that help them to manage their children’s challenging behaviour positively.”

“The outreach work provided for the relatively high number of children and families who are in most need of support is extremely effective in enhancing their health, safety and well-being and
sustaining their involvement with the centre until their needs are met.”

“The centre provides access to high-quality services for most adults identified as needing help to improve their education and skills. Initial entry-level English courses are delivered by the college at the centre, where a crèche is provided by centre staff.”

Can we really let this disappear without a fight?

Read more on the centre’s facebook page give your opinion to Surrey here

Libraries

Surrey is undertaking several consultations and is seeking your comments by 4 January 2019 to help it shape those services for the future.

More people are using Surrey’s online services with fewer visiting in person, so changes to the library service are proposed to do things differently to fit better with modern life. views are being sought on the strategic principles that will shape the future service – such as whether libraries could bring together a range of local services under one roof.

Further details on all the consultations and the opportunity to submit views on these proposals can be found here.  The consultation response is at the bottom of the consultation webpage.

The analysis of the responses to the consultations will be presented to Surrey’s cabinet in January 2019 for consideration and then to full council in February.  There will then be a second phase of consultation where it will share detailed proposals in 2019 to seek resident’s views before any final decisions are made.

Surrey’s Recycling Proposals

Surrey is undertaking several consultations and it seeks your comments by 4 January 2019

Despite changes to recycling centres last year, Surrey’s financial pressures are so severe that consideration needs to be given to whether further savings can be found at community recycling centres.

Surrey’s proposals include:

  • Permanently closing a number of smaller, less effective CRCs, whilst
    increasing the opening hours at some CRCs. Up to six CRC sites are
    under consideration for closure: Bagshot, Cranleigh, Dorking, Farnham,
    Lyne and Warlingham.
  • Introducing a charge to dispose of construction wood and roofing felt.
  • Increasing the cost of disposing of items we already charge for.
  • Charging an annual application fee for van, pickup and trailer permits.

There are no recycling centres in Elmbridge and residents would probably use
the centres in Leatherhead or Epsom which are not proposed for closure, but
whose opening hours may change.

Further details on all the consultations and the opportunity to submit views on
these proposals can be found here.  The consultation response is at the bottom of the consultation webpage.

The analysis of the responses to the consultations will be presented to Surrey’s cabinet in January 2019 for consideration and then to full council in February.

Disability Bus Passes

Surrey is undertaking several consultations and it invites you to give your comments on disability bus passes by 4 January 2019

The consultation is proposing changes to concessionary bus fares. Surrey has been providing benefits over and above the national scheme for many years. The national scheme allows people with a disabled person’s bus pass to travel free on buses after 9:30am and before 11pm on weekdays and all day at weekends and on public holidays. Surrey is one of a few areas in the country still offering free travel for disability pass holders at all times and a free companion pass for qualifying older or disabled bus pass holders who need help to travel. Under the proposals these extra concessions would be
removed, which along with other efficiencies, would save around £400,000 a year.

Further details on all the consultations and the opportunity to submit views on
these proposals can be found here.  The consultation response is at the bottom of the consultation webpage.

The analysis of the responses to the consultations will be presented to Surrey’s cabinet in January 2019 for consideration and then to full council in February.

Special Educational Needs and Disability 

Surrey county is undertaken several consultations and it is seeking your views by 4 January 2019 to help it shape the special educational needs and disability (Send) services throughout Surrey for the future

Surrey says that its draft strategy includes proposals for giving support as early as possible, which would be better for those who need help. The aim is also to provide support nearer to home and reduce the need for children to go to schools out of the county. To achieve this an extra 350 specialist school places are planned to be created in Surrey over the next two years. Surrey believes that, overall, the changes will mean better outcomes for children and families and with government funding failing to keep pace with the big increase in children needing help, they may also avoid more costly services being needed in the future.

Further details on all the consultations and the opportunity to submit views on these proposals can be found here.  The consultation response is at the bottom of the  consultation webpage.

The analysis of the responses to the consultations will be presented to Surrey’s cabinet in January 2019 for consideration and then to full council in February.  There will then be a second phase of consultation where we will share detailed proposals in 2019 to seek resident’s views before any final decisions are made.