Been desperate to attend County Hall for meetings of the Full Council but just couldn’t find the time? Probably not, but Full Council meetings are now being filmed and webcast so you can watch whenever you like from the comfort of your own home.

The first to be filmed was the meeting on 15th December 2009, the next will be the Budget meeting on Feb 9th 2010.

If you want to see a specific item there is a handy index feature so you can jump to the part of the meeting you are interested in.

Some good news for residents fed up with lights that never get fixed.

Reigate and Banstead will have all streetlights replaced in the first phase of the PFI. Work should start in March 2010 and take a year to complete.

The new system should allow repairs to be addressed much more quickly. Under the contract, Skanska will have to repair equipment faults within 6 days and will be subject to strict penalties for non performance.

Not so good for Mole Valley though; they don’t get their new system until 2015!

What a waste

A hotly anticipated announcement on the new waste strategy was expected at this Full Council meeting in December .

Although it had been clear since June that the new administration had abandoned plans for its mass burn incinerator at Capel, only the Cabinet were privy to the proposed alternative until now.

I was shocked to learn that an announcement was to be made to the press before the meeting and therefore before any opposition councillors were aware of the plans, a fact Hazel objected to in the meeting but was rebuffed with the comment that this was “standard practice”.

An “eco park” consisting of anaerobic digestion and gasification plants is proposed, capable of dealing with 40,000 and 60,000 tonnes of waste respectively along with an education centre.

As far as the technology is concerned, this is broadly in line with what the Lib Dems have been suggesting for some time, however the location is more controversial with many suspicious that Surrey’s waste is being dumped on the least affluent (and least Conservative) parts of the county

You can see the official press release on the SCC website and Diana Smith has already written in some detail about this on her blog

On the Buses

Also of great importance today are the items relating to the bus review about which I had a number of questions and a motion tabled.

Surrey is undergoing a thorough review of its subsidised bus services, and routes in Reigate and Banstead could be axed or reduced in 2010. Services under threat include the 324, sections of the 430/435 routes and the school specials. Many residents are understandably devastated by the prospect of losing these services and I have been very vocal in supporting their opposition to the cuts.

Although the main aim of the review is to cut subsidies, the Council leadership claim that “residents have asked SCC to review the service as they are concerned about the level of empty buses travelling around Surrey”.

“Exactly how many residents had expressed such a concern?” was one of my questions to Ian Lake, the Cabinet Member for Transport.

Quite simply I didn’t believe that there were many, if any. I have received a lot of comments from residents about bus services and nobody has ever raised this as an issue.

The answer, a “number” of residents was too vague but I could get nothing more specific on further questioning. I did however receive an assurance that this was a genuine consultation and that more emphasis would be placed on the views of bus users, rather than non users who object to funding bus services.

A lively debate on our motion opposing bus cuts followed (including the Pegasus School bus service which has already been axed). I spoke specifically about the level of opposition to the cuts in the last few weeks, the petitions and calls I have received, and the Surrey Mirror “Save the 324” campaign that I have been supporting.

As expected not a single Conservative supported the motion or even abstained.

Let’s hope that this really is a true consultation and that the Council take notice of the level of opposition to the cuts. If you haven’t already done so, please make your views known to the Council.

I am afraid my computer had a serious breakdown over the holiday period so I have not been able to update my blog but I will report back on the highlights of December’s full council meeting very soon!

Looking forward to an exciting 2010.

The last 4 years have seen a pilot scheme of 20mph zones in operation outside 4 schools in the borough which have been enforceable under a temporary TRO (Traffic Regulation Order)

A recommendation was brought before the Local Committee this week to make these zones permanent which would require an application for a new TRO which would cost about £2000.

Although the restrictions have had limited effect, the recommendation was that reverting these zones to 30mph would send the wrong message to drivers, would be unpopular with parents, and there would be a higher cost associated with removing the 20mph signage.

However, I was surprised to see that there was a lot of antagonism towards these 20mph limits and only 4 members of the committee, myself included, were in favour of making the restrictions permanent.

The majority took the view that there was no urgency in making a decision, in spite of the fact that doing nothing means that cars can now legally travel at 60mph in these zones as there is no TRO in place to enforce any limit at all.

I will continue to campaign for 20mph limits outside all schools, with traffic calming measures where signage alone does not deter speeding.

Want to know if your road will be resurfaced in the near future? Highways have provided me with lists of roads prioritised for “Major Maintenance” and ”Surface Treatment” in 2010.

I have been told that if the budget remains unchanged next year, roads ranked up to number 52 on the “Major Maintenance” list and 129 on the “Surface Treatment” list should be addressed.

In Reigate Central Division, the placings are as follows. You can see that there may be major work on 2 roads, and surface treatment on none!

Major Maintenance

12 - Linkfield Street
34 - St Marys Road
90 - Sandpit Road
109 - Evesham Road
116 - Whitepost Hill
129 - Chart Lane
141 - Park Lane East
293 - Blanford Road
307 - Hornbeam Road
470 - Howard Road
554 - Blackborough/Lesbourne

Outside Reigate Central but of interest locally it looks like Daneshill (3), Carlton Road (16) and possibly Earlsbrook Road (64) and Birkheads Road (69) could be fixed!

Surface Treatment

154 - Reigate Road (Flanchford Road to Buckland)
181 - Park Lane

Reigate and Banstead bus routes will be among the first to be reduced or axed completely under a phased review of bus services currently being conducted by Surrey County Council.

Our bus services are operated privately, but most are subsidised by the Council. Although the official line is that “residents have asked SCC to review the service as they are concerned about the level of empty buses travelling around Surrey”, it is clear from examining the proposals that “review” means “cuts” and this is simply a cost cutting exercise.

Key changes of concern for Reigate residents will be on the following routes:

• Service 324 which runs between Redhill and Horley via Reigate, Woodhatch and Sidlow is to be cut completely
• Service 430 to be withdrawn from Meadvale and South Park and diverted between Redhill and Woodhatch via South Park
• Service 435 to be withdrawn between Whitebushes and Reigate

Our public transport infrastructure is already insufficent and the limited service we do have is a lifeline for many people who no access to any other form of transport. These cuts will only make things worse, and will encourage more traffic onto our already congested roads.

More details are available on the SCC Website and you can comment on the proposals directly to the Council. The consultation period ends in January and proposals will be submitted to Cabinet in March 2010 for planned implementation in September 2010.

I would also be grateful if you could provide me any feedback directly so that I can better understand the impact these changes will have, and to include in my own response to the consultation.

Ever wondered why the broken streetlight you reported months ago is still broken?

Well, Surrey County Council have finally come clean on the ‘minimal repair program’ that they have been operating for some time now and have issued guidance regarding their handling of streetlight repairs.

It’s all down to the streetlighting PFI which comes into operation next year. This is a huge capital project which will replace 80% of the street lights in Surrey over a 5 year period.

Pending replacement, only faults classified as ‘high priority’ will be fixed.

These include damaged/uprooted bollards, damaged regulatory signs and streetlighting columns. Lantern replacements and leaning lamp posts are not being fixed unless in high crime areas or potential accident blackspots.

My advice is to continue reporting any problems to me or the Council directly and as always I will be working on your behalf to do what I can.

I will of course keep you posted on details of the replacement scheme as I know more.

I have allocated another £500 of my local funding allowance to the charity Us In a Bus.

Us In a Bus is a local organisation which works with people with profound and complex learning difficulties enabling them to connect with others through interaction, play and self-expression.

To mark the 20th anniversary of Us In a Bus, it is organising a conference for commissioners, managers and front line workers to learn the Intensive Interaction techniques used by Us In a Bus.

The money is to provide 10 bursaries for attendees such as family carers or volunteers who could not otherwise afford the conference fees.

Us In a Bus can be contacted at info@usinabus.org.uk.

Today’s Council meeting was the first opportunity for the full council to discuss the Frater Report on the Council’s failings since its discussion by cabinet and there were no less than 3 motions on this important topic.

It was also a key meeting for me as I had tabled my first motion asking the Council to sign up to the much publicised national 10:10 campaign which would commit the Council to reduce its carbon emissions by 10% in 2010.

27 councils have already formally committed to this initiative as have all the main party leaders and their cabinets, and both the Lib Dem and Labour leadership are asking all their councils to adopt motions to sign up to the campaign.

Motioners need to come prepared for debate although under the constitution the Council may vote to refer the matter to Cabinet or Select Committee. However this will not generally be known before the meeting as the proposal to refer is a decision by the leader.

Unusually in this case, Dr Povey contacted the Lib Dem leader on Sunday night asking us to withdraw the motion and wait until a fuller debate on Climate Change might be possible on some unspecified future date. We were told that if we didn’t agree then the motion would be referred to a sub committee for later consideration in any case.

The 10:10 campaign is about a commitment to action now and we therefore declined the request.

A referral to committee was proposed as expected, allowing me only a 2 minute statement as to why the motion should be debated.

Despite being supported by the Independents, the Conservative majority (controlled by the whip) voted against a debate.

This appears to be a blatant attempt to bury the motion until nearer the General Election when the Conservatives can try and claim credit for taking action on Climate Change.

What is so deeply dissatisfying is that this goes against Dr Povey’s own stated commitment to placing issues sustainability and climate change at the top of the agenda, for the sake of political gamesmanship.

The Conservatives control the agenda to their advantage and stifle any debate when it doesn’t suit them.

If you are interested, the full speech gives a bit more information on the idea behind 10:10:

Many Members will already be aware of the 10:10 campaign and its aims.

For those who are not, the 10:10 Campaign was started by Franny Armstrong, director of the film “Age Of Stupid”, as a mass movement to sign up people, businesses and organisations all over Britain to commit to reducing carbon emissions by 10% by 2010.

10:10 has been endorsed by the government and the main party leaders, including David Cameron.

I am asking this council to formally sign up to the 10:10 campaign, joining the councils, businesses, politicians and individuals who have already done so, and to become a pioneering council in the fight against climate change.

27 Councils so far have committed to 10:10 including Richmond, Camden,Islington, Nottingham, Oxford, Cambridge and Coventry and this number is rising rapidly.

Gordon Brown and his cabinet have already committed, as have the entire Liberal Democrat and Conservative shadow cabinets.

In his first speech as leader, Dr Povey stated that he wanted Surrey County Council to become a leading, world class, innovative and compassionate authority which ‘spent more time thinking about sustainability and climate change’.

In his first report to cabinet he stated that “Sustainability and taking action to prevent climate change must … play a key part of the Council’s agenda, cutting across all our strategies and services.”

But it seems he doesn’t actually want to discuss it.

The 10:10 campaign is about action now, not at some unspecified time in the future when politically expedient for the Conservatives.

We must debate this motion today.

The Frater Report

Following the award of just one star to Surrey County Council by OFSTED in 2008, Chief Executive Michael Frater was brought in for a temporary period to examine why the Council had failed so spectacularly. In July this year he presented his findings to Cabinet in what is now imaginatively referred to as “The Frater Report”, a damning indictment of the Council’s performance containing allegations of incompetence, bullying and poor governance.

This was the first opportunity for discussion of the report and 3 motions were proposed.

Liberal Democrat leader Hazel Watson submitted a motion criticizing the “burying” of the report by the new leadership, proposing that there should be a measurable action plan to address the issues, open to scrutiny by all members of the Council.

Independent Eber Kington’s motion was a request for a full and open debate by the whole Council.

Finally , Conservative Deputy Leader David Hodge had raised a motion asking the Council to agree how well the new administration was doing in addressing the problems highlighted. This is really an audacious attempt by the Conservatives to get some good PR rather than for the purposes of a real debate and is a fairly common way for the majority party to use the motion process.

Again, before the meeting Hazel and Eber had been asked to consider whether they would merge their motions with the Conservative one, a blatant and frankly outrageous attempt to shift the debate to suit their own agenda.

Hazel’s motion was put to debate to some peoples surprise, as was David Hodge’s to no ones, but Eber Kington’s motion was referred.

The debates were lively but it was evident that the leader and his deputy are completely unable to accept any criticism from the opposition and arrogantly maintain all is now well with the Council.
David Hodge has a particularly cocky manner, dismissing any critical comments as ridiculous.

They claim the new leadership has nothing to do with the problems of the past, conveniently overlooking the fact that much of the current administration was part of the original problem.

Although the situation is showing signs of improvement, it was rightly pointed out that it was this arrogance on the part of the ruling administration and its propensity to stifle any opposition that caused a lot of the problems in the first place.