We Asked, You Said, We Did

Below are some of the issues we have recently consulted on and their outcomes.

We Asked

We asked for your views on our proposal to amalgamate Manor Mead and Walton Leigh Schools and increase pupil numbers. These were due to be implemented in September 2018.

You Said

A total of seven responses were received during the consultation period which closed at midday on Wednesday 27 June 2018, all agreed with the proposal.

During the consultation period, two public meetings were held on 14 June 2018: 1.30pm at Walton Leigh and 7pm at Manor Mead. One parent attended the meeting at Manor Mead School and discussed the proposals with Local Authority representatives and the Schools Management team.

The parent who attended the meeting expressed support for the proposal. Individual written comments were provided by most respondents which were positive about the benefits this proposal would bring for children, parents and staff. One respondent noted that their agreement was subject to the development of the capacity of the existing building at Walton Leigh School.

We Did

As a result of the consultation process it has been decided to proceed with the proposals and a paper will be presented to the Cabinet Member for All Age Learning in July to recommend the publication of a statutory notice to be issued in the autumn term. This will give a further four week period for interested parties to make representations.

Following this period it is planned that a paper detailing the proposal and consultation outcomes will be presented to the Leader of the Council.

We Asked

We asked for your views on the proposal to discontinue Ripley CofE Primary School, with effect from 31 August 2018.

You Said

Following the publication of the statutory notice, a total of 256 responses were received during the consultation period which closed at 5pm on Friday 22 June 2018, with 98% disagreeing with the proposal.

We Did

On Tuesday 17 July 2018, the Leader of the Council was asked to determine whether to proceed with the proposal to close Ripley CofE Primary School.

It was agreed that the proposal to close the school be approved.

More information, including associated documents, can be found using the link below:

https://www.surreysays.co.uk/csf/ripleystatutorynotice

We Asked

We asked for your views on our proposal to change the age range and to increase pupil numbers at The Hythe Primary School. These plans were for implementation in September 2018.

You Said

A total of seven responses were received during the consultation period which closed at midday on Friday 25 May 2018. Six agreed and one disagreed with the proposal. The response which disagreed with the proposal raised matters relating to additional speech and therapy provision, as well as the lack of a dedicated space for therapy to take place.

During the consultation period a public meeting was held at the school on Tuesday 8 May 2018. No one attended this meeting.

We Did

As a result of the consultation process it has been decided to proceed with the proposals and the statutory notice will be issued on Monday 4 June 2018. This will give a further 4 week period for interested parties to make representations.

Following this period it is planned that a paper detailing the proposal and consultation outcomes will be presented to the Cabinet Member for Learning in July for a decision.

We Asked

We asked for your views on our proposal to change the age range and increase pupil numbers at the specialist centre at Ashford Park Primary School. These were due to be implemented in September 2018.

You Said

A total of three responses were received during the consultation period which closed at midday on Friday 25 May 2018. All three responses agreed with the proposal.

During the consultation period a public meeting was held at the school on Friday 18 May 2018. No one attended this meeting.

We Did

As a result of the consultation process it has been decided to proceed with the proposals and the statutory notice will be issued on Monday 4 June 2018. This will give a further 4 week period for interested parties to make representations.

Following this period it is planned that a paper detailing the proposal and consultation outcomes will be presented to the Cabinet Member for Learning in July for a decision.

We Asked

We asked for your views on our proposal to change the age range and increase pupil numbers at Wey House School. These were due to be implemented in September 2018.

You Said

A total of two responses were received during the consultation period which closed at midday on Friday 25 May 2018, one disagreed and one did not know if they agreed or disagreed with the proposal.

During the consultation period a public meeting was held at the school on Monday 14 May 2018. No one attended the meeting.

A question raised in one of the responses related to increasing class size numbers and this having a detrimental impact on pupils. To confirm, as pupil numbers in the school grow, funding levels would grow also. There are no proposals to increase pupil numbers in individual classes. Additional classes will be created across the school. This will ensure that the pupil:staffing ratios are not impacted and that pupils will continue to receive the support they require in order to meet their identified needs.

We Did

As a result of the consultation process it has been decided to proceed with the proposals and the statutory notice will be issued on Monday 4 June 2018. This will give a further 4 week period for interested parties to make representations.

Following this period it is planned that a paper detailing the proposal and consultation outcomes will be presented to the Cabinet Member for Learning in July for a decision.

We Asked

We asked for your views on our proposal to change the age range and increase pupil numbers at the specialist centre at West Ewell Primary School. These were due to be implemented in September 2018.

You Said

A total of two responses were received during the consultation period which closed at midday on Friday 25 May 2018, both agreed with the proposal.

During the consultation period a public meeting was held at the school on Tuesday 15 May 2018. In addition to centre staff, the school Inclusion Lead and the Deputy Headteacher, four parents attended the meeting.

Questions raised in one of the responses and at the public meeting related to the proposal having a detrimental impact on pupil and staffing ratios, which would result in a reduction to the level of adult support that pupils receive. Clarification was given to the attendees that as pupil numbers in the centre grow, funding levels would grow also. This will ensure that the pupil:staffing ratios are not impacted and that pupils will continue to receive the support they require in order to meet their identified needs.

We Did

As a result of the consultation process it has been decided to proceed with the proposals and the statutory notice will be issued on Monday 4 June 2018. This will give a further 4 week period for interested parties to make representations.

Following this period it is planned that a paper detailing the proposal and consultation outcomes will be presented to the Cabinet Member for Learning in July for a decision.

We Asked

We asked for your views on our proposal to change the age range and increase pupil numbers at the specialist centre at William Cobbett Primary School. These were due to be implemented in September 2018.

You Said

A total of three responses were received during the consultation period which closed at midday on Friday 25 May 2018, two agreed with the proposal and one disagreed.

During the consultation period a public meeting was held at the school on Monday 14 May 2018. In addition to the Headteacher, centre staff, a school Governor and the Headteacher of Badshot Lea school, three parents attended the meeting.

Questions raised at the public meeting related to the proposal having a detrimental impact on pupil and staffing ratios, which would result in a reduction to the level of adult support that pupils receive. Clarification was given to the attendees that as pupil numbers in the centre grow, funding levels would grow also. This will ensure that the pupil:staffing ratios are not impacted and that pupils will continue to receive the support they require in order to meet their identified needs. A similar question was raised regarding therapy levels and assurances given that arrangements were being made to ensure that the appropriate provision is in place.

The response that disagreed with the proposal has suggested that this proposal constitutes a reduction in pupil numbers. To clarify, the proposals to increase the age range and pupil numbers at William Cobbett would be in addition to the places available at Badshot Lea, meaning that there is an increase in Key Stage 1 places in the area.

We Did

As a result of the consultation process it has been decided to proceed with the proposals and the statutory notice will be issued on Monday 4 June 2018. This will give a further 4 week period for interested parties to make representations.

Following this period it is planned that a paper detailing the proposal and consultation outcomes will be presented to the Cabinet Member for Learning in July for a decision.

We Asked

From 1 July 2018, there are changes to how drug and alcohol detoxification is provided in Surrey.  Inpatient services are moving out of Windmill House and a greater range of treatment options in the community is being offered.  Access to inpatient services is being offered out of county.

We provided details on the current home and community detoxifications and a new service, ambulatory detoxification (where people attend a clinic every day to receive detoxification medication and support), to be offered at two venues across Surrey, and new options for inpatient detoxification i.e. at Bridge House in Kent.

You Said

We had 87 online responses to the consultation survey during the consultation period which ran from 19 March 2018 until 20 May 2018. 56% agreed they had been given enough information to clearly understand the models of delivery, however, they did not feel confident that the changes would suit their needs. In addition we received responses from the four public meetings, attended by 36 individuals, and specific responses from Transform Housing and Ashford and St Peter’s Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

The main themes were:

  • What will replace the 28-day post detoxification structured support “Recovery Programme” offered at Windmill House? This was identified numerous times as the key to successful recovery.
  • Concern around support provision for those who are detoxifying out of hours for example during the evening, night time and at weekends
  • Concern regarding increased presentation at other health settings of people who struggle in the community directly after a detoxification
  • How will impact of the changes be monitored? (Equality and Impact Report, impact on A&E, GP feedback)
  • Transport support for:
    • access to ambulatory detoxification
    • travel to the out of county facility - Including travel support for family and carers to support them during detoxification
  • Reassurance that suitability for inpatient detoxification will continue to be based on clinical need, not financial factors
  • More detail of what is offered at Bridge House – including travel information https://www.kmpt.nhs.uk/services/bridge-house-at-fant-oast-inpatient-detox-unit/7187
  • Clear demand for readable and relevant information for carers and young carers
  • More involvement for service development with people who have used detoxification services and those with lived experience going forward
  • Concern about meeting the need of people with multiple disadvantages including people with co-occurring conditions i.e. mental health problems and substance misuse
  • Are the ambulatory clinic venues in the most suitable places?

We Did

Whilst we may not have always been able to fully address every concern, we have listened and will be putting in place a number of measures to mitigate and continue to offer the highest quality detoxification support for people, including:

  • Considering how we can enhance the community support available during and after detoxification
  • Continuing to ensure people are prepared and supported for detoxification
  • Planning transport support to ambulatory and inpatient detoxification for those people with the greatest need
  • Discussing with housing support partners what could be possible if we worked more closely together
  • Enhancing GP communications and ongoing feedback
  • Producing clear and informative Carer and Young Carer information about pathways and treatments
  • Continue communication with people who use detoxification services, those with lived experience, family and carers, and key partners via www.healthsurrey.org.uk, Surrey and  Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and Catalyst websites and at further public meetings similar to those we held as part of the consultation
  • Planning an evaluation of the new detoxification options between July 2018 and March 2019, and a detoxification needs assessment for those who are not engaged with substance misuse treatment services.

More  information is available in the FAQ’s https://www.surreysays.co.uk/deputy-ceo/changes-to-detoxifcation-services/results/publicconsultationdocumentfaqsandgotrevisedv.3.pdf

Can I talk to someone to get more information?

If you would like to talk to us and have any questions or queries about the Integrated Substance Misuse Treatment service please contact:

 

public.health@surreycc.gov.uk

 

FAO Martyn Munro

Public Health

Surrey County Council

Room G55, County Hall

Penrhyn Road

Kingston-upon-Thames

KT1 2DN

We Asked

We asked for your views on plans for health and care services in part of Surrey known as Surrey Heartlands - covering North West Surrey, Guildford, Waverley, East Elmbridge, Epsom, Ewell and Dorking. These plans were for 2018/19 and covered aspects such as mental health care, children's services, hospital care and adult social care.

You Said

You provided a wealth of feedback on how we could improve upon our plans, through the survey and at different groups that we were able to attend during the engagement. 

We Did

We reviewed all feedback and identified the major themes. We then reported this to the different Governing Bodies for the Clinical Commissioning Groups in Surrey as well as within Surrey County Council. We can now present the responses to this feedback in our engagement outcome report so you can see how your feedback has been taken on board by commissioners. 

An Operational Plan for Surrey Heartlands for 2018/19, which explains how these intentions are to be implemented can be read here.

We Asked

The County Council asked for your views on the proposal that “Surrey County Council will no longer provide funding for Housing Related Support.  This may mean your Housing Related Support will cease.  If you have an on-going need for support you will be able to ask Adult Social Care for an assessment of your needs.  If, as a result of this assessment, you qualify for support under the Care Act eligibility criteria, you will receive funding through a personal budget from Surrey County Council”.

The purpose of the consultation was to help the County Council’s Cabinet understand the potential impact of the proposals and to make a decision.

You Said

A total of 1,995 responses were received - 1,896 responses from residents and 99 from other interested parties.  You said:

Q1: What really matters to you in relation to helping you meet your Housing Related Support needs?   The most important service for residents was “access to an emergency alarm service to call for help if needed” with 82% of responses (1,554 people), followed by “help to resolve any problems and to access information, advice and support” with 74% of responses (1,400 people). 

Q2: How often do you use these services?  25% of residents stated they use the service daily and 25% use the service weekly; another 32% stated they use it less than once a week.

Q3: To what extent do you agree, or disagree, with the proposal?  62% of residents (1,179 people) disagreed to some extent with the proposal and 20% of residents (377 people) agreed to some extent with the proposal.  For other interested parties, 78 respondents disagreed, while 20 respondents agreed with the proposal.

Q4: If Surrey County Council’s proposal is agreed, and your Housing Related Support ceases, will you ask Adult Social Care for an assessment of your care and support needs?  49% of all responses said they would ask for an assessment and a further 27% said they were not sure.

Q5: If Surrey County Council’s proposal is agreed, how do you think this will impact on you?  72% of residents (1,396 people) thought it would impact them to some extent.

We Did

We collated and summarised all the feedback from the consultation into the report for Cabinet.  Cabinet met on the 26 September 2017 to consider the proposal and agreed that:

  • Surrey County Council will no longer provide funding for Housing Related Support for people with learning, physical and sensory disabilities and services for older people.

This decision was taken with great reluctance by the Council’s Cabinet.  Continued cuts to funding, rising costs and increasing demand for services mean that the need for Surrey County Council to find savings has reached unprecedented levels.  The Council has to target the funding it has available on those adults with eligible needs.

To see the available information, follow the link: Decision sheet details on public web site

We Asked

We asked for your views on our proposals for improving road safety in Coleford Bridge Road, Mytchett.

You Said

The results showed a clear preference for Option 2 which included the introduction of additional road markings and vehicle activated signs.

We Did

Given the result of the public consultation, Surrey County Council are progressing with Option 2. The lining parts of the scheme have already been completed. The remaining works, including installation of a new post and two new vehicle activated signs, is expected to be finished by April 2017.

We Asked

We asked via this website, social media, posters displayed in all 58 libraries and by contacting resident groups including our highways customer panel members:-

Are you in favour of the Council switching off street lights for part of the night where deemed safe to do so in order to reduce energy bills and reduce CO2 emissions?

You Said

Nearly half of the 850 respondents were in favour of switching off many lights and overall 76% were in favour of switching off at least some lights.

We Did

The Council's Cabinet approved the decision to implement Part Night Lighting across Surrey at its meeting on 18 October.  The full report, including the reasons for implementing this, can be found on our website

The council will be implementing part night lighting across the county between December 2016 and February 2017 depending on where you live.  The full work timetable including a list of roads subject to the part night lighting is available on our website.

 

We Asked

Whether Sunnydown School should be redesignated as Communication and Interaction Needs (CoIN).

You Said

83% of responses agreed with the proposal.  17% disagreed.  Concerns were raised about the impact on existing pupils.  However there are no plans to change the pupils currently attending the school, and these pupils fit within the CoIN need description so would be unaffected.

We Did

Statutory notices were published on 12 April for a further 4 week period during which interested parties can make representations.

We Asked

Should we amalgamate The Hope, Epsom with The Hope, Guildford to become one pupil referral unit (PRU), with one establishment number, but based across two sites.  Pupil admissions would remain unchanged, and the existing single management committee would continue to oversee both centres; there would be no change to existing staffing structures or working arrangements.  By being registered as a single PRU, the service would receive a single Ofsted inspection, instead of two.

You Said

A total of 4 responses was received during the consultation period which closed on Wednesday 7 October 2015.  All the responses agreed with the proposal to amalgamate The Hope Epsom and The Hope Guildford to become a single establishment.

We Did

It was decided to proceed with the proposal and the statutory notice was issued on Monday 12 October 2015.  No further representations were submitted.  The proposal and consultation results were presented to the Cabinet Member for Schools, Skills and Educational Achievement on Monday 14 December 2015.  The Cabinet Member approved the recommendation of the proposal to amalgamate both sites.  From January 2016 the Hope Service will be registered as one school based over two sites.

We Asked

In May 2015, Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust informed the Surrey County Council, the CCGs and family voice Surrey that it proposed to discontinue short breaks services at Beeches from November 2015. In light of this outcome, Cabinet agreed on 29 July 2015 to consult further before determining if Surrey County Council should fund services at Beeches, or fund alternative services, which may result in Beeches being closed.

You Said

The feedback from current users is centred on the impact the removal of the service will have on their children and the wellbeing of their families. The families that do not currently use Beeches say that there is unknown need within the community and Surrey County Council is failing to reach out to families. They comment that Beeches is not offered as an overnight short break option to families and that it does not feature in Surrey County Council’s directory of short breaks. Overall, the feedback is that short breaks are a lifeline to families (described in the joint strategic review) and without them they would not be able to cope with their children’s needs.

We Did

At Cabinet on 27 October 2015, the following recommendations were approved. 1. Surrey County Council contracts with Surrey and Borders Partnership (SABP) for overnight short break at Beeches for up to 12 months commencing on 1 December 2015 as an interim arrangement. 2. The interim arrangement is reviewed by Cabinet as part of a revised special educational needs and disability (SEND) strategy be brought back to Cabinet that includes recommendations from the SEND Governance Board regarding future provision for short breaks. 3. A report is presented to Cabinet within the 12 month interim period based on an assessment of the needs for children with disabilities in the east of the county, and an assessment of capacity available in order to meet demand, in relation to short break provision.

We Asked

There is less money available for Services for Young People overall. This means we need to find ways of delivering youth work that make the most of the money we have. We want to use the money we have for youth work to make the biggest difference to young people. In particular, this means helping them to prepare for work and their adult life. To do this we need to divide the money we have between different parts of Surrey fairly to make sure that the young people who need support the most get it. We want to find out what you think about our plans and your ideas of how we can do things better.

You Said

Members of the public cited concern over the substantial reduction in youth work delivery at Banstead youth centre (YC).

Members of the public wanted to see more links between Banstead YC and Phoenix YC.

We Did

Whilst we may not have always been able to fully address every concern, we have listened and will be making the following amendments in response to feedback:

  • We are proposing to increase the youth work delivery at Banstead YC from the original 3 hours to 6 hours per week. In addition to this a further 6 hours youth work per week will be delivered by YMCA East Surrey.
  • The CYWS recognises the good work of the young leader programmes at both Banstead YC and Phoenix YC. We will therefore develop a joint programme between the centres which we will look to implement in other youth centres in Reigate & Banstead.
  • The youth and community worker based at Phoenix YC will line manage CYW staff at Banstead YC.

We Asked

There is less money available for Services for Young People overall. This means we need to find ways of delivering youth work that make the most of the money we have. We want to use the money we have for youth work to make the biggest difference to young people. In particular, this means helping them to prepare for work and their adult life. To do this we need to divide the money we have between different parts of Surrey fairly to make sure that the young people who need support the most get it. We want to find out what you think about our plans and your ideas of how we can do things better.

You Said

The key findings from the consultation were:

There was strong support for the services decision to apply the resource allocation system and hub and spoke models to youth work deliver in Guildford.

The areas of identified needs were considered to be accurate and the correct locations to divide up the youth work resources across Guildford.

We Did

We were very pleased to have received overwhelmingly positive feedback from the local community about our plans for community youth work in Guildford. As a result of this, we will still be implementing our changes as planned with your support.

We Asked

There is less money available for Services for Young People overall. This means we need to find ways of delivering youth work that make the most of the money we have. We want to use the money we have for youth work to make the biggest difference to young people. In particular, this means helping them to prepare for work and their adult life. To do this we need to divide the money we have between different parts of Surrey fairly to make sure that the young people who need support the most get it. We want to find out what you think about our plans and your ideas of how we can do things better.

You Said

The key findings from the consultation were:

There was strong support for the services decision to apply the resource allocation system and hub and spoke models to youth work delivered in Surrey Heath.

The areas of identified needs were considered to be accurate and the correct locations to divide up the youth work resources across Surrey Heath.

There was disappointment at the reduction in resources in some centres across Surrey Heath

We Did

We were very pleased to have received overwhelmingly positive feedback from the local community about our plans for community youth work in Surrey Heath. As a result of this, we will still be implementing our changes as planned with your support.

We Asked

There is less money available for Services for Young People overall. This means we need to find ways of delivering youth work that make the most of the money we have. We want to use the money we have for youth work to make the biggest difference to young people. In particular, this means helping them to prepare for work and their adult life. To do this we need to divide the money we have between different parts of Surrey fairly to make sure that the young people who need support the most get it. We want to find out what you think about our plans and your ideas of how we can do things better.

You Said

The key findings from the consultation were:

A desire for a more equal distribution of sessions across the five centres.

It was suggested that we should ensure there was a service provided to support young parents, specifically with finding employment.

It was suggested that a young carers session was needed that young people from across the borough could access.

We Did

Whilst we may not have always been able to fully address every concern, we have listened and will be making the following amendments in response to feedback:

  • We have highlighted the distribution of sessions across the five centres that are specific to the area and those that are borough wide programmes.
  • The borough wide programmes will be located in the areas of highest need for that specific target group.
  • There is a borough wide targeted session for young parents in which we will be able to address employment. There are also two 16-24 drop in sessions that could be accessed by young parents.
  • We will be delivering a session for young carers as part of the borough wide programme. We will ensure that this takes place.

We Asked

There is less money available for Services for Young People overall. This means we need to find ways of delivering youth work that make the most of the money we have. We want to use the money we have for youth work to make the biggest difference to young people. In particular, this means helping them to prepare for work and their adult life. To do this we need to divide the money we have between different parts of Surrey fairly to make sure that the young people who need support the most get it. We want to find out what you think about our plans and your ideas of how we can do things better.

You Said

The key findings from the consultation were:

There was broad support for the service’s decision to apply the resource allocation system and hub and spoke models to youth work delivery in Runnymede.

The areas of identified needs were considered to be accurate and the correct locations to divide up the youth work resources across Runnymede.

There was disappointment at the reduction in resources.

We Did

We were very pleased to have received overwhelmingly positive feedback from the local community about our plans for community youth work in Runnymede. As a result of this, we will still be implementing our changes as planned with your support.

We Asked

There is less money available for Services for Young People overall. This means we need to find ways of delivering youth work that make the most of the money we have. We want to use the money we have for youth work to make the biggest difference to young people. In particular, this means helping them to prepare for work and their adult life. To do this we need to divide the money we have between different parts of Surrey fairly to make sure that the young people who need support the most get it. We want to find out what you think about our plans and your ideas of how we can do things better.

You Said

The key findings from the consultation were:

Members of the public expressed concern over the withdrawal of neighbourhood local prevention provision from Hurst Green and whether this could be picked up by the Community Youth Work Service (CYWS).

Members of the public also showed concern that some villages / communities would miss out on youth work opportunities such as in Warlingham and Lingfield.

Members of the public also wanted to see more links with schools/schools work and local community events.

We Did

Whilst we may not have always been able to fully address every concern, we have listened and will be making the following amendments in response to feedback:

  • We are proposing to continue to develop work with young people in Hurst Green through outreach work from the county council spoke in Oxted and where appropriate in conjunction with the local prevention provider.
  • Work within the villages and communities will be more integrated with the local prevention provider to ensure we can respond to local issues that may arise that need a youth work intervention quickly whilst still maintaining a core offer in areas identified as high need.
  • The CYWS will develop links with schools and attend key community events where possible.

We Asked

There is less money available for Services for Young People overall. This means we need to find ways of delivering youth work that make the most of the money we have. We want to use the money we have for youth work to make the biggest difference to young people. In particular, this means helping them to prepare for work and their adult life. To do this we need to divide the money we have between different parts of Surrey fairly to make sure that the young people who need support the most get it. We want to find out what you think about our plans and your ideas of how we can do things better.

You Said

The key findings from the consultation were:

Feedback was unanimous that we were putting youth workers in the areas where youth work was most needed and it could make the biggest difference to young people.

It was highlighted however that there should be an increase in youth work resources to support young people from Longmead.

It was felt that further consideration should be given during sessions to the travelling communities, Portuguese young people and those with disabilities.

It was suggested that partnership delivery approaches should be further developed to better support young people in the borough.

It was suggested that an open-access drop-in session should be introduced at The Focus.

We Did

Whilst we may not have always been able to fully address every concern, we have listened and will be making the following amendments in response to feedback:

  • Keep the youth work offer in the areas proposed.
  • Increase detached youth work delivered on the Longmead estate from 2.5 hours to 8.5 hours.
  • Continue to build on partnership links. Develop partnerships with Local prevention commissions to improve outcomes on Longmead and develop wider links with police, leisure and others to enhance the offer for young people.
  • Introduce an open session at The Focus.
  • Re-launch The Edge Youth Centre in Watersedge- Ruxley Ward.
  • Continue to make open sessions inclusive to all young people.

We Asked

There is less money available for Services for Young People overall. This means we need to find ways of delivering youth work that make the most of the money we have. We want to use the money we have for youth work to make the biggest difference to young people. In particular, this means helping them to prepare for work and their adult life. To do this we need to divide the money we have between different parts of Surrey fairly to make sure that the young people who need support the most get it. We want to find out what you think about our plans and your ideas of how we can do things better.

You Said

The key findings from the consultation were:

A number of concerns were raised about the potential discontinuation of the Go Karting project at Ashtead.

It was perceived that the document did not accurately reflect the number of face to face hours that would be delivered in the centres.

It was identified that a large proportion of young people access the Leatherhead centre from the Ashtead wards and vice versa.

We Did

Whilst we may not have always been able to fully address every concern, we have listened and will be making the following amendments in response to feedback:

  • The Go Karting session which was initially recommended to be disbanded will now continue as a partnership project. The county council will provide the equipment, buildings, insurance and lead member of staff and partnership funding will be sought for running costs and additional members of staff/volunteers expenses. This project will also be expanded to a district offer.
  • The delivery table now reflects both face to face hours and the number of actual hours paid to staff for clarity purposes.
  • A concern was expressed over the loss of specific targeted/issue based sessions within some centres. CYWS will retain a focus on these issues within our core offer and look to external organisations to enhance delivery within the open access sessions.
  • Clarification was requested as to how many staff would work within each session. Whilst this is dependent on the session the expectation for an open access session would be a minimum of one leader in charge and two assistant youth workers.

We Asked

There is less money available for Services for Young People overall. This means we need to find ways of delivering youth work that make the most of the money we have. We want to use the money we have for youth work to make the biggest difference to young people. In particular, this means helping them to prepare for work and their adult life. To do this we need to divide the money we have between different parts of Surrey fairly to make sure that the young people who need support the most get it. We want to find out what you think about our plans and your ideas of how we can do things better.

You Said

The key findings from the consultation were:

  • There was strong support for the services decision to apply the resource allocation system and hub and spoke models to youth work deliver in Waverley.
  • The areas of identified needs were considered to be accurate and the correct locations to divide up the youth work resources across Waverley.
  • There was disappointment at the reduction in resources in some centres across Waverley.

We Did

Over the last 10 weeks the service has been working with local partners to negotiate and secure external resources and partnerships to ensure the delivery of positive activities for young people in communities or centres where the service has relocated provision. Whilst we may not have always been able to fully address every concern raised, we have listened and will be making the following amendments in response to feedback:

  • Three sessions per week have been secured for Haslemere Youth Centre through local voluntary community and faith sector partners and more is expected to be agreed before the changes take place.
  • Cranleigh parish council has agreed to work with the Community Youth Work Service (CYWS) to explore future joint funding of the CYWS in Cranleigh. Both partners have agreed to work together to develop a new offer for young people in Cranleigh from January 2016.

We Asked

There is less money available for Services for Young People overall. This means we need to find ways of delivering youth work that make the most of the money we have. We want to use the money we have for youth work to make the biggest difference to young people. In particular, this means helping them to prepare for work and their adult life. To do this we need to divide the money we have between different parts of Surrey fairly to make sure that the young people who need support the most get it. We want to find out what you think about our plans and your ideas of how we can do things better.

You Said

The key findings from the consultation were:

  • There was disappointment that the council’s staffing resources were being withdrawn from current projects in Claygate especially (86% of responses) but also Weybridge (8% of responses). Residents of both venues cited historical reasons and improvements that the youth centres should be staffed by the county council.
  • Claygate residents raised concerns that the plans would provoke an increase in anti-social behaviour and a rise in the needs of young people. It was also said that those with current high needs would be neglected in favour of young people from other areas.
  • There was concern that young people would be affected by staff moving around and new organisations coming in to run community spokes.
  • Field common was regarded an unnecessary place for a detached project. It was pointed out that Hersham youth club is close enough to walk to, and many young people currently do.
  • There should be an increase of sports and art projects.

We Did

Whilst we may not have always been able to fully address every concern, we have listened and propose the following amendments in response to feedback:

  • It should be re-emphasised that it is not the plan to close either Claygate or Weybridge youth centres. In both Claygate and Weybridge discussions are ongoing about a transition to becoming a community spoke. The county council’s CYWS will maintain staff at both centres until a successful transition has been made. After transition support will continue with training, safeguarding, material resources and maintenance. We will also work closely with the local prevention services provided by Lifetrain, Eikon and Surrey care trust to work with the highest need people in more targeted work in Claygate and Weybridge.
  • The idea of a Field common detached project from the original plans has been scrapped in favour of working closer with the Local Prevention providers to promote Hersham, Walton and Molesey youth clubs with their outreach project.
  • The CYWS will plan to run borough-wide projects in the holiday periods, incorporating trips, residentials and one-off day sports and art projects across all the venues.