We Asked, You Said, We Did

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

We Asked

We asked about replacement tree planting options for Farnham Library

You Said

You said, you'd like to see a replacement Cedar of Lebanon (Cedrus libani) replanted.

We Did

We will plant and maintain at Farnham Library a Cedar of Lebanon (Cedrus libani) tree by end of March 2020.

We Asked

Do you agree with the proposal to open a new specialist centre at Worplesdon Primary School from September 2020?

You Said

There was one response to the statutory notice: this respondent advised that they did not know whether they agree or disagree with the proposal. 

The comments advised that they have had ‘bad’ experiences with units at mainstream schools previously and therefore unsure about whether a specialist centre should open at Worplesdon Primary School.

We Did

We will now approach the Cabinet Member for approval of the proposal to open a specialist centre from September 2020 at Worplesdon Primary School.

We Asked

Do you agree with the proposal to open a new specialist centre at Bell Farm Primary School from September 2020?

You Said

There were a total of 9 responses to the statutory notice: 6 responses agreed with the proposal; 3 responses disagreed.

All of the respondents who disagreed with the proposal advised that they had concerns about the impact on mainstream education within the school and one raised concerns regarding whether the proposed funding would fully support the COIN centre.

Of the respondents who agreed with the proposal all of them advised that this would provide ‘desperately needed’ places within a localised setting. Three of these respondents also mentioned the professional development benefits for Bell Farm staff.

We Did

We will now approach the Cabinet Member for approval of the proposal to open a specialist centre from September 2020 at Bell Farm Primary School.

We Asked

Do you agree with the proposal to open a new specialist centre at Worplesdon Primary School from September 2020?

You Said

There were five responses to the consultation: all five responses agreed with the proposal.  

Three responders felt that the location of the COIN centre would be beneficial to the local residents and reduce travel costs to centres which are further away. Two responders advised that they were pleased the centre would be supported by Freemantles School.

We Did

The Cabinet Member has given approval of the Statutory Notice, and the proposal open a specialist centre from September 2020. A permanent planning application for the centre will be pursued and determined in accordance with relevant planning legislation.

We Asked

Do you agree with the proposal to open a new specialist centre at Bell Farm Primary School from September 2020?

You Said

There were 5 responses to the consultation: 3 responses agreed with the proposal; 2 responses disagreed.

One comments raised concern about traffic and parking outside the school; two comments raised concern about the impact on mainstream education within the school. Two responders felt that the location of the COIN centre would be beneficial to the local residents and reduce travel costs to centres which are further away.

We Did

The Cabinet Member has given approval of the Statutory Notice, and the proposal open a specialist centre from September 2020. A permanent planning application for the centre will be pursued and determined in accordance with relevant planning legislation.

We Asked

  1. To what extent respondents agreed with priorities set
  2. Whether respondents agreed with the population groups identified
  3. The level of ambition included within the draft strategy

You Said

The engagement period ran from 27 February to 27 March 2019.

During this period, we received 160 responses to the online survey in addition to a number of emails and letters. Whilst this recent engagement exercise was not a formal consultation, it was a chance to test an evidence-based draft strategy. It is important to stress that this is only part of the engagement process as described in the draft Strategy.

We would like to thank everyone who responded and participated in the engagement around the strategy for their views and feedback. More than 80% of respondents ‘tend to agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ with the three strategy priorities and the target groups.

The responses highlighted a number of areas where we could improve the Strategy – these included:

  • Making the strategy easier to access and understand.
  • Strengthening or adding specific references to specific areas of focus including for example, domestic abuse, addressing environmental factors affecting people’s health and wellbeing, and mental health.
  • Making sure some of the language and way we described things was clearer
  • Reviewing the metrics in the strategy to ensure they captured the full range of outcomes we were trying to achieve.

We Did

Whilst we may not have always been able to fully address every concern, we have listened and will be amending the Surrey Health and Wellbeing Strategy to reflect the feedback from the engagement period.

We have amended the following in the strategy:

  • The strategy has been shortened and the language simplified.
  • The priorities within the revised strategy have been updated to reflect feedback around strengthening references to mental health, improving environmental factors that impact people’s health and wellbeing, domestic abuse and physical activity.
  • We have reviewed wording to ensure it is clear ‘substance misuse’ includes the use of illegal drugs for Priority One, and the description of population groups to focus on people living with illness and/or a disability.

The Health and Wellbeing Board also agreed that further work needed to be undertaken on measuring outcomes for the Strategy and is working with the Executive Director of Public Health to lead this work (through the Surrey Office of Data Analytics).

The new 10 year Surrey Health and Wellbeing Strategy has been published on the Healthy Surrey website and partners are now working together to translate the commitments made in the strategy into implementation plans.

Some of the feedback we received didn’t relate to the strategy document itself – for example feedback included suggestions to support implementation or focussed on issues that sit outside of the Strategy – we’ve shared that feedback with relevant leads / partners to help shape and improve services.  You can see a more detailed summary of the feedback and our response here.

We Asked

How can we reduce suicide by 10% by 2021 through the coordinated actions of our respective organisations?

  1. How can we aim for Zero suicides amongst those in Surrey health system?
  2. How can we target high risk groups?
  3. Who should lead on the areas the strategy?

You Said

The consultation period ran from 23rd June 2018 to 21 Sep 2018

During this period we received 98 online responses to the online survey. A further 110 individuals contributed through four public focus groups, key meetings with stakeholders and 1:1 interviews. We would like to thank everyone who responded and particiapted in the consultation for their views and feedback.

The main themes from the consultation responses:

  1. Zero suicides are difficult to achieve.
  2. There is no robust process to learn from suicides as a partnership.
  3. There is no details on how the new strategy will be funded
  4. There is not enough emphasis on how you will reduce suicide in carers, prison leavers and Veterans
  5. Campaigns should be co-designed with people from high risk groups
  6. Suicide is everyone’s responsibility

We Did

Whilst we may not have always been able to fully address every concern, we have listened and will be amending the Surrey Suicide prevention strategy to reflect the feedback from the consultation.

We will be amending the following in the strategy:

  • Carers’ sections
  • High risk groups to reflect veterans and prison leavers
  • Details on how we will seek to fund the strategy

A new 2019- 2022 Surrey Suicide Prevention Strategy will be published by January 2019.

Delivering a new suicide prevention strategy for Surrey

A new Surrey Suicide Prevention Strategy Partnership will be set up in early 2019. The Suicide Prevention Partnership will oversee the development and implementation of a Suicide Prevention plan. We will ensure that we embed the suggestions and recommendations from the consultation.

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

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.