On Thursday 19th I was due to second two motion proposed by the Liberal Democrat, Green and Independent Group to develop a strategic costed cycling plan for Suffolk. The motion was proposed by my colleague Robert Lindsay, and – as I was unable to reach the meeting from my son’s graduation in Liverpool – seconded by another colleague, Elfrede Brambley-Crawshaw (both Greens).
Opposition’s “call in” of Suffolk County Council school transport cuts unsuccessful On Tuesday 19 June, Suffolk County Council’s Cabinet voted to change the Home to School Transport policy so that only children travelling to their nearest school would receive free transport. The changes are due to be phased in from September 2019.
As you may be aware, I and my colleagues within the Liberal Democrat, Green and Independent Group have been opposed to this policy change since it was announced in September 2018. There has also been very vocal opposition from schools, parents, carers and parish councils across Suffolk. We called in the decision to Suffolk’s Scrutiny.
The “call-in” was successful on three fronts:
1. Concern at the quality and reliability of the financial modelling;
2. Whether the Cabinet were fully informed of the role of the Consultation Institute;
3. Whether there was enough analysis of the experience of Essex County Council, who implemented a similar policy in 2013.
Unfortunately despite the considered opinions of really competent and well-qualified members of the public, the Conservative administration failed to recognise their own financial forecasts were flawed. The decision will therefore go ahead.
Major review of Suffolk Highways announced The new Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Highways, Cllr Mary Evans, has launched a major review of the way highways in Suffolk are maintained.
Areas due to be reviewed include:
• Existing policy which determines how resources are deployed, known as the Suffolk Highway Maintenance Operational Plan (HMOP);
• How the location of potholes on the road is considered alongside the width and depth, recognising the impact they can have on cyclists and motorcyclists;
• How utility companies coordinate roadworks and are held to account for their actions;
• How residents, councillors and businesses are informed about road repairs and how they can access information;
• Financial control and contract management;
• How town and parish councils can work closer with Suffolk Highways to make the best use of their local knowledge, skills, money and time.
I welcome this
Woodbridge 20mph scheme progression Having had a preliminary design and costings drawn up I have met with Suffolk Highways to discuss the progression of Woodbridge’s 20mph zoning. Martlesham’s Cllr O’Brien joined me for my meeting with Highways officers and they agreed in principle to add the extra length of Sandy Lane onto the TRO for the Woodbridge scheme, if Cllr OBrien contributes the appropriate amount to signage and scheme.
The Woodbridge Town Clerk has put in a significant CIL bid to support the scheme.
After discussion with the officers it looks like I will be able to include the Thoroughfare scheme (separated because of decriminalisation of transport issues) which will be funded from my Highways budget.
Jetty Lane update Jetty Lane has been lucky enough to be benefiting from a number of generous initiatives and donations – perhaps most notably an amazingly generous anonymous donation of £10,000 last week which will enable the CIC apply for planning permission (yes, its very expensive!).
However, the CiC has also enjoyed the help of many other kind supporters over the last month: both donations from individuals and support from: the Regatta bucket collection, the Great Get Together, the Riverside Musical Theatre’s Showstoppers, and a lovely coffee morning fundraising from Deben Yacht club.
Jetty Lane’s most recent consultation with hirers was held on 25th June. The CIC will have another display in the library shortly.
Quay Church assist in making Thoroughfare bollards more visible Many thanks to the volunteers of the Quay church 1000 hours scheme who worked with me and my Locality Budget to repaint the Thoroughfare bollards, making them more visible to people with restricted visibility. This was a key request concerning Woodbridge from Suffolk Coastal’s Disability Forum.
Consultation launched on future commissioning of specialist education services Suffolk County Council have launched a consultation into the commissioning strategy for the development of Suffolk’s specialist educational provision.
Demand for specialist education places in Suffolk for children with SEND continues to grow, and currently the county council has a much lower number of specialist education places than other similar authorities. This means that many children in Suffolk are forced to travel out of county to access the education provision they need – and often Suffolk County Council foots the bill.
At a time when the Council wishes to reduce the amount of free home-to-school transport it provides citing fears of escalating costs, it is vital that we begin to provide more SEND provision within Suffolk.
The 6 week consultation will look at three options for meeting the additional demand for specialist provision. More information and a link to the consultation can be found online at: http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/SENDsufficiencyeducation
On Tuesday, Suffolk County Council’s Conservative Cabinet passed an undemocratic proposal limiting access to free school transport.
I put it like this because the media narrative is that “Councillors voted unanimously.” Er… No. While any councillor could question, only the wholly Conservative Cabinet could vote. And while the Cabinet members opened their mouths, it was not to question. They spoke in turn uncritically, to offer support.
Undemocratic because – having gone to public consultation and the public having made their feelings abundantly clear – Cabinet voted on an option that was universally unpopular. It did not even consider the option supported by 90% of respondents.
If the public relied on the media to inform them, they would not have been aware of what happened at the meeting. The media conscientiously reported the flavour of the many excellent tabled questions from the public. However, they totally ignored the literally hours of forensic questioning from the opposition – LibDem, Green and Labour councillors – which teased out many problems and concerns with the favoured proposal.
In other words the situation was framed as ‘councillors v public’ instead of ‘Conservative Cabinet fobbing off the questions of their opposition colleagues’. You might want to query this narrative and what purpose it serves.
In my particular case, I travelled as fast as I could on public transport to and from an emergency surgical appointment at Addenbrookes to be there in time to hold the Cabinet to account along with my Lib Dem, Green and Labour colleagues. We all asked many questions. (I must do new Leader Matthew Hicks justice and say he chaired the meeting with justice and impartiality, allowing the opposition all the questions they wished to ask and cutting short members of his own party who merely wished to make eyewateringly inappropriate declarations of loyalty, instead of questioning Cabinet. Another issue the media could have picked up on, ‘an if it would’.).
In my own questions I queried the administration’s terms of reference. Was Suffolk’s offer really “more generous” than the government minimum, when the government minimum covered urban and rural students indiscriminately? City students do not have 3 mile walks to their catchment school: city schools are closer and public transport is plentiful and cheap.
We were told how expensive our spend was- over £100 a student head as opposed to Salford’s £2.
However, as I pointed out, Salford has a total area of 8 sq miles. It would actually be well-nigh impossible for a child to live more than 3 miles from their local school in Salford! Suffolk, in comparison, has an area of 1466sq miles, used to grow the food and provide the electricity that places like Salford rely on. We are not comparing like with like.
I also asked, bearing in mind we were removing entitlement to bus travel, why there was no Traffic Impact Assessment for the county – and while the very limited (Thurston area only) TIA failed to consider issues such as pollution and air quality? (Answer: too expensive/work in progress. Hardly a scientific answer)
And, bearing in mind over 70% of respondents were women , and local government cuts disproportionally affect women, l asked whether Cabinet could be genuinely satisfied that the IA’s conclusion that “impact on women would be minimised by phasing in the changes”, fully addressed the actual impact these changes would have on women. Ominously – but unsurprisingly -this question was not answered at all.